The Goulston Street Apron

[Michael W Richards]

Furthermore, it's nigh on certain I'd say that the murderer entered Goulston Street from New Goulston Street and then headed North up Goulston Street dropping the apron piece at the entrance of Nos 106 to 119. It's anybody's guess what happened next. He could have crossed Wentworth Street and headed North up Bell Lane? West along Wentworth Street? East along Wentworth Street? Did he double back and head South down Goulston Street? Whisked away in a flying saucer?

Regards

Observer

I think this is precisely what the person who dropped the apron section hoped Observer,.... to create a question...."if this was discarded on his way home then which way would he have been heading"? I believe the apron section was left there because the person who left it assumed a message would be far more powerful if accompanied by a piece of evidence taken from a murder victim, and because it was intended to suggest an egress route. I also believe that the message was an antisemitic complaint that the Jews who were likely involved with a murder that occurred on their property that night and yet wouldnt be blamed for it.

I dont believe the apron section and writing has anything to say about the Mitre Square murder...I do believe the section was left because the author believed that most everyone, including the Jews at Berner Street, would be assuming BOTH murders were committed by the Phantom Menace. So in essence, it states that the killer of Mitre Square believed that the Jews were responsible for the Berner Street murder. He claimed the one he committed by leaving the section, and used the acquired pulpit to accuse the Jews of the first murder.

Problem is, people still dont know whether to associate the section and grafitto with one individual...just like they dont know whether to associate Kate Eddowes murder with Liz Strides.

Lynn, to answer your questions;

1.But what if he missed it earlier? Long was from another division and was not familiar with his beat.?

He couldnt have missed it earlier than 2:20 Lynn, it was probably still attached to the rest of the apron at the time of an earlier pass.

2.But would this not still have the difficulty that the piece was there a long time before deposit?

Yes...but with the Police assuming all sorts of things to address what they didnt understand, they might have assumed he was "trapped" outdoors after leaving Mitre...maybe by police, maybe by passers by. They might have assumed he wasnt able to get that far within minutes of the murder without being spotted fleeing by someone.

3.You mean the model dwellings?

Yes

4.You mean, if it was pre-existing?

Yes, because he may have just used what he found, instead of creating something himself.

5.Of course, the message is ambiguous. If anti-semitic, it was a bit puerile—in my estimation.?

I feel that a message with that content, on that night, at that location, with that section nearby was an accusation, so whether it be antisemetic or not, it sought to Blame Jews for something he thought they wouldnt be blamed for.

6. Possibly. Is the suggestion that he did it or was the recipient of a “frame”?

I think its probable that the killer knew what ethnic group lived there and perhaps even that a brother of one of the club members lived there. I think the spot was chosen, not random, and it was due to a murder that was committed on Jewish anarchists property. Also, Goulston Street was well known to Immigrant Jews, Ive heard that some marches for them began at that point.

All the best Lynn, all.

[Observer]

Perfectly true Prosector. However, Major Smith believed the killer headed North up Bell lane, and then into Dorset Street where he washed his hands in sink up a close some six yards from the street. Like most of the aspects of this case though, we'll never know what really happened

Regards

Observer

[lynn cates]

Give it a miss.

Hello Mike. Thanks.

To address one crucial point:

"He couldn't have missed it earlier than 2:20 Lynn, it was probably still attached to the rest of the apron at the time of an earlier pass."

Very well. But what if he missed it then?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

I think this is precisely what the person who dropped the apron section hoped Observer,.... to create a question...."if this was discarded on his way home then which way would he have been heading"? I believe the apron section was left there because the person who left it assumed a message would be far more powerful if accompanied by a piece of evidence taken from a murder victim, and because it was intended to suggest an egress route. I also believe that the message was an antisemitic complaint that the Jews who were likely involved with a murder that occurred on their property that night and yet wouldnt be blamed for it.

Quite possible Mike. He would of course be taking a big risk hanging around the area creating diversions considering the police were on his scent. Halse must of known that area like the back of his hand, he quickly realised that the murderer was heading East. It didn't take him long to reach Goulston Street,(2:20 a.m.) and he was right on the money regarding the direction in which the murderer was headed the apron piece being found there of course. Makes you wonder if Halse had some kind of prior knowledge to where the murderer was likely to be found. It's possible they were keeping an eye on someone in the Spitalfileds area at that time

Regards

Observer

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Henry Matthews had asked a question which Sir Charles Warren could not answer; hence his letter to Sir James Fraser.

Yet on the morning of the double-event it was Warren who had personally visited Commercial Street and Leman Street police stations, Goulston Street, Mitre Square and the "City Police Office", speaking to officers from both the Met and City forces.

Why didn't he already have this information to hand?

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Simon,

Warren sought a reply in writing. And by invoking the request of his supervisor, Matthews, I'm sure Fraser would recognize the need to respond accordingly.

In writing.

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

Thanks.

But that's kinda stating the obvious.

Why didn't Warren already know the answer to Matthews' question?

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

Hi All,

Henry Matthews had asked a question which Sir Charles Warren could not answer; hence his letter to Sir James Fraser.

Yet on the morning of the double-event it was Warren who had personally visited Commercial Street and Leman Street police stations, Goulston Street, Mitre Square and the "City Police Office", speaking to officers from both the Met and City forces.

Why didn't he already have this information to hand?

Regards,

Simon

Because this piece of information was the result of Mathews (or one of his staff) own thought on the matter,(one of their ideas) and had not been considered by any of the police officers involved in the case?

Regards

Observer

[Simon Wood]

Hi Observer,

Please tell me you're kidding.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Someone correct me,

Wasn't Fraser on sick leave at the time of Eddowes murder? Hence Smiths involvement.

Simon,

Can you tell us where you located this letter of Warrens?

Cheers
Monty

[Roy Corduroy]

No he's not kidding, Simon.

Wanted: Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police District. Must possess ESP to anticipate in advance any and all questions from Home Office. Extensive database mining skills preferred.

(just kidding)

Roy

[Observer]

Hi Simon

Not at all. The crux of the matter revolves around Mathews source surely? Who informed Mathews? Warren seems genuinely in the dark regarding this assumption (that a hoaxer was responsible for the apron piece turming up in Goulston Street) prior to his cionversation with Mathews. Why else would he ask Fraser. I'll take him at face value. With respect mountains and molehills come to mind. I would like to know who was responsible for this story though, wouldnt you?

Regards

Observer

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Yes, Sir James Fraser was on a sick leave at the time.

But perhaps Commissioners only communicated with Commissioners, and not the lower orders. Chain of command, and all that.

The source of the letter is not mysterious, but tomorrow it is being mined for more nuggets.

So back soon, hopefully with more information.

Hi Observer,

Why couldn't Matthews have come up with the question all by himself?

Hi Roy,

Are you seriously suggesting that, on this night of nights, the cops from two forces didn't discuss alternative scenarios for the piece of apron getting from A to B?

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

Why couldn't Matthews have come up with the question all by himself?

Hi Simon

I'm a little confused. If you read my post this is exactly what I suggested, that it was Mathews who could have formulated the idea. And then you asked if I was kidding.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Are you seriously suggesting that, on this night of nights, the cops from two forces didn't discuss alternative scenarios for the piece of apron getting from A to B?

Regards,

Simon

Lets not forget Simon that most of the senior officers both City and Met considered the writing to have been left by the murderer. Coupled with the section of apron, why would they suspect anyone of perpatrating a hoax?

Regards

Observer