Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Goulston Street Apron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What fascinates me is the piece of cloth/pouch/whatever that he probably dropped in the vicinity of the Stride murder and which was never noticed by the police or anyone else. Because I think the Ripper came prepared. He took organs from Annie Chapman's body yet there did not seem to be any blood trail in the hallway to the front door, and I very much doubt he dropped a dripping piece of unpleasantness in his jacket pocket if for no other reason than the pocket would start to reek very quickly and wouldn't have been easy to clean. A piece of American cloth would have come in handy here, or any piece of oiled and reinforced cloth/flexible canvas/whatever. But I suspect he dropped that while running from the Stride murder--where he was clearly surprised and could have been caught had the cart fetched up a couple of seconds earlier. So he needs something to convey the organs he takes from Eddowes. The apron is there and handy. But just because it was found in the Goulston Street location, that does not tell us for sure that it was dropped there by intention or even by accident.

    Right now there is quite a bit of circular thinking going on in my opinion and it is something like this:

    - The piece of apron was found underneath an anti-semitic graffito implicating the Jews in some kind of unspecified nefarious act. So it was placed there for a purpose which was to point the police towards the Jews for the Whitechapel murders. So the graffito was written specifically by the Ripper in order to place the incriminating evidence beneath it.

    The apron is irrefutable evidence. Anyone caught with it will go to trial and almost certainly hang. The graffito could have been written by anyone at any time. PC Long says he didn't see either but chances are, the first time through the area, he wasn't looking and who could blame him? And who would expect him to notice one piece of rubbish in a street--hey, a whole district--full of rubbish. Goulston Street is near the market. It would have been much more noticeable if there were not pieces of garbage floating around.

    As for why it took so long to get rid of it, I assume there was an contents transfer somewhere and then he made it his business to go for a walk and when no one was looking, chuck that fatal piece of cloth into some dark corner and then keep on walking as fast and as far away as possible. As for the graffito, put yourselves in his position. He has in his hands the instrument of his own demise. How long do you think he would hang around in its proximity? Long enough to fish a handy piece of chalk out of his pocket and compose a graffito blaming someone else? The Ripper is a bright guy. The cloth itself points to the inhabitants of the Goulston Street tenement, all of whom are Jews. No need for anything else.

    Comment


    • planning and planning

      Hello Niko. Thanks.

      Ah! Now I see what you mean. So, no deep plans?

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • Holy Roman Empire

        Hello Michael. Thanks.

        If you will permit a whimsical paraphrase of Bertrand Lord Russell about that theory:

        1. It isn't holy.

        2. It isn't a triptych.

        3. It isn't terrifying (at least, not as a cornball theory).

        Other than that, it is aptly named. (heh-heh)

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
          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?
          Well, the cloth blowing there, and the cloth being dropped there, because it was getting too soaked with blood, were two different suggestions. But, really, blood, because it coagulates, dries faster than some people realize-- something blood-soaked doesn't dry slowly, like something wet with water. It's damp, then suddenly, it's stiff, and feels dry to the touch. Once he dropped the cloth, it would get still, and then probably be fairly aerodynamic.

          But really, the only things I'm pretty sure about are these: he wasn't running away, and wiping the knife at the same time (I think he'd know enough to stand still and wipe the knife), and it's additionally my personal opinion that if the sole reason for the cloth was to wipe the knife, it would be very close to the body, and probably not even cut from the apron; the graffiti and the cloth being together when they were found is entirely coincidence.

          Because of those things, I'm only inclined to entertain explanations that 1) suggest some reason for removing the piece of cloth other than wiping the knife; and 2) don't insist that the killer had anything to do with the graffito, and that the cloth was therefore put exactly there to be with the graffito.

          Now, two theories that satisfy those conditions might not mesh well (eg, that a blood-soaked cloth blew in the wind), but those were really separate ideas.

          The more I think about it, the more I think that wrapping up the kidney is the best suggestion I have ever heard for removing the cloth.

          Originally posted by Errata View Post
          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?"
          I've had a similar experience, but it was more along the lines of "Holy crap, how long has that tree been that tall?"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RivkahChaya View Post
            Well, the cloth blowing there, and the cloth being dropped there, because it was getting too soaked with blood, were two different suggestions. But, really, blood, because it coagulates, dries faster than some people realize-- something blood-soaked doesn't dry slowly, like something wet with water. It's damp, then suddenly, it's stiff, and feels dry to the touch. Once he dropped the cloth, it would get still, and then probably be fairly aerodynamic.
            Apart from being about the size of the average tallis. Which makes it a pretty stiff breeze indeed.
            The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Errata View Post
              Apart from being about the size of the average tallis. Which makes it a pretty stiff breeze indeed.
              "Average" tallis? Hmmmm. While they very a lot in size, I now realize that the missing piece was larger than I thought. Were the actual dimensions recorded anywhere? Even those small talliot that synagogues buy in bulk for visitors to use are the size of the towels I use to dry my hair. Some are as big as beach towels. People get married under them. I thought we were talking about something the size of a paper towel. One source I have says it was the corner of the apron, and yes, I realize aprons were bigger then.

              Comment


              • no analogy

                Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

                "The more I think about it, the more I think that wrapping up the kidney is the best suggestion I have ever heard for removing the cloth."

                OK. But surely we do not encounter an analogous situation with Annie?

                Cheers.
                LC

                Comment


                • It was nowhere near the size of any tallis I've seen except as RivkahChaya points out, the ones that are hung outside for visitors. However it's big enough. And when you think about it, a really big piece of linen would not be real helpful. Something handkerchief-sized, well that you can hold in your hand/ram into a pocket. But a really large piece of cloth is not going to be easy to conceal and is gonna flow out of your pocket or wave from your hand like a flag saying 'Here he is! The Ripper! Check out what he is carrying in me!!!'

                  Maybe we should rethink the whole purpose of this overly-large piece of cloth. It's really too big just to cart away a kidney or whatever. I get he cut the apron and it sheared away on a mend. But why didn't he just take his knife through it again? It wouldn't have taken a second and his knife is certainly sharp enough to cut it. Wandering through Whitechapel with a really large piece of cloth doesn't help him at all, and indicts him if some sharp copper picks him up and matches the cloth to Eddowes' apron.

                  Comment


                  • OK. But surely we do not encounter an analogous situation with Annie?
                    Well yes we do. Which, see my post above. The guy tends to come prepared. I'll bet he lost his handy little pouch in Berners Street and didn't have time to make another...

                    Comment


                    • Por que no?

                      Hello Chava. Thanks.

                      "I'll bet he lost his handy little pouch in Berner Street and didn't have time to make another..."

                      Very well. Then he intended to mutilate Liz and take a trophy?

                      Why didn't he?

                      Cheers.
                      LC

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                        Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

                        "The more I think about it, the more I think that wrapping up the kidney is the best suggestion I have ever heard for removing the cloth."

                        OK. But surely we do not encounter an analogous situation with Annie?

                        Cheers.
                        LC
                        I don't see how that conclusion can be drawn. No cloth was found which could be linked to Chapman. That doesn't mean none existed though.
                        I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                        Comment


                        • Now we are getting at one of the key questions here.......if the killer used the apron section to transport his "Eddowes takeway", and he was the same man that killed Annie, why would he not have taken measures before leaving his home to transport the organs he knew he was after? Why cut and rip in a silent echo chamber while standing over a woman youve just gutted? Wheres his hanky?

                          Seems to me an unplanned event....and the cutting of Kate colon section caused feces to be present..on his knife, perhaps his hands or gloves,...so perhaps he used the item he brought for the organs to clean his hands and knife...and then needed the carryall from Kate? Or... perhaps he didnt plan on taking organs at all, perhaps...in his hasty sloppy work, we see someone attempting to simulate acts without a clear objective. Like I humbly submit is present in spades with Polly and Annie...a targetted killer.

                          Best regards all

                          Comment


                          • Well, the cloth blowing there, and the cloth being dropped there, because it was getting too soaked with blood, were two different suggestions. But, really, blood, because it coagulates, dries faster than some people realize-- something blood-soaked doesn't dry slowly, like something wet with water. It's damp, then suddenly, it's stiff, and feels dry to the touch. Once he dropped the cloth, it would get still, and then probably be fairly aerodynamic.

                            But really, the only things I'm pretty sure about are these: he wasn't running away, and wiping the knife at the same time (I think he'd know enough to stand still and wipe the knife), and it's additionally my personal opinion that if the sole reason for the cloth was to wipe the knife, it would be very close to the body, and probably not even cut from the apron; the graffiti and the cloth being together when they were found is entirely coincidence.

                            Because of those things, I'm only inclined to entertain explanations that 1) suggest some reason for removing the piece of cloth other than wiping the knife; and 2) don't insist that the killer had anything to do with the graffito, and that the cloth was therefore put exactly there to be with the graffito.

                            Now, two theories that satisfy those conditions might not mesh well (eg, that a blood-soaked cloth blew in the wind), but those were really separate ideas.

                            The more I think about it, the more I think that wrapping up the kidney is the best suggestion I have ever heard for removing the cloth.
                            I always understood the apron piece to be at least approx half the size of the apron, (all that was left with the body was listed as "one piece of old white apron"), partially blood soaked, and also smeared with faeces...

                            This always gave me the feeling that perhaps the killer wasn't too bothered by blood, but having accidentally hacked into the colon (and hastily stuffed it down deep - at least I assume this is what the reference to the sigmoid flexure being invagilated is alll about), was sufficiently disturbed as to want to thoroughly clean the crap off his hands, out of his fingernails, cuticles and other crevices...hence the cloth...hence perhaps some at least of the time interval...

                            The rest perhaps being necessitated by the need for a chance to clean the worst of the "feculant matter" from his trophies too...otherwise they and his "shining moment" would surely be forever spoiled by the smelly mess?

                            Like Stewart and others, I think Long simply missed the apron piece at 2.20 and couldn't afford to subsequently admit to it...

                            All the best

                            Dave

                            Comment


                            • analogy, part 2

                              Hello Colin. Thanks.

                              "I don't see how that conclusion can be drawn. No cloth was found which could be linked to Chapman. That doesn't mean none existed though."

                              Quite. But I mean where a cloth was used and then dumped in a public place--possibly with graffiti annexed.

                              Cheers.
                              LC

                              Comment


                              • I seem to recall someone discovering that Chapman was missing her scarf?
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X