The Goulston Street Apron

[The Good Michael]

Of course it's possible the killer didn't know he had the apron.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

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..

(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

The OJs glove theory?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Abby,

To be perfectly honest.. I don't actually know what you mean.. I presume you mean OJ Simpson?
In which case I never followed that case at all, and have no idea about it in any way!

My apologies!

Phil

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

To be perfectly honest.. I don't actually know what you mean.. I presume you mean OJ Simpson?
In which case I never followed that case at all, and have no idea about it in any way!

My apologies!

Phil

Hi Phil
A bloody glove was found at OJs residence. The defence argued the police planted it.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Abby,

Thank you. I honestly didn't follow that case at all. Being English, living in Norway, American Football stars weren't that big at the time here as now.
There was very little coverage of it on tv here, then.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Abby,

Now in understanding your post.. I can reply.

The letter that Simon presented us with shows a question that is clearly a worry coming from a high ranking person from inside the establishment.

It uses the word "onlookers".

Now, before the doctors arrived, which is the only time (other than the murderer himself, or an accomplice at the same time) that the rag could have been whisked away.

(I am writing, just so this is made clear, in reference to the letter Simon posted, not my personal opinion)

Now when the body was discovered, the policeman who found it went to a nightwatchman who accompanied said policeman back to the body with his lamp. He, the nightwatchman, then scurried off to get more policemen.
When they arrived shortly afterwards, said nightwatchman went into his warehouse again. That left a bunch of policemen, surrounding the body.

Said policemen, except a couple, were sent off in all directions to look for a killer.

Now the only time any person was known to be alone with the body was whilst the nightwatchman went off blowing his whistle, and when there were only policemen at the scene.

These are the only times there were "onlookers"..before the doctors arrived, I believe. If there is a mention of general members of the public (and I seem to remember one mention at some time).. then there too we have an onlooker.

Seems to me that the greatest percentage of who would be classed as an onlooker is a policeman?

That raises the points I mentioned in a previous post. It is an internal question and observation. As to whom could have transported said rag to Goulston Street, is for others to make their mind up on.

Phil

[caz]

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.

Hi Chava,

I thought it was you who agreed with me that the proud Jewish occupants of the brand spanking new Model Dwellings would have kept their entrances clear of rubbish, and the walls clear of graffiti, and that therefore the apron piece and message were probably both left in the early hours of that Sunday morning (before market time) when the occupants were tucked up in bed. Now you seem to be saying that the place would have been awash with garbage, so the large, bloody and foul-smelling apron piece could easily have escaped PC Long's notice first time round.

Much as it pains me to agree with Mike Richards on this one, if PC Long said the apron piece "wasn't there" earlier, I see little reason to disbelieve him. This was (literally) material evidence of the most serious of crimes and Long's testimony provided a vital clue to when the killer would have passed along Goulston Street. Long didn't know about the murders when he spotted the apron piece in that entrance; he thought the blood on it might signify a violent crime had been committed in the immediate vicinity. He evidently didn't think it was possible for him to have missed such a thing earlier, or he could have said so and been believed. He and others were there to judge this from the item itself, its location when found and the state of the street and buildings generally; we were not.

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.

But once he has dumped the incriminating piece of cloth unseen, he becomes just a man with some chalk writing on a wall. He can leg it if he sees or hears anyone coming, but that would apply to whoever wrote it. I keep hearing about dogs and rats and even the wind carrying the apron piece away from its original resting place, so if the ripper is such a bright guy, he could use something else - belt and braces if you will - to keep the focus firmly on the Jews in that building, just in case the cloth is taken away by animals, blown several blocks away by a freak gale, disposed of by a disgusted returning resident or simply lies there unnoticed among the piles of other rubbish. What better than a bit of inflammatory doggerel to keep everyone guessing?

Love,

Caz
X

[Chava]

I thought it was you who agreed with me that the proud Jewish occupants of the brand spanking new Model Dwellings would have kept their entrances clear of rubbish, and the walls clear of graffiti, and that therefore the apron piece and message were probably both left in the early hours of that Sunday morning (before market time) when the occupants were tucked up in bed. Now you seem to be saying that the place would have been awash with garbage, so the large, bloody and foul-smelling apron piece could easily have escaped PC Long's notice first time round.

Yes, except you are taking the particular and using it as the general I'm sure the Goulston Street Tenement housewives would have removed any rubbish and expunged any graffiti from around their front door first chance they got. Which as RivkahChaya has pointed out wouldn't be until sundown on Saturday. But that doesn't mean that the whole area was free of garbage. I imagine there were all sorts of bits and pieces on the pavements and in the road. The housewives would have taken care of their own front steps but not the entire street. And I don't think PC Long would have spend a ton of time with each recessed entrance on his beat. Probably just a fast shine of the bulls-eye lantern to make sure there wasn't a tramp or a murdered whore lying in there and on his way. He misses it the first time and sees it the second time. If he says 'It might have been there before. I can't swear to it' he gets into trouble. Much easier and safer to say 'It wasn't there.' That way there's no come-back.

[caz]

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

Er, because he thought she was soliciting but she wasn't interested? And his failure to entice her anywhere he could mutilate in peace made him slit her throat in frustration and head off towards the City?

No matter how many brutal killers armed with lethal weapons we think were abroad in Whitechapel that year, none of them seems the type to be trifled with by their victim. But particularly, would a dangerous and determined knifeman, hell-bent on mutilation, have simply shrugged his shoulders and said to an unresponsive Stride: "Please yourself, love, have a nice day"? Doesn't seem too likely to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[GregBaron]

A fine breakfast...

Maybe the killer went to his bolt-hole carrying his goodies in the apron, he then fried up some lovely kidney and onions, very nise, got cleaned up a bit and then headed out in the night to ditch the evidence and tie it to the hated Jews.

This presumes a few things surely, like having a residence, but it’s possible, he could have even accomplished this in a Doss house.

Is this risky, of course it is!, but so is carving up a female under the eyes of a watchman and on the beat of several bobbies…


Greg

[caz]

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.

Hi Garry,

But the GSG wasn't unambiguous, and it wasn't left at a crime scene, but on the killer's apparent route from a crime scene (apparent, thanks to the apron piece). So maybe that ought to be telling us something. Maybe the writer designed the message to be ambiguous, to keep the cops sniffing round the Wentworth Model Dwellings and trying to figure out what it might be telling them. If the killer was living nearby he probably didn't fancy the idea of bloodhounds following the smell of the apron from Mitre Square to his own door, but if they were kept fully occupied in Goulston Street along with the cops playing riddle-me-ree with the message, he could sleep easier. He wouldn't have known whether or not the recent rumours of using bloodhounds were true.

Why would the Kelly crime scene even need to come into it?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'm sure the Goulston Street Tenement housewives would have removed any rubbish and expunged any graffiti from around their front door first chance they got. Which as RivkahChaya has pointed out wouldn't be until sundown on Saturday. But that doesn't mean that the whole area was free of garbage. I imagine there were all sorts of bits and pieces on the pavements and in the road. The housewives would have taken care of their own front steps but not the entire street. And I don't think PC Long would have spend a ton of time with each recessed entrance on his beat. Probably just a fast shine of the bulls-eye lantern to make sure there wasn't a tramp or a murdered whore lying in there and on his way. He misses it the first time and sees it the second time. If he says 'It might have been there before. I can't swear to it' he gets into trouble. Much easier and safer to say 'It wasn't there.' That way there's no come-back.

Hi Chava,

I believe the Dwellings took up most of one side of the street, so I'm not sure how that might affect your argument about rubbish being everywhere except immediately in and around the actual entrances to the building.

Regarding PC Long's sighting of the apron, I think it all depends on just how noticeable it would have been. He did admit that the message could have been there earlier and he could have missed it. So if the apron piece was relatively small, and just one of several items of rubbish, he could presumably have made the same admission without getting into trouble, but he didn't. It would have been hard to say the same about the apron piece if it stuck out like a sore thumb in an otherwise spotless entrance, but then it would also have been hard for him to miss it on his earlier round in that case, had it been there then.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Now in understanding your post.. I can reply.

The letter that Simon presented us with shows a question that is clearly a worry coming from a high ranking person from inside the establishment.

It uses the word "onlookers".

Now, before the doctors arrived, which is the only time (other than the murderer himself, or an accomplice at the same time) that the rag could have been whisked away.

(I am writing, just so this is made clear, in reference to the letter Simon posted, not my personal opinion)

Now when the body was discovered, the policeman who found it went to a nightwatchman who accompanied said policeman back to the body with his lamp. He, the nightwatchman, then scurried off to get more policemen.
When they arrived shortly afterwards, said nightwatchman went into his warehouse again. That left a bunch of policemen, surrounding the body.

Said policemen, except a couple, were sent off in all directions to look for a killer.

Now the only time any person was known to be alone with the body was whilst the nightwatchman went off blowing his whistle, and when there were only policemen at the scene.

These are the only times there were "onlookers"..before the doctors arrived, I believe. If there is a mention of general members of the public (and I seem to remember one mention at some time).. then there too we have an onlooker.

Seems to me that the greatest percentage of who would be classed as an onlooker is a policeman?

That raises the points I mentioned in a previous post. It is an internal question and observation. As to whom could have transported said rag to Goulston Street, is for others to make their mind up on.

Phil

seems to me he is just asking if there is any chance that any "lookers on" (not police or the killer) could have taken the apron piece from Mitre to Goulston

[Abby Normal]

Hi Chava,

I thought it was you who agreed with me that the proud Jewish occupants of the brand spanking new Model Dwellings would have kept their entrances clear of rubbish, and the walls clear of graffiti, and that therefore the apron piece and message were probably both left in the early hours of that Sunday morning (before market time) when the occupants were tucked up in bed. Now you seem to be saying that the place would have been awash with garbage, so the large, bloody and foul-smelling apron piece could easily have escaped PC Long's notice first time round.

Much as it pains me to agree with Mike Richards on this one, if PC Long said the apron piece "wasn't there" earlier, I see little reason to disbelieve him. This was (literally) material evidence of the most serious of crimes and Long's testimony provided a vital clue to when the killer would have passed along Goulston Street. Long didn't know about the murders when he spotted the apron piece in that entrance; he thought the blood on it might signify a violent crime had been committed in the immediate vicinity. He evidently didn't think it was possible for him to have missed such a thing earlier, or he could have said so and been believed. He and others were there to judge this from the item itself, its location when found and the state of the street and buildings generally; we were not.



But once he has dumped the incriminating piece of cloth unseen, he becomes just a man with some chalk writing on a wall. He can leg it if he sees or hears anyone coming, but that would apply to whoever wrote it. I keep hearing about dogs and rats and even the wind carrying the apron piece away from its original resting place, so if the ripper is such a bright guy, he could use something else - belt and braces if you will - to keep the focus firmly on the Jews in that building, just in case the cloth is taken away by animals, blown several blocks away by a freak gale, disposed of by a disgusted returning resident or simply lies there unnoticed among the piles of other rubbish. What better than a bit of inflammatory doggerel to keep everyone guessing?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Much as it pains me to agree with Mike Richards on this one, if PC Long said the apron piece "wasn't there" earlier, I see little reason to disbelieve him. This was (literally) material evidence of the most serious of crimes and Long's testimony provided a vital clue to when the killer would have passed along Goulston Street. Long didn't know about the murders when he spotted the apron piece in that entrance; he thought the blood on it might signify a violent crime had been committed in the immediate vicinity. He evidently didn't think it was possible for him to have missed such a thing earlier, or he could have said so and been believed. He and others were there to judge this from the item itself, its location when found and the state of the street and buildings generally; we were not.

Yup
1. He did not say I might have missed it or I did not look. He said it wasn't there the first time around.
2. It was not a small piece of cloth that could have easily been missed. and I beleive was white which would have made it also easier to see.
3. When he found it the second time around he still had not heard of the murders so was not in a more heightened state of alertness than the first time.
evrything seems to point to it not being there the first time he walked past.

But once he has dumped the incriminating piece of cloth unseen, he becomes just a man with some chalk writing on a wall. He can leg it if he sees or hears anyone coming, but that would apply to whoever wrote it.

as i have said before dumping the cloth and writing the GSG may have been nothing in the killers mind in terms of risk seeing what he was used to getting away with.

[Abby Normal]

Er, because he thought she was soliciting but she wasn't interested? And his failure to entice her anywhere he could mutilate in peace made him slit her throat in frustration and head off towards the City?

No matter how many brutal killers armed with lethal weapons we think were abroad in Whitechapel that year, none of them seems the type to be trifled with by their victim. But particularly, would a dangerous and determined knifeman, hell-bent on mutilation, have simply shrugged his shoulders and said to an unresponsive Stride: "Please yourself, love, have a nice day"? Doesn't seem too likely to me.

Love,

Caz
X

especially if he had spent any of his time or money on her.