The Goulston Street Apron

[lynn cates]

risk

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"then the killer still had it."

That long? A bit risky, eh?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

when?

Hello Michael. Thanks.

OK, when did Long receive the message?

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

I certainly don't think Dr. Brown arrived at the scene, everyone finished what they needed from the corpse, got her back to the mortuary, started undressing her, discovered the missing piece, all with PC Long evidently close enough to be told that there was a pieice of apron missing, and then have him locate it several blocks away all in half an hour.

And why would they have the expectation that the piece of cloth was out there to be found, as opposed to still on the killer?

Errata, I'm not picking on you, just using your post as a springboard; anyway, here's a "riddle me": under the kind of light they would have in the mortuary, how would they be able to tell that the apron was recently torn, or cut? as far as they would know, it might have been torn a long time ago. I'm not sure their immediate assumption was that it was cut by the killer. I'm guessing that it was finding the missing piece later that led them to that conclusion.

I can believe it caught the policeman's eye, if it were white, albeit soiled, and if it really hadn't been there the last time around, no matter how it got there.

[The Good Michael]

OK, when did Long receive the message?

The message to redouble his search and to examine the ground for items? This hypothetical message? Any time after 3:40 am, I imagine.

Mike

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Michael. Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael. Thanks.

You are very welcome Lynn...and just so you know, I feel the killer dropped/placed the apron along his escape route. If he came back to do it later, I'd place him in one of the Wentworth dwellings, peeking to see that the coast was clear, and then popping downstairs to do it...yet I don't want to go there at this time.

Mike

[Lechmere]

I don't think Long knew about either murder when he found the apron, therefore he wasn't asked to look for it.

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"then the killer still had it."

That long? A bit risky, eh?

Cheers.
LC

Risky? Probably, but remember that once they discovered that the apron had been cut, they had no idea what he used it for. In fact we still don't know. So if he hurt himself during the murder (and the cut from the hip to the labia looks uncontrolled to me, like a skip, and he could have buried his own knife in his leg or some such) it may have been risky to keep the cloth, but it may have been more necessary to wrap up a suspicious injury than to get rid of incriminating evidence. Or he may have needed it to carry something. Or he may have shoved in the front of his shirt to give himself a paunch, using it as a disguise. Or he may have decided to wear it as a cape. I mean, there's no telling. When Chapman was found with rings missing, it was assumed that the killer took them with him. There was no assumption that they would be found ditched in the streets surrounding the crime scene.

So when it all comes down to it, the guy cut off half of her apron. Why? Well if it was to clean up, why wouldn't he have simply dropped it at the crime scene? Or very near the crime scene, like in one of the alleys? Running three or four blocks while scrubbing up is INSANELY risky. The safe assumption is that if he used it to clean up, he would drop it at the scene. If he used it to carry something, presumable he still needed it to carry something four blocks away. I mean, what happened on Ghoulston street that he suddenly could take a uterus or whatever out of the cloth and put in something else? Did he find a bag? If he did, why not shove the uterus in the bag cloth and all? Why ditch the cloth? So it wouldn't be outlandish to assume that if it wasn't at the scene, it was on him somewhere. It makes sense.

And that's the real mystery of the apron. Why did he need it for four blocks, and then no longer need it? Why not ditch it three blocks away? or five? Why not drop it in the river, throw it in the fire, drop it on some passed out guy on the street to frame a stranger? Why was Ghoulston st. special? In my mind, there is nothing to be gained from dodging patrols to ditch an apron at a specific house. And if I were going to write something on a wall and drop evidence there, I would either choose a very symbolic wall, or one where I had the least chance of getting caught. Neither of those apply to Ghoulston. So for me the entire act seems too random and ill planned. I happen to think the graffiti was already there. It fits the general tenor of popular graffiti being vague threats. And it seems odd he would stop to write something, risk getting caught, and not at all refer to his crimes. But for me, the real mystery is why drop the apron there of all places. And if he didn't drop it there, how did it get there?

[Errata]

Errata, I'm not picking on you, just using your post as a springboard; anyway, here's a "riddle me": under the kind of light they would have in the mortuary, how would they be able to tell that the apron was recently torn, or cut? as far as they would know, it might have been torn a long time ago. I'm not sure their immediate assumption was that it was cut by the killer. I'm guessing that it was finding the missing piece later that led them to that conclusion.

I can believe it caught the policeman's eye, if it were white, albeit soiled, and if it really hadn't been there the last time around, no matter how it got there.

Actually it's pretty easy to determine if cloth was cut recently or not, though I'm not sure the mortuary staff would have thought of it. Fresh cloth cuts are not frayed. Old ones are. Which is one of those things everyone knows, but it has to occur to you, and those kinds of things often don't. It's like when Americans spent hundreds of thousands of dollar creating a pen that would write in the vacuum of space, while the Russians simply used a pencil.

Personally, I don't know that the apron wasn't there on his first patrol. I know that cops would walk heir beats on the left, and the then next time around on the right. If he was on the other side of the street, his light simply may not have penetrated the doorway enough. On his next round being on the same side of the street as the building, he may have seen the apron and the graffiti. The writing was on the inside door jamb, so walking the same way the graffiti is facing, you won't see it because you wouldn't look behind you. Coming back around the opposite way, the graffiti is facing you, so you see it. But since he describes it as "catching his eye" I don't think he was specifically looking for the apron. I think it was a stroke of luck that he saw it at all. Which is why I don't think the killer was planning on a cop finding it so he could send a message. The delivery system was too chancy.

[Chava]

It was Shabbes, too, wasn't it? I think erasing graffiti, no matter how anti-Semitic, was muktzeh Shabbes.

It was muktzeh as all hell. That graffito would have stayed intact until at least 8.00 pm on Saturday evening. I well remember an argument over cutting my daughter's birthday cake on a Shabbes. Because of the 'Happy Birthday' written on it...

[RivkahChaya]

Actually it's pretty easy to determine if cloth was cut recently or not, though I'm not sure the mortuary staff would have thought of it.

Well, yeah, and to see whether it was cut before or after she was killed, maybe by blood streaks. But, two points: it could have been torn very recently, and still not by the killer; and I'm sure they would have noticed right away whether the cloth was recently cut, by the light of day, but what kind of light did the mortuary have at 3am? the second was more what I was getting at in my post.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

There really shouldnt be speculation that the killer dropped the apron on his way home after leaving Mitre Square, at least not by any students here.....after all, Long didnt say he didnt notice the apron section at 2:20ish, he said "It was not there",...kinda definitive in that regard. The apron section match was easily accomplished since the cut/tear of the section separated a newly repaired section of it.

So....the facts are, for them that follow those kinds of tedious things, that the apron section was from Kate and it was not dropped off by the killer while still performing his egress. It doesnt take 45 or more minutes to get from Mitre Square to Goulston for one, and its hardly feasible that the man walked about the streets carrying that cloth around for that length of time. UNLESS, of course, he was a cop and at both sites.

Sometimes when you sit back for a mo you see the most outrageous arguments come forward without any regard for the above known facts.

Perhaps why the killer needed the apron section at all is more relevant as to why it appears where it does and when.

Best regards

[Stewart P Evans]

Apron

An observation on the piece of apron.

[Michael W Richards]

An observation on the piece of apron.

[ATTACH]15156[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]15157[/ATTACH]

Hello Stewart,

I hope this welcome addition isnt out of concern that my post disparaged Policemen, I certainly dont consider that the likely answer here. Very nice to see you posting again Mr E.

The first attachment though performs what I consider to be an illogical calculation....that the PC was either wrong, or he lied later when he learned of the actual time of the murder and the probability that if the killer dropped it on his way directly from the scene it would have been there by 2:00am. Perhaps then we might assume something similar from PC Harvey, who by his own time, should have been there while or as the killer was leaving.

Ive suggested some things about some senior police because I know they had multiple mandates and practiced secrecy and diversions, but in general, I have never considered any of the street level officers willing to fudge things like what they saw or didnt see. Despite any career implications. PC Long stated it was not there....I believe him.

Perhaps Mr Dew stretched about room 13...but thats it.

My best regards and a pleasure to speak with you again.

[lynn cates]

too long

Hello Michael. Thanks.

"I feel the killer dropped/placed the apron along his escape route."

And that is the natural assumption. But that is FAR too long to wipe one's hands.

Cheers.
LC