The Goulston Street Apron

[curious4]

No drawers

Hello Errata,

Kate was wearing no drawers. While pulling the apron up to cut it in half, it could have been soiled - perhaps. There was evidently only a trace on the apron.

Cheers,
C4

[Errata]

Hello Michael,

I don't think we can automatically assume that the, er, substance came from the cut intestine. Kate may well have lost control of her bowels when dying - not the sort of thing which would be reported in the newspapers.

Cheers,
C4

True, but it would not have gotten on the apron.Her skirts were shoved up the her waist in front. And the apron was evidently muddled up in the skirts, keeping it relatively free of blood. I imagine at least the bottom two layers of skirt would have been soiled by that, but not the apron.

[curious4]

Faeces

The fecal matter was from the section of Kates colon that was cut off then left between her left arm and body...in some reports one end was twisted into the wounds in her neck. The fact that its on the apron section means that the section was used to clean it from his hands and perhaps knife, or that it was transferred from something carried in the cloth that came from Kate.

I believe the second answer is probable, thats why I dont believe the killer would walk around with his makeshift parcel.

Best regards

Hello Michael,

I don't think we can automatically assume that the, er, substance came from the cut intestine. Kate may well have lost control of her bowels when dying - not the sort of thing which would be reported in the newspapers.

Cheers,
C4

[curious4]

Wet

Hello,

I think wet with blood was the expression, otherwise it would have been "a wet rag with blood on it". "The corner was wet with blood" is pretty explicit.

Cheers,
C4

[Errata]

Hello Michael,

The piece of intestine was placed between her arm and body (see Frederick Foster's sketch of the crime scene).

Don't think Jack used the piece of apron to carry his "trophies" - more than just a corner of the apron would be bloodstained. Not quite sure that he would cut off a piece of her apron to wipe hands/knife either. Why not just wipe them on the victim's clothes? He showed utter contempt for his victims so presumably wouldn't worry about wiping his hands/knife on their clothes.

The apron piece was found just over an hour after the murder with one corner "wet with blood". Could Jack have dipped the corner in Kate's blood for some reason?

Best wishes,
C4

I'm not sure if it was wet with blood or wet, with blood. If that makes sense. I don't know if the blood was wet, or the cloth was wet because it had rained a little, and there was blood on it.

[Damaso Marte]

Not sure if anyone else has ever put forth this idea before and its somewhat gross so forgive me. The apron had fecal matter on it-perhaps the killer had a bowel movement during the killing/mutilation of eddowes and took her apron to wipe himself with. Once he got far enough away he ducks into the doorway of the building wipes/cleans himself and discards the apron.

Of course this totally is against my opinion that the killer took the apron to validate his writing of the GSG and lessons the probability that he wrote the GSG. But I could not help but notice that there have been other serial killers that have defacated near their victims, out of excitement and or to further degrade their victim.

And where did he leave his feces?

[Damaso Marte]

The apron piece was found just over an hour after the murder with one corner "wet with blood". Could Jack have dipped the corner in Kate's blood for some reason?

The story goes that France abolished public executions by guillotine when people were disturbed by the behavior of souvenir-seekers who would dip handkerchiefs in the blood of the executed. I suppose its plausible the killer wanted a souvenir and then decided it was a better idea to abandon it.

[curious4]

Apron etc

Hello Michael,

The piece of intestine was placed between her arm and body (see Frederick Foster's sketch of the crime scene).

Don't think Jack used the piece of apron to carry his "trophies" - more than just a corner of the apron would be bloodstained. Not quite sure that he would cut off a piece of her apron to wipe hands/knife either. Why not just wipe them on the victim's clothes? He showed utter contempt for his victims so presumably wouldn't worry about wiping his hands/knife on their clothes.

The apron piece was found just over an hour after the murder with one corner "wet with blood". Could Jack have dipped the corner in Kate's blood for some reason?

Best wishes,
C4

[Michael W Richards]

The fecal matter was from the section of Kates colon that was cut off then left between her left arm and body...in some reports one end was twisted into the wounds in her neck. The fact that its on the apron section means that the section was used to clean it from his hands and perhaps knife, or that it was transferred from something carried in the cloth that came from Kate.

I believe the second answer is probable, thats why I dont believe the killer would walk around with his makeshift parcel.

Best regards

[curious4]

Apron

Not sure if anyone else has ever put forth this idea before and its somewhat gross so forgive me. The apron had fecal matter on it-perhaps the killer had a bowel movement during the killing/mutilation of eddowes and took her apron to wipe himself with. Once he got far enough away he ducks into the doorway of the building wipes/cleans himself and discards the apron.

Of course this totally is against my opinion that the killer took the apron to validate his writing of the GSG and lessons the probability that he wrote the GSG. But I could not help but notice that there have been other serial killers that have defacated near their victims, out of excitement and or to further degrade their victim.

Hello Abby,

PC Long says that one corner of the apron was wet with blood and that he noticed the apron before the writing on the wall. Dr Brown states that there was blood on the apron "and apparently faecal matter" - not much of it if Long didn't notice it and Dr Brown wasn't even sure what it was.

Best wishes,
C4

[Errata]

How fastidious were people about this aspect of toileting? I mean, I think people did have toilet paper by the late end of Victorian era, but probably not in the East End.

Heck, I was in Soviet Russia in 1977, and very naive, so that I'd go to restrooms with pocket Kleenex with me, so I didn't notice the lack of TP, and I thought the copy of the Pravda on the back of the tank was so people would have something to read.

Was this something people expected to find in public toilets, or something they carried with them, or were there a lot of people who just didn't care? So you had skid marks? so what? I have a six-year-old, and I can tell you that it takes some social conditioning (and underwear with R2D2, who we do not want to sully) for people to care about that.

I think the need to take a dump might have actually added some extra urgency to the situation. Maybe he took the apron because he knew he wasn't going to make it home?

Save r2!

[RivkahChaya]

Not sure if anyone else has ever put forth this idea before and its somewhat gross so forgive me. The apron had fecal matter on it-perhaps the killer had a bowel movement during the killing/mutilation of eddowes and took her apron to wipe himself with. Once he got far enough away he ducks into the doorway of the building wipes/cleans himself and discards the apron.

How fastidious were people about this aspect of toileting? I mean, I think people did have toilet paper by the late end of Victorian era, but probably not in the East End.

Heck, I was in Soviet Russia in 1977, and very naive, so that I'd go to restrooms with pocket Kleenex with me, so I didn't notice the lack of TP, and I thought the copy of the Pravda on the back of the tank was so people would have something to read.

Was this something people expected to find in public toilets, or something they carried with them, or were there a lot of people who just didn't care? So you had skid marks? so what? I have a six-year-old, and I can tell you that it takes some social conditioning (and underwear with R2D2, who we do not want to sully) for people to care about that.

[RivkahChaya]

You wouldn't walk off the boat talking beautiful English and calling yourself Henry Harris instead of Chaim Hershkowitz. You'd likely spend time lodging with other Jews before you branched out into the broader society.

But I agree with you that he went out on other occasions and didn't find prey or wasn't driven to kill it. I doubt he kills successfully every time he goes out to hunt.

I know what you're getting at. I've seen Hester Street about nine times. But I still think that the absence of a Jew would be more likely to be noted, than the absence of a gentile. If the killer was a Jew, then one or more of the following things will also be true: he regularly went out on Shabbes, and therefore was probably not observant in general, and I'm going to make the leap to "he went stalking some nights, but didn't find a victim"; he didn't have a wife (or at least not one he lived with-- he could have had one who was still in Poland, or somewhere), and didn't live with his parents, because I think they would have expectations for erev Shabbes being "family time," even if they were aware that he was not observant in other ways, such as not going to daily prayers, and eating in non-kosher restaurants; he probably was attempting to assimilate, and would be making a special effort to speak English like an Englishman, so he'd have the conversation skills to talk up a prostitute, and he wouldn't dress frum, with a wide-brimmed hat over a yarmulke, tzitzis, and a full beard, so a description of the killer as Jewish, that meant "old-world looking" probably wouldn't mean someone like this.

[Abby Normal]

New apron theory?

Not sure if anyone else has ever put forth this idea before and its somewhat gross so forgive me. The apron had fecal matter on it-perhaps the killer had a bowel movement during the killing/mutilation of eddowes and took her apron to wipe himself with. Once he got far enough away he ducks into the doorway of the building wipes/cleans himself and discards the apron.

Of course this totally is against my opinion that the killer took the apron to validate his writing of the GSG and lessons the probability that he wrote the GSG. But I could not help but notice that there have been other serial killers that have defacated near their victims, out of excitement and or to further degrade their victim.

[Chava]

Still, one of the reasons that single men who were Jewish lodged with families was to make observance easier-- someone cooked Shabbes dinner, baked challah, etc. I suppose if there was someone who was never home on Friday night, the fact that he was out on one particular Friday when there was a murder, wouldn't cause anyone to put two and two together. Which brings up the thought that JTR may have gone stalking on many nights when he wasn't successful in finding a victim.

True, but I assume another reason would be to live with people familiar to and with similar customs to yourself. I read a fascinating article one time about the thousands of t'fillin that had been pitched into New York Harbour by immigrants eager to leave the shtetl behind and turn themselves into a completely new person. I imagine the same kind of thing happened in other big immigrant communities like London. You wouldn't walk off the boat talking beautiful English and calling yourself Henry Harris instead of Chaim Hershkowitz. You'd likely spend time lodging with other Jews before you branched out into the broader society.

But I agree with you that he went out on other occasions and didn't find prey or wasn't driven to kill it. I doubt he kills successfully every time he goes out to hunt.