The Goulston Street Apron

[RivkahChaya]

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 know; however, the apron is missing, and something happened to it. The fecal matter convinces me pretty well that the killer cut the apron, and Eddowes didn't rip it on a nail, or something, while getting drunk earlier in the evening.

Anyway, the fact that is that the apron is missing. We know hat because of the half left behind. We don't have analogous situations with other victims, because, in Eddowes, we have a torn apron, but if the killer removed something entirely, not leaving half behind, we'd probably never know.

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...

Since Eddowes wasn't healthy, she may have had a really strong odor to her, well, anyway. I've dealt with colostomy bags, and sometimes the smell can be pretty powerful, although I have no idea whether that has something to do with being at a different place in the digestive process that we usually get a whiff of.

What I'm getting at, is that in addition to the usual human aversion to crap, maybe the odor was especially strong, and the killer didn't want it giving him away. As to why he didn't clean entirely at the scene, maybe he heard footsteps, or just got paranoid. Also, a stimulus that worries us can loom bigger in our senses than it really is, so if the thought occurred to him that the odor would give him away, it might have smelled pretty strong to him.

I know that people tend to make sort of a super-villain out of JTR, as someone who wasn't afraid of risks, or the police, or a little crap on his hands, but that may not have been the case. If he was driven by a really strong compulsion, it may have overcome fears of being caught, but then, and soon as it was satisfied, fears may have returned, so he very well could have become suddenly paranoid, as soon as the "event" was over. I put it that way, because I don't know what made it "over" for him. Not the woman's actual death. Pulling an organ out of her? the body becoming cold? But, the event went all the way from selecting a victim to some end point after she was dead, and his emotional state, and ability to worry about getting caught could have changed dramatically during the event, from what it was on either side of it.

[Prosector]

The Goulston Street Apron

If he simply wanted to clean his hands or the knife why would he not have done so on the apron where it was without cutting a section away? It would have taken less time than cutting part of it away. I believe that he removed it and dropped it where he did because he wanted it to be connected to the killing and in turn to the graffito. The Wentworth Model Dwellings were, I think, deliberately chosen by him because they were home to a large number of Jews.

Prosector

[lynn cates]

scarf

Hello Jon.

"I seem to recall someone discovering that Chapman was missing her scarf?"

Do you recall when it was last seen?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

attention

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

"in Eddowes, we have a torn apron, but if the killer removed something entirely, not leaving half behind, we'd probably never know."

Of course, taking a cloth is small beer. I mean we have no other case of LEAVING a cloth, and in a prominent place, possibly to call attention to the deed.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

risky move

Hello Prosecutor.

"I believe that he removed it and dropped it where he did because he wanted it to be connected to the killing and in turn to the graffito. The Wentworth Model Dwellings were, I think, deliberately chosen by him because they were home to a large number of Jews."

Possibly so. But certainly an EXTREMELY risky move.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

I know that people tend to make sort of a super-villain out of JTR, as someone who wasn't afraid of risks, or the police, or a little crap on his hands, but that may not have been the case.

Actually, most people on this site would say the opposite, that the killer would have been nondescript. If he hadn't been afraid of the police, he would have been caught I believe. Fear of being stopped is one thing that seems to prevail over any of these OCD tendencies some killers have.

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

Bearing in mind the present discussion, I thought I’d post the following extract from my book:-

‘On 30 September, 1888, the Ripper departed Mitre Square with a portion of Kate Eddowes’ apron, an item that he subsequently discarded in a Goulston Street vestibule. Though much speculation surrounds this act, any notion that its purpose was to provide the means for removing bloodsmears during the escape may be safely discounted. Had he felt inclined to wipe clean his hands and knife, the killer could have done so by using Kate’s clothing at the crime scene. That this could have been accomplished in much the same time as was required to liberate the piece of apron infers that the theft was motivated by some other consideration.

Setting aside any potentiality that the remnant was taken in order to authenticate the Goulston Street message, it might be borne in mind that a kidney and uterus were abducted. This, of course, was by no means the first time the Ripper had taken away souvenir body parts. Hence it seems logical to assume that his previous experience with Annie Chapman had alerted him to the danger that freshly extracted viscera are prone to fluid seepage – leakage that in turn transmits trace evidence on to clothing. This naturally invites the possibility that the remnant was used to wrap up the internal organs, providing his apparel with an element of protection as he made his getaway. Once in Goulston Street the organs were probably transferred to a handkerchief, while the remnant, having served its purpose, was discarded in a convenient doorway.’

I would further suggest that the issue of the faecal matter is a red herring, since the killer could have washed away any such contamination in a nearby horse trough, public sink, or even in the puddles that had collected due to the prevailing weather conditions on the night of the Eddowes murder. Thus the only explanation that makes sense is that the killer learned from the Chapman crime and took away the apron remnant as a means of protecting his clothing on the homeward journey from Mitre Square.

[Prosector]

The Goulston Street Apron

Garry

I quite agree that he would not have cut away a piece of the apron merely to wipe his hands - much quicker to do it on the spot. I don't agree that it was for purposes of transporting viscera. As he already had the experience of Annie Chapman behind him, if he needed anything he would surely have brought it with him, handkerdchief or even newspaper (think fish and chips). It seems much more intentional to me and why not to link the killing to the graffito? Writing in 1896 Chief Inspector Henry Moore, Abberline's deputy in 1888, wrote that the phrase 'The Jews are the people that are blamed for nothing' used in the Dear Boss letter that had just been received was almost identical with the Goulston Street graffito which was 'undoubtedly by the murderer.'

Prosector

[Abby Normal]

Garry

I quite agree that he would not have cut away a piece of the apron merely to wipe his hands - much quicker to do it on the spot. I don't agree that it was for purposes of transporting viscera. As he already had the experience of Annie Chapman behind him, if he needed anything he would surely have brought it with him, handkerdchief or even newspaper (think fish and chips). It seems much more intentional to me and why not to link the killing to the graffito? Writing in 1896 Chief Inspector Henry Moore, Abberline's deputy in 1888, wrote that the phrase 'The Jews are the people that are blamed for nothing' used in the Dear Boss letter that had just been received was almost identical with the Goulston Street graffito which was 'undoubtedly by the murderer.'

Prosector

Hi prosecuter
I beleive that was actually the letter received in 1896, in which the letter writer wrote a phrase almost exactly as that in the GSG.

I find that letter very interesting. They compared it to dear boss letter and although there were many similarities they ultimately decided it was a hoax.

But it shows several things:
1. the police as late as 1896 still did not who jack the ripper was-the case was still unsolved.(despite what Anderson, swanson, and MM said)
2. they still had not dis regarded the Dear boss letter and postcard as hoax.
3. and pertaining to this thread-that at least some in the police force thought the GSG was written by the killer

and I agree with the rest of your post. If he had learned from chapman murder he needed something extra he would have brought it. And if you believe that Lawende saw Eddowes with the killer (IMHO Ithink he probably did) then that man (sailor man)already had a hankercheif around his neck with which he could have used, even if he had forgotton/lost/not brought something else.

I can find no other explanation that makes sense for cutting away a portion of her apron, other than to validate that the graffito was written by the killer.

[Prosector]

Goulston Street Apron

Yes, that was the letter. As you probably know, the original is missing like so many other things to do with JTR but I have read the MEPO file in the National Archives and Moore finally rejected it as not being by the original Dear Boss writer ONLY because it was sent to Commercial Street Police Station and not to Central News. He thought that otherwise there were similarities between the handwriting in this letter and the originals. Bulling, the journalist at Central News that some people think had written the originals, had been sacked a few months before this letter was received. Maybe the writer knew that and decided to send it to a police station instead. Possibly it was Bulling himself but in that case why didn't he send it to his ex-employers?

Prosector

[caz]

Hi Caz

Good point...though I wonder whether the custom in those days might've been to put out the dog at night (much as later generations put out the cat)...I do think, in certain circles, dogs might've been put out to fend for/feed themselves during the day...but at night? Anyone know?

All the best

Dave

PS The fact that strays couldn't muzzle themselves wouldn't stop parliament passing a useless, innefective, kneejerk law...the one reassuring thing about politicians is their consistency (usually thick and sticky).

Ha ha, nice one Dave.

If we had put our labrador out for two seconds, day or night, she would have been off across the Purley Way (if not run over) and gone, and we'd have relied on someone finding her and bringing her back!

Love,

Caz
X

[Chava]

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

Why didn't he?

He didn't have the time. He'd only just killed her when someone came in on him. Which is why I think he dropped his carry-all in the rush to get away.

[lynn cates]

disturbed?

Hello Chava. Thanks.

"He'd only just killed her when someone came in on him."

Whom? Liz likely died at 12.45, according to the IWMEC. So, a club member through the side door?

"Which is why I think he dropped his carry-all in the rush to get away."

OK. But why was it not found?

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

I quite agree that he would not have cut away a piece of the apron merely to wipe his hands - much quicker to do it on the spot. I don't agree that it was for purposes of transporting viscera. As he already had the experience of Annie Chapman behind him, if he needed anything he would surely have brought it with him, handkerdchief or even newspaper (think fish and chips).

The killer had no need of such preparation, Prosector, when the skirts and aprons of his victims provided more than ample material for a makeshift parcel.

It seems much more intentional to me and why not to link the killing to the graffito? Writing in 1896 Chief Inspector Henry Moore, Abberline's deputy in 1888, wrote that the phrase 'The Jews are the people that are blamed for nothing' used in the Dear Boss letter that had just been received was almost identical with the Goulston Street graffito which was 'undoubtedly by the murderer.'

Moore was expressing an opinion, Prosector. No more; no less. The simple fact of the matter is that Moore had no more idea than the next man as to whether the Whitechapel Murderer authored the Juwes message. If the killer really had wished to leave an unambiguous message for his police adversaries, he had ample time and opportunity to do so at the Kelly crime scene. That he didn't ought perhaps to be telling us something.

[Phil Carter]

Bearing in mind the present discussion, I thought I’d post the following extract from my book:-

‘On 30 September, 1888, the Ripper departed Mitre Square with a portion of Kate Eddowes’ apron, an item that he subsequently discarded in a Goulston Street vestibule. Though much speculation surrounds this act, any notion that its purpose was to provide the means for removing bloodsmears during the escape may be safely discounted. Had he felt inclined to wipe clean his hands and knife, the killer could have done so by using Kate’s clothing at the crime scene. That this could have been accomplished in much the same time as was required to liberate the piece of apron infers that the theft was motivated by some other consideration.

Setting aside any potentiality that the remnant was taken in order to authenticate the Goulston Street message, it might be borne in mind that a kidney and uterus were abducted. This, of course, was by no means the first time the Ripper had taken away souvenir body parts. Hence it seems logical to assume that his previous experience with Annie Chapman had alerted him to the danger that freshly extracted viscera are prone to fluid seepage – leakage that in turn transmits trace evidence on to clothing. This naturally invites the possibility that the remnant was used to wrap up the internal organs, providing his apparel with an element of protection as he made his getaway. Once in Goulston Street the organs were probably transferred to a handkerchief, while the remnant, having served its purpose, was discarded in a convenient doorway.’

I would further suggest that the issue of the faecal matter is a red herring, since the killer could have washed away any such contamination in a nearby horse trough, public sink, or even in the puddles that had collected due to the prevailing weather conditions on the night of the Eddowes murder. Thus the only explanation that makes sense is that the killer learned from the Chapman crime and took away the apron remnant as a means of protecting his clothing on the homeward journey from Mitre Square.

Hello Garry,

Thank you for quoting from your book, which is one that many should read, imo.

Now a small question for you, and others to mull over.

Let us say, for the sake of this discussion, that the killer took the apron piece to Goulston Street, using it to transport any said pieces of the body.

Having done this, the apron piece is disposed of.

Now logic would tell me that he cannot transport said body parts a further distance without his means of transportation which keeps both himself and his clothes free from blood stains, etc. In other words, to carry anything further would mean him having to hold the item(s) in his hands.

So then I ask the obvious question. If the killer lived in the vicinity of the building where the apron piece was found, he is actually leaving a trail all the way to his door.(alomost)..is he not? No killer leaves a deliberate trail straight to his place of abode. And in this case, JTR was a person trying to outwit the police at every given opportunity.


I believe therefore that whoever transported the apron was either

a) not in posession of any body parts from the murdered woman

or

b) was carrying the body parts in another way, using the apron piece to wipe his hands only.


If a) is correct, then the reasoning behind the thought in the letter that Simon produced at the start of this thread becomes clearer.

If b) is correct, then the description given by Lawende becomes even more difficult to explain, as no bag, or black bag, I believe, was seen in that person's posession. Of course that person could have put said body part(s) in a coat or jacket pocket.

Also..

If a) is correct, then we have a slight problem. Did the carrier of the apron piece wipe his hands on it or not? I can see here the possible hoax scenario which is being looked at. Whoever carried that apron piece to Goulston Street planted it exactly where it was because either he knew that the writing was there on that wall, or wrote the writing on the wall himself, knowing it was a tenament block that housed Jewish familes.

In other words a plant. A deliberate plant.

That would tie in with the previously known rumours and police activity surrounding the suspicion that the murderer was a Jew. It also brilliantly detracts attention away from anyone else, which is exactly what this murderer wanted to do...fool the police.

The question remains however, from reading the letter, of exactly who could have taken the apron piece from the scene of the murder, if one of the bystanders did it and not the murderer.

I quote part of the letter again..

... 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.

(my emphasis)

there are 4 parts to this..

1) "except the murderer"..meaning a.n.other person..could mean an accomplice, could mean an onlooker.

2) "and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers on as a hoax, " answers 1)

3) "if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting" ....here we have no evidence that this piece of apron was observed missing at the scene of the crime.

4) "that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found "... here we have no observation that the piece was lying seperately with the corpse.

I have to say, that in the matter of whom could have taken it, there are very few people that actually had access to the piece other than a few policeman, and a nightwatchman. As the doctors came to the square, and didn't leave before the apron piece was found, they can hardly be counted in.

If it was a hoax, or a plant, (deliberate), and not done by the murderer, we have the possibility of an accomplice, or someone deliberately causing a hoax.


Personally, I can see why an accompilce would wipe his hands on the apron piece, as I can see a hoaxer doing it too. Of course, I can also see a murderer doing the same thing.

This letter is revealing in the sense that there may have been, from within the force or government, a suspicion of involvement of a policeman of sorts.

It isn't quite as impossible or fantastic as one would think. It certainly isn't sensationalism either, given the source of the letter.

Phil