The Goulston Street Apron

[lynn cates]

alli

Hello Errata. Thanks

"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 fairly close by, say, the end of the passage whence he exited.

"Or very near the crime scene, like in one of the alleys? Running three or four blocks while scrubbing up is INSANELY risky."

Absolutely.

"So for me the entire act seems too random and ill planned."

Certainly true for the assassin.

"I happen to think the graffiti was already there."

As do I.

But still the apron was there. Why?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

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

Hi Lynn,

I obviously agree with you on that, ..I think there is only 1 of 2 possible answers here...one being that it was dropped on his way from Mitre Square...(the only reason I can imagine him keeping it so long after Mitre might be organs..ones that he found someplace else to store at or near the off Goulston doorway). OR,... that he went somewhere with the section right after the murder and later "dropped" it where and around the time it is found. Almost directly below graffiti seemingly bad mouthing Jewish men.

If PC Long said he did not see it, which he did, that doesnt mean the graffito wasnt there, just the apron section...Im sure he didnt look that closely first pass.

I believe Long, and therefore must conclude that the apron arrived after 2:20am and before approx 2:55am. Leaving us with about 35 minutes to as many as 70 minutes to explain away.

Cheers Lynn

[Errata]

Hi Lynn,

I obviously agree with you on that, ..I think there is only 1 of 2 possible answers here...one being that it was dropped on his way from Mitre Square...(the only reason I can imagine him keeping it so long after Mitre might be organs..ones that he found someplace else to store at or near the off Goulston doorway). OR,... that he went somewhere with the section right after the murder and later "dropped" it where and around the time it is found. Almost directly below graffiti seemingly bad mouthing Jewish men.

If PC Long said he did not see it, which he did, that doesnt mean the graffito wasnt there, just the apron section...Im sure he didnt look that closely first pass.

I believe Long, and therefore must conclude that the apron arrived after 2:20am and before approx 2:55am. Leaving us with about 35 minutes to as many as 70 minutes to explain away.

Cheers Lynn

It doesn't even mean the apron section wasn't there. It just means he didn't see it. If he was on the opposite side of the street for his 2:20 patrol, his lamp simply might not have been strong enough to penetrate the doorway. The apron was also described as being in the stairwell. Which means it would have been more recessed than simply being in the doorway. There was a lot of speculation about animals, but in this case... The killer could have wadded it up and thrown it in the stairwell out of sight. Which is why Long didn't see it. But then a rat or something smells the blood and starts dragging it out until it realizes that the cloth is too big to cart off. Which pulls the fabric out enough to be seen on Long's second patrol. Or it could have been hanging on the stairs and then gravity won and it fell to the ground. It could happen a lot of ways.

But none of that answers the basic question of why ditch the cloth there at all. I mean, if he wanted to keep it he could have shoved it down his pants and no one would be the wiser. Which actually might have been safer than ditching the cloth. Why keep it for four blocks?

[Abby Normal]

It doesn't even mean the apron section wasn't there. It just means he didn't see it. If he was on the opposite side of the street for his 2:20 patrol, his lamp simply might not have been strong enough to penetrate the doorway. The apron was also described as being in the stairwell. Which means it would have been more recessed than simply being in the doorway. There was a lot of speculation about animals, but in this case... The killer could have wadded it up and thrown it in the stairwell out of sight. Which is why Long didn't see it. But then a rat or something smells the blood and starts dragging it out until it realizes that the cloth is too big to cart off. Which pulls the fabric out enough to be seen on Long's second patrol. Or it could have been hanging on the stairs and then gravity won and it fell to the ground. It could happen a lot of ways.

But none of that answers the basic question of why ditch the cloth there at all. I mean, if he wanted to keep it he could have shoved it down his pants and no one would be the wiser. Which actually might have been safer than ditching the cloth. Why keep it for four blocks?

Hi Errata
My idea is that the ripper went out that night with murder on his mind but not leaving messages. After being disturbed by men that he knew were Jews he went and got a piece of chalk to leave a message about the men he was pissed off at and perhaps wanted to implicate, which would explain the time lapse between when the eddowes murder occurred and longs second trip in which he found it.
Long still had not heard of the murders during his second trip when he found it so I don't understand the reasoning that he was trying to save his butt. If he noticed it the second time, and nothing had changed his alertness between the two trips, why would he miss it the first time unless it was not there?

To answer your question, why keep it four blocks? Well my thought it is he kept it until he could get a piece of chalk, perhaps clean up a bit, drop off his knife and goodies, and then find a place a suitable distance away where he thought it was safe. He may have known there were a lot of Jews who lived there and perhaps he also chose it because it was the opposite direction from mitre square from where he lived.

[RivkahChaya]

But still the apron was there. Why?

Are there not gusts of wind, ever, in London? Couldn't a rag travel a block on a gust, or get blown, as Errata said, off the stairwell? JTR may have dropped the rag closer to the body, and it blew as far as Goulston, although, honestly, I don't think it makes sense for him to wipe his hands or the knife anywhere but right at the scene. I think it would take more time to cut apron, then to wipe the knife off on it without cutting it.

I like Michael R's idea that it was used to carry the kidney, and then I'd further suggest that maybe there was more blood in a kidney that JTR realized, and it started to soak through, so he's keeping his eyes open for a container, or newspaper, and he finds some on Goulston St. near the place where the rag was found. Why he left the rag, instead of wrapping the newspaper around the rag, I don't know. If what he found was a jar, or can, maybe the rag and kidney together didn't fit. Maybe it was too damp, and that's why he abandoned it for dry newspaper.

I'd think that the entrance to the projects might be a somewhat more likely place than another to find a container or some other discarded thing, especially if there were stairs, because people sit on stairs, with glasses, and newspapers, and occasionally forget them. Or maybe it was one of the pails people used for carrying beer.

But none of that answers the basic question of why ditch the cloth there at all. I mean, if he wanted to keep it he could have shoved it down his pants and no one would be the wiser. Which actually might have been safer than ditching the cloth. Why keep it for four blocks?

If he shoved it down his pants, and it worked its way out the cuff, right around Goulston, that actually sounds more believable to me than that he went home, and came back to deliberately leave the rag, or any of about 5 other scenarios where he leaves it on purpose.

[niko]

Possibility !

Hallo everyone, just a thought !! Us I personally think that the murderer was a planner, could there not be the possibility that he planned on taking the piece of apron intentionally to leave under the graffito that "HE" had written in the Jewish new tenerment buildings, for what reason, I don't know.

Niko

[lynn cates]

Danger Man

Hello Abby.

"Well my thought it is he kept it until he could get a piece of chalk, perhaps clean up a bit, drop off his knife and goodies, and then find a place a suitable distance away where he thought it was safe."

But would not all this shuttling back and forth between 3 or 4 locations, and in the midst of a manhunt involving 2 police entities, itself be dangerous?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

first

Hello Mike. Thanks.

If the apron were used for organ transport, surely that was a first?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

wind direction

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

Do large pieces of cloth, made heavy by liquid, blow far?

IF the cloth blew there, surely it was a result of a westerly or southwesterly wind. What direction was the wind blowing after the storm passage?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Be ye reconciled.

Hello Niko. Can one reconcile planning with:

1. Berner st

2. Mutilatus interruptus

3. Nondum satiatus?

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

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

Of course I meant 2:40. I'm glad that Stewart's message seems to back the idea of a policeman not necessarily looking for details, possibly missing the items the first time around and that of course there would be information disseminated regarding extant crimes.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby.

"Well my thought it is he kept it until he could get a piece of chalk, perhaps clean up a bit, drop off his knife and goodies, and then find a place a suitable distance away where he thought it was safe."

But would not all this shuttling back and forth between 3 or 4 locations, and in the midst of a manhunt involving 2 police entities, itself be dangerous?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
I am sure that compared to what he was used to doing and getting away with, doing the GSG was peanuts. Perhaps it even added to his pleasure and excitement.

[niko]

Hello Niko. Can one reconcile planning with:

1. Berner st

2. Mutilatus interruptus

3. Nondum satiatus?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, when I mean planus I mean that he had intentionus on going out to murder on them nightus,

Niko

[The Good Michael]

Hello Niko. Can one reconcile planning with:

1. Berner st

2. Mutilatus interruptus

3. Nondum satiatus?

Not that you necessarily worship at that particular holy triptych of terror.

Mike

[Errata]

Of course I meant 2:40. I'm glad that Stewart's message seems to back the idea of a policeman not necessarily looking for details, possibly missing the items the first time around and that of course there would be information disseminated regarding extant crimes.

Mike

There is also the idea of invisibility through mundanity. I can't tell you how many times I've been startled by a tree that had clearly been in the same spot for a good 30 years. One in my own front yard. Drove past that tree every day for 20 years, and then one day, "Holy crap how long has that tree been there?" It's not that I'd never seen the tree before, it just didn't assert itself sufficiently to gain my attention. I'd seen it, I knew it was there, it's not like I was ever in danger of walking smack into it. It just didn't... register.

Long may have seen it, but not seen it. It got filtered out as irrelevant as soon as it hit his brain. But on the next patrol, if he was on that side of the street, it may have registered enough to seem odd in some way. Or possibly valuable. And when he said he was positive it wasn't there earlier, he would have been telling the truth, but he was factually incorrect. The way these things work is that while we see objects, we don't register them as objects. We register them as pertinent or not pertinent. Something in our path is pertinent, something we are specifically looking for is pertinent, something that represents danger, something of potential value, etc. A flash of white at a distance may not register, while the same flash close up does register. It's the phenomenon of the junk drawer. If you are looking for something in the junk drawer, all the other stuff in there doesn't register. You don't see the deck of cards when you are looking for scissors.

Of course it all could be that he simply popped in the doorway to get out of the rain to light a cigarette. Which sounds somewhat less attentive than spotting a clue from 20 paces.