The Goulston Street Apron

[Wickerman]

But the only thing that always bothers me is how the killer could be certain that the apron piece would be seen in such a dark place or even noticed at anytime,.....

Maybe it only bothers you because you see the white apron as a "red flag", to draw attention to the graffiti.
Perhaps that was not the intention at all.

[spyglass]

I don't think the killer ever touched the apron. I think Eddowes used it and discared it herself in Goulston Street before she was arrested and before she met Jack. And I don't think he wrote the graffito either. The only significance of the graffito is that it was discovered near a piece of bloody apron that was traced back to Eddowes. If he didn't drop the apron then he didn't write the graffito - QED. And, as I say, Goulston Street is a bit too close to Berner Street for comfort - especially for someone who's just committed murder. I just don't think there's enough tangible evidence here to place Jack in Goulston Street.

Yes, Eddowes did have a dozen other pieces of apron - some of which were 'slightly bloodstained' - about her person that she could have used but who's to say she didn't find or aquire those after she had already cut/torn a piece off her own apron in an emergency? People like her would have carried everything they could on their person, not knowing when they might need it. A bit like people nowadays carrying a pack of tissues in their pocket or handbag even when they don't have a cold.

IMHO

Hi,
I've often changed my mind on this over the years, but as of the last couple of years, I feel that the GSG is by the killer,
But the only thing that always bothers me is how the killer could be certain that the apron piece would be seen in such a dark place or even noticed at anytime, so with that doubt in mind I always find myself questioning the motives of the policeman who found it all.

Regards

[All4One]

Hi. I have two question regarding two different interpretations towards this scenario I would like you to answer.

1) are you assuming the killer held the apron and knife in his blooded hands, outside of his pockets in public, on show?

2) or are you saying he simply shoved everything into the pockets of whatever he was wearing?

I don't think the killer ever touched the apron. I think Eddowes used it and discared it herself in Goulston Street before she was arrested and before she met Jack. And I don't think he wrote the graffito either. The only significance of the graffito is that it was discovered near a piece of bloody apron that was traced back to Eddowes. If he didn't drop the apron then he didn't write the graffito - QED. And, as I say, Goulston Street is a bit too close to Berner Street for comfort - especially for someone who's just committed murder. I just don't think there's enough tangible evidence here to place Jack in Goulston Street.

Yes, Eddowes did have a dozen other pieces of apron - some of which were 'slightly bloodstained' - about her person that she could have used but who's to say she didn't find or aquire those after she had already cut/torn a piece off her own apron in an emergency? People like her would have carried everything they could on their person, not knowing when they might need it. A bit like people nowadays carrying a pack of tissues in their pocket or handbag even when they don't have a cold.

IMHO

[packers stem]

I think going back to Simon's initial post the point is not whether the apron was used to carry anything.It was about Henry Matthews looking for an affirmative link between the killer and the GSG..... Cant imagine why he was so concerned about an apparent scribble that had already been successfully removed.... Ho hum

[Robert St Devil]

If he meant to take her kidney in the first place, he came prepared for it.

[Rosella]

I do tend to think that Catherine's apron was used first for immediate cleaning purposes, for himself and knife. That feculent matter may well have covered his hands. He probably just slashed the bit of apron off the other half Catherine was wearing and wrapped the kidney in it at the last moment before leaving.

[Robert St Devil]

Hi. I have two question regarding two different interpretations towards this scenario I would like you to answer.

1) are you assuming the killer held the apron and knife in his blooded hands, outside of his pockets in public, on show?

Sleuth

Thats a very good question. Why walk with her apron?

What i see is, the ripping cut running down her belly. He doesnt just stab multiple times or try to slice thru her abdomen. He IS ripping her open, and by making this cut from xiphoid to pubic bone, he has inadvertently cut thru her colon. This contains the feculent matter that will cover her intestines. Its probable that he tried to contain the spillage by cutting off the colon and placing it between her arm and body. Im sure his red neckerchief would be fine for cleaning a bloody knife but he needs something else to clean the matter off his hands. He needs the apron because something unexpected has occurred.

[Wickerman]

Couldn't he use the piece of apron to carry the kidney?

Of course. I highly doubt anyone is going to soil their clothes with blood by stuffing organs in their pocket.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Couldn't he use the piece of apron to carry the kidney?

[Sleuth1888]

I'm inclined towards the theory that the bloodstained rag had actually been used by Eddowes as a sanitary towel. It would have been common practice for poor women to use any available material since the real thing would have been too expensive or unavailable. This would explain the feces on there and Goulston Street is on the route between Flower and Dean Street and Aldgate where she was arrested so it could have been there even before she died.

It may not be an exciting theory but it seems more plausible than the killer carrying a blood and feces soaked rag back towards the scene of the Stride killing for no reason when the whole area would be crawling with police.

Hi. I have two question regarding two different interpretations towards this scenario I would like you to answer.

1) are you assuming the killer held the apron and knife in his blooded hands, outside of his pockets in public, on show?

2) or are you saying he simply shoved everything into the pockets of whatever he was wearing?

Many thanks,
Sleuth

[curious4]

I'm inclined towards the theory that the bloodstained rag had actually been used by Eddowes as a sanitary towel. It would have been common practice for poor women to use any available material since the real thing would have been too expensive or unavailable. This would explain the feces on there and Goulston Street is on the route between Flower and Dean Street and Aldgate where she was arrested so it could have been there even before she died.

It may not be an exciting theory but it seems more plausible than the killer carrying a blood and feces soaked rag back towards the scene of the Stride killing for no reason when the whole area would be crawling with police.

Hello All4one

Kate had, among other things, 12 pieces of bloodstained rags. I think these covered her needs in that direction.

Best wishes
C4

[All4One]

I'm inclined towards the theory that the bloodstained rag had actually been used by Eddowes as a sanitary towel. It would have been common practice for poor women to use any available material since the real thing would have been too expensive or unavailable. This would explain the feces on there and Goulston Street is on the route between Flower and Dean Street and Aldgate where she was arrested so it could have been there even before she died.

It may not be an exciting theory but it seems more plausible than the killer carrying a blood and feces soaked rag back towards the scene of the Stride killing for no reason when the whole area would be crawling with police.

[nashwan]

Would anyone be able to say how much involvement the Metropolitan Police would have had in Catherine Eddowes' murder, if it wasn't for the finding of the apron and graffiti in Goulston Street?

Also, whether undercover or plain-clothes activity from the Met would have been tolerated or sanctioned on City of London Police's territory with their knowledge?

[I'veBeenToMitreSquare]

Ahh, a shawl was it? Sorry for the confusion.

[pinkmoon]

I think they used the shawl for the deeming DNA.