The Goulston Street Apron

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

It has been generally accepted that the murderer of Catherine Eddowes dropped a portion of her apron in Goulston Street.

However, certain people at the time were not quite so convinced.

Letter from Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser [City CID], 3rd October 1888—

My Dear Fraser,

I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer.

In order to do this it is necessary if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman.

I shall be very glad if you can give me the necessary particulars on this point[?].

Very truly yours, C.W.

Regards,

Simon

[RivkahChaya]

You know, I've thought of a lot of things, including that Eddowes tore it herself, for some reason, and if she didn't walk that way, then the wind blew it there, or it was torn by accident, and I've thought of simple mistakes, since white aprons must have been pretty common, and if you're going to remove a patch, removing a square is what you will do if you don't have scissors. Also, if a piece is ripped accidentally, a square is what will come off, unless a whole strip comes off, or there is a threadbare spot that rips raggedly.

What I mean is, if you catch fabric, like the corner of an apron, on a nail, or something, it will tear away in two directions, the way the weave is. One will be stronger, but it will still tear out a square-shaped piece. Unless you catch it on something very sharp, or the fabric is very, very worn, it won't tear diagonally.

Anyway, I've thought of lots of reasons the scrap could have gotten there accidentally.

But I never thought of a hoax.

Considering how many prank letters there were, I would not be shocked to learn that someone had done this-- or that someone had taken a souvenir from a "famous murder" site, since, by Eddowes, passers-by could know they were passing a Ripper victim, and then lost it, or changed his mind about having something like that around, and tossed it away.

So, I have two questions:

1) How secure was the site? I'm presuming the first person to find her would sound an alarm, rather than take a souvenir and run off, and she was found pretty quickly, it's my understanding. Once the police were there, what opportunity was there for someone to interfere with the body?

2) Did people generally not realize the degree to which pranks and hoaxes interfered with an investigation? I realize that this does not stop many people, but on the other hand, most people in the 21st (and late 20th) century know just from watching TV that interfering with evidence can end up in a murderer getting away. If anything, people probably over-estimate this. But the idea that they were creating false evidence may not even have been on people's radar, if you get my meaning, when considering setting up some sort of letter or apron hoax.

If that's the case, then people would be much more apt to do something like drop a piece of filched apron some place, thinking it was harmless.

[Monty]

Fraser? City CID?

Really Simon....tut tut, ;-) . M'William was Head of CiD.

Wasn't Fraser on leave during the Eddowes investigation, with the case being overseen by Smith?

Monty

[Errata]

Wouldn't a largish piece of white cloth be of value to someone in the secondhand business, or rag pickers, etc? I can see a scenario where it gets picked up at the crime scene by an unsuspecting person, who in their nightly wanderings decides to get a closer look at the cloth, and tosses it away when they realize it's covered in blood. Either because you can't get blood out of white cloth or because they had heard about the murder. That it landed in a doorway with graffiti in it was of no significance, and actually not even that unlikely.

[Wickerman]

Wouldn't a largish piece of white cloth be of value to someone in the secondhand business, or rag pickers, etc? I can see a scenario where it gets picked up at the crime scene by an unsuspecting person, who in their nightly wanderings ......

The body was not left alone for any length of time, and not on a public thoroughfare like a main street. Anyone passing the body where it was found would see a policeman there and would presumably be going into the corner for some other reason.
The idea is unworkable for this murder in a practical sense.

[lynn cates]

Whom?

Hello Errata. That is plausible, but I'm not sure who might have done that? Right after the event, coppers were crawling the place. Halse stopped two men, but they gave a good account of themselves. Watkins and Morris both seem to have made no reference to another individual.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

same ideas

Hello Jon. I can see you are thinking along much the same limes as I am. Blenkingsop could have popped into the square for a moment when he heard the whistle; but, surely Watkins would have seen him--not to mention Blenkingsop was pretty well fixed to his post, without access to Goulston st.

Cheers.
LC

[Supe]

Errata,

Wouldn't a largish piece of white cloth be of value to someone in the secondhand business, or rag pickers, etc? I can see a scenario where it gets picked up at the crime scene by an unsuspecting person, who in their nightly wanderings ......

Jon well explained why it is extremely unlikely any passer-by was able to get access to the apron half in Mitre Square. Indeed, while there are other theories, the overwhelming probability is that the killer cut Kate's apron and took it away with -- at least initially.

As I pointed out in a recent article in the New Indy Review, the East End in 1888 was very much a scavenger society. So, unless the killer had a purpose in taking the apron part that went beyond wiping his hands/knife, he may well have discarded the apron piece somewhere short of Goulston Street and it was then seized upon by one or more passers-by and eventually ended up where it was found.

I would suggest, though, that the presence of fecal matter, rather than what blood may have been absorbed, would cause anyone seizing upon it to later drop it as unwanted.

Don.

[RivkahChaya]

Wouldn't a largish piece of white cloth be of value to someone in the secondhand business, or rag pickers, etc?

I don't want to talk about how I know this, but dogs will pick up cloth with blood, so there are lots of ways for the cloth to get to Goulston St.

Just checking here-- the sequence of events is that someone found the pieceof cloth, then decided to see of Eddowes apron w missing a square, and not that someone noticed Eddowes apron was missing a square, and so someone said "Be on the lookout for a bloody rag."

Is it remotely possible that someone involved in the investigation cut Eddowes apron after the rag was found, to bolster the evidentiary value of the graffito, or even planted the apron for the same reason?

I mean, I'm still not sure myself what evidentiary value the graffito would have if it were written by the killer, because while it sounds like an attempt to say "Jews did it," it's so vastly transparent, that it practically guarantees one is looking for a gentile, so I have no idea why anyone would be interesting in bolstering it, unless it matched the handwriting on one of the letters, which sounds unlikely, or there was just a very anti-Semitic police officer who did not think things through, which seems more likely, but I'm still not sold on that idea.

[The Good Michael]

I would suggest, though, that the presence of fecal matter, rather than what blood may have been absorbed, would cause anyone seizing upon it to later drop it as unwanted.

Don,

First I hope all is well with you. Next, I agree with this, though anyone picking it up must have dropped it immediately because where it lay seemed to be an intentional thing. A lucky drop is possible, but unlikely.

Mike

[lynn cates]

timing

Hello Don. Hope you are well.

"he may well have discarded the apron piece somewhere short of Goulston Street and it was then seized upon by one or more passers-by and eventually ended up where it was found."

I have suggested that one could immerse one's hands in, say ground beef, and then begin walking (slightly fast gait--no running) and wiping. Use a stop watch for the time.

Unless I miss my guess, the cloth should have been deposited fairly close to the openings of:

1. St. James's passage.

2. Church passage.

3. Mitre Street.

(This assumes between 1/2 and 1 minute to wipe and a pace of about 4 mph.)

Is this placing consonant with your suggestion?

"the presence of fecal matter, rather than what blood may have been absorbed, would cause anyone seizing upon it to later drop it as unwanted."

Are you saying that the faecal matter would cause one to have a seizure? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

maps

Hello Rivkah.

"Is it remotely possible that someone involved in the investigation cut Eddowes apron after the rag was found, to bolster the evidentiary value of the graffito, or even planted the apron for the same reason?"

OK. But in what way evidentiary?

"or there was just a very anti-Semitic police officer who did not think things through, which seems more likely, but I'm still not sold on that idea."

Well, any ideas whom? It would need to be one whom was:

1. at the spot where the cloth was dropped

and

2. on Goulston

So far as I know, only Halse was in both spots. But he seems to have been with Outram and Marriott just before the murder, and likely went with them to Mitre sq.

Now, let's say they came in through Church passage to Mitre sq. If the cloth was there and Halse retrieved it, would not one, the other or both chaps have seen him?

This might be easier if we had a map with the location of everyone indicated on it.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

The apron was not seen when PC Long passed the spot at around 2:20-:30, he stated that clearly, "It was not there." So...that leaves too much time to believe that the man that cut the apron piece kept it on him and stayed outdoors until almost 3am.

That being said...isnt the apron far more valuable as a possible killer egress route than it is as part of a package deal with the grafitto? Since we know the piece was taken from Mitre Square and lain where it was found, and we dont know when the grafitto was there, isnt it possible that the piece was left there by the killer to suggest his ultimate destination? Maybe he added the grafitto...maybe he utilized the anti-semetic interpretation of it.

When added, the message then becomes more interesting, since the entranceway led to almost exclusively Jewish tenants within the Model Homes. And dont we have a connection with the Berner St Club and someone living in those model homes?

Best regards

[RivkahChaya]

Is it remotely possible that someone involved in the investigation cut Eddowes apron after the rag was found, to bolster the evidentiary value of the graffito, or even planted the apron for the same reason?

OK. But in what way evidentiary?

...LC

...part of a package deal with the grafitto.... [emp. added]

LC, this is sort of what I was thinking, although I couldn't get my slogan together. Without the apron, no one would have associated the graffito with JTR, and without the graffito, I doubt that anyone would have thought the apron was deliberately dropped, let alone accidentally dropped (y'know, made a perpendicular trip from JTR's hand to the ground), as opposed to having been blown there, or dragged by an animal. The fact that they happen to both be there makes everyone assume a scenario where the killer runs through Goulston (the name gives the story sticking power that "Sunshine Ave." wouldn't, IMO) St., stops to write something with the chalk he happens to have, maybe just after he cleans his hands and his knife, which is why he drops the cloth, or maybe the chalk was in his pocket under the cloth, and that's why he dropped it.

But if you take out one element or the other, if the killer didn't stop to write the graffito, then there's no reason to think he dropped the apron piece right there (even allowing for argument that is is Eddowes), as opposed to it finding its own way there; OR if the apron got there some other way than being dropped there by the killer, then there is no reason to think that he wrote the graffito.

It's classic question begging: A proves B, and then B proves A. It's, as Michael says, a "package deal."

[The Good Michael]

ed it.

But if you take out one element or the other, if the killer didn't stop to write the graffito, then there's no reason to think he dropped the apron piece right there (even allowing for argument that is is Eddowes), as opposed to it finding its own way there; OR if the apron got there some other way than being dropped there by the killer, then there is no reason to think that he wrote the graffito.

Why would he have written the graffiti? There wouldn't have been time after the deed, and writing it beforehand would have meant risking being seen writing it. The apron is associated with the graffiti because a lucky drop right at the base of the writing seems unlikely. Authorship of the writing has nothing to do with that.

Mike