The Goulston Street Apron

[Abby Normal]

Maybe the killer went to his bolt-hole carrying his goodies in the apron, he then fried up some lovely kidney and onions, very nise, got cleaned up a bit and then headed out in the night to ditch the evidence and tie it to the hated Jews.

This presumes a few things surely, like having a residence, but it’s possible, he could have even accomplished this in a Doss house.

Is this risky, of course it is!, but so is carving up a female under the eyes of a watchman and on the beat of several bobbies…


Greg

Yes! well at least clean up a bit, drop off the goodies and knife-and grab a piece of chalk. Not sure if he would have enough time for a sit down-perhaps when he got back from his walk to goulston though.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Garry,

But the GSG wasn't unambiguous, and it wasn't left at a crime scene, but on the killer's apparent route from a crime scene (apparent, thanks to the apron piece). So maybe that ought to be telling us something. Maybe the writer designed the message to be ambiguous, to keep the cops sniffing round the Wentworth Model Dwellings and trying to figure out what it might be telling them. If the killer was living nearby he probably didn't fancy the idea of bloodhounds following the smell of the apron from Mitre Square to his own door, but if they were kept fully occupied in Goulston Street along with the cops playing riddle-me-ree with the message, he could sleep easier. He wouldn't have known whether or not the recent rumours of using bloodhounds were true.

Why would the Kelly crime scene even need to come into it?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
i had never thought of the bloodhound angle before-thats a really good idea actually.

Now thats a dog story I could beleive in!

[Abby Normal]

Maybe the killer went to his bolt-hole carrying his goodies in the apron, he then fried up some lovely kidney and onions, very nise, got cleaned up a bit and then headed out in the night to ditch the evidence and tie it to the hated Jews.

This presumes a few things surely, like having a residence, but it’s possible, he could have even accomplished this in a Doss house.

Is this risky, of course it is!, but so is carving up a female under the eyes of a watchman and on the beat of several bobbies…


Greg

Hi Greg
This post actually got me thinking that it is a possibility the killer did cut the apron to transport the organs-and then decided once he got to his bolt hole to use the apron for the GSG.

Perhaps in this scenario, carrying away more than he did from Chapman, and/or it just being more messy, he decided he needed something extra to carry it in so he cut the apron. Then decided on the GSG after he got home. Definitely a possibility.

[RivkahChaya]

Yes, except you are taking the particular and using it as the general I'm sure the Goulston Street Tenement housewives would have removed any rubbish and expunged any graffiti from around their front door first chance they got. Which as RivkahChaya has pointed out wouldn't be until sundown on Saturday.

I hadn't thought about it before, but the fact that the graffito seems to have shown up on Shabbes, pretty much cinches that it wasn't a Jew who wrote it, because even a non-observant Jew probably wouldn't take a chance writing on a building full of observant Jews on Shabbes. The chance of someone seeing him do it, and recognizing him, and making a stink about it later, or even rebuking him at the time, was too great-- even if he wasn't the Ripper, I think it wouldn't be worth a confrontation, unless a confrontation was what he wanted, in which case, he'd do something much more obvious and immediately provocative.

A gentile, on the other hand, probably wouldn't even be aware of a prohibition against writing on Shabbes, and at any rate, the prohibition doesn't apply to gentiles, and a gentile see writing graffiti on a wall in a Jewish neighborhood on Shabbes, will probably be left alone; if he's recognized, the confrontation will be reserved for another time.

Of course it's possible the killer didn't know he had the apron.

Meaning what? It was stuck to his shoe?

To be perfectly honest.. I don't actually know what you mean.. I presume you mean OJ Simpson?

If the idea is that the apron was planted to frame someone, I don't think it's a good comparison to the Simpson case, because in that case, that police detective accused of planting the glove (whose life was destroyed), was accused of doing so because of motivations of racism, and specifically, resentment of a black man marrying a white woman (albeit they were divorced at the time).

The whole thing was ridiculous; the only thing comparable that comes to mind is a "Claus von Bulow" editorial I read, I forget in which newspaper, about someone attempting to essentially frame a guilty person, because they were afraid he was about to get away with a serious crime, as opposed to the usual reasons someone frames someone: to cause that person trouble, or to distract the investigation away from you when you are guilty.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Of course it's possible the killer didn't know he had the apron.

Mike

Or that he had been stopped at a previous murder because he wore clothes that offered no explanation as to why he was out that time of night....so this time he cut an apron and put it round his waist to suggest he worked in some sort of slaughterhouse and had good reason to be out at that time of night and bloodied....

Hot or cold?

[GregBaron]

Dropbox...

Hi Greg
This post actually got me thinking that it is a possibility the killer did cut the apron to transport the organs-and then decided once he got to his bolt hole to use the apron for the GSG.

Perhaps in this scenario, carrying away more than he did from Chapman, and/or it just being more messy, he decided he needed something extra to carry it in so he cut the apron. Then decided on the GSG after he got home. Definitely a possibility.

Yes indeed Abby, it might have occurred to him later, hence the delay. Maybe he just went out snooping for a drop spot (in the Jewish areas of course) and happened upon the graffiti, which suited his purposes just fine. Or maybe he found the chalk en route and a light bulb went off.

Whatever the case, it appears to be a deliberate drop and the coincidence of confounding graffiti present seems a bit serendipitous to me. I also tend to discount giant rat, dog and gale force wind theories....

Greg

[Michael W Richards]

.....

Much as it pains me to agree with Mike Richards on this one, if PC Long said the apron piece "wasn't there" earlier, I see little reason to disbelieve him.

.......It is possible to agree on something without the discomfort Caz.

I believe its a question of the way the apron section was dropped/placed as to how visible it would have been to the passing PC...but I do believe we are on the correct path when we take his stated position on the matter without equivocation.

IF..that is the correct path, then there is a much stronger case for pairing the writing with the apron section with the same person, if the drop or placement was intentional and not a casual discard, it would mean that the killer chose to take the apron section back out from wherever he went immediately after the murder. He could have just quietly disposed of it..burned it, whatever. There would be no need for us to have found it at all.....unless of course he wanted it found.

IF he did want someone to find it...then its probable the message is part of that package.

Best regards

[lynn cates]

likely

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"would a dangerous and determined knifeman, hell-bent on mutilation, have simply shrugged his shoulders and said to an unresponsive Stride: "Please yourself, love, have a nice day"? Doesn't seem too likely to me."

Perhaps so. But it doesn't seem likely that one so keen on mutilation should let a chance slip?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Wasn't Healthy?

Since Eddowes wasn't healthy

Dr Frederick Gordon Brown:

"Right kidney pale, bloodless with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids........Liver itself was healthy......The bladder was healthy...........The other organs were healthy".

What is the basis of your claim that Eddowes "wasn't healthy"?

[Bridewell]

Hi Caz
i had never thought of the bloodhound angle before-thats a really good idea actually.

Isn't it just!

[Bridewell]

Or that he had been stopped at a previous murder because he wore clothes that offered no explanation as to why he was out that time of night....so this time he cut an apron and put it round his waist to suggest he worked in some sort of slaughterhouse and had good reason to be out at that time of night and bloodied....

Hot or cold?

Why only take part of it though in that scenario?

[Bridewell]

P.c. Long

If it was a hoax, or a plant, (deliberate), and not done by the murderer, we have the possibility of an accomplice, or someone deliberately causing a hoax.

Anyone caught in possession of the apron piece would have hanged for the Eddowes Murder. What kind of hoaxer is going to take that kind of risk, simply to play a practical joke on the authorities? For that matter, what would induce a killer who had reached safety to go back out again in the possession of such incriminating evidence?

It's possible that the apron piece wasn't there on Long's previous visit.
It's possible that it was there and he was mistaken in believing that its wasn't.
I think the most likely explanation, sadly, is that Long wasn't where he should have been at 2.20am and had to conceal the fact. Both Halse and Long claim to have been at the Goulston Street site at 2.20am, yet neither mentions seeing the other. To my mind, that's a strange omission, for which the likely explanation is that one of them wasn't actually there.

[Errata]

Anyone caught in possession of the apron piece would have hanged for the Eddowes Murder. What kind of hoaxer is going to take that kind of risk, simply to play a practical joke on the authorities? For that matter, what would induce a killer who had reached safety to go back out again in the possession of such incriminating evidence?

It's possible that the apron piece wasn't there on Long's previous visit.
It's possible that it was there and he was mistaken in believing that its wasn't.
I think the most likely explanation, sadly, is that Long wasn't where he should have been at 2.20am and had to conceal the fact. Both Halse and Long claim to have been at the Goulston Street site at 2.20am, yet neither mentions seeing the other. To my mind, that's a strange omission, for which the likely explanation is that one of them wasn't actually there.

Halse was just passing through. I'm not sure that running into another cop on the beat would have been relevant to the inquest, especially since neither man saw anything at that point. He probably passed one or two other cops on his way to the mortuary, but the only reason he even mentioned that he went by way of Ghoulston street was because it came up half an hour later. Akin to the fact that I went to the store, I got back and there was a package next to my door. Clearly I passed the door on my way out, and the package wasn't there, but I don't have to say that because it's implied in the fact that I didn't mention that the package was there when I left the house.

[lynn cates]

fib?

Hello Colin.

"To my mind, that's a strange omission, for which the likely explanation is that one of them wasn't actually there."

Or that one of them fibbed about the other.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Just who is telling the truth here?

Anyone caught in possession of the apron piece would have hanged for the Eddowes Murder. What kind of hoaxer is going to take that kind of risk, simply to play a practical joke on the authorities? For that matter, what would induce a killer who had reached safety to go back out again in the possession of such incriminating evidence?

It's possible that the apron piece wasn't there on Long's previous visit.
It's possible that it was there and he was mistaken in believing that its wasn't.
I think the most likely explanation, sadly, is that Long wasn't where he should have been at 2.20am and had to conceal the fact. Both Halse and Long claim to have been at the Goulston Street site at 2.20am, yet neither mentions seeing the other. To my mind, that's a strange omission, for which the likely explanation is that one of them wasn't actually there.

Hello Colin,

I agree with the surmise about a hoaxer.. so that leaves the word.. accomplice.
(If it wasn't the killer himself)

My point was the letter posted by Simon. That is pretty specific. A worry that seems to point towards someone on the inside.
Abby reflected that it was a member of the general public being the on-looker... but we really must be critical here.. at what time were there members of the general public anywhere near Eddowes body?

That letter surely must, given the time parameters, be pointing towards a policeman or the nightwatchman. I cannot see any other possibility. There isn't enough time for there to have been anyone else pick up the apron piece, if it were not the killer himself or an accomplice.

It is the letter I am reflecting upon... and not other possibilities at this juncture...though they may be more relevant, I agree.

As far as the long and Halse scenarios are concerned, I see a different angle. I believe Long did miss it the first time. But I also know that Halse, travelling in the direction he did, MUST have seen Long if the times were correct, even in the distance, with his lamp. If Long travelled behind Halse, the opposite would suffice. Both were policemen and would have heard another footstep in the dead of night. They would have seen a lamp flashing.

Halse is the only person known to have been first at Mitre square near the body.. then Goulston St, then back at Mitre Square, then again, later, back at Goulston St. He was also the person who happened to notice the piece of apron missing at the mortuary.

I accuse no one... but you can all see from his movements that had he not been a policeman, doing his duty, he would be in the right place at the right time to actually pick up that rag piece and dump it. In the right place to pick it up, the right place to deliver it at the required spot, and the right place to notice that it was missing from a pile of clothes. No one else noticed that apron piece missing.

I accuse no one.

But I will say this in the face of all policemen, past and present. There have been dishonest policemen throughout history, some involved in major crime.
That does NOT detract from the respect I personally have for them.

Other people have looked at Watkins and his honesty.

To my mind, suspicious person I may be, the Eddowes murder is singular in the fact that the near presence of on the beat policemen at the time of the murder is acute. The unthinkable has to be considered, whatever we feel about the honour of the men and the job itself.

And if we have policemen fibbing, as you suspect..how trustworthy are these men anyway? Watkins? Long? Halse? Even Sir Robert Anderson, who I believe had his own agenda throughout all of this.
The unthinkable has to be considered, whether we like it or not.

Phil