The Goulston Street Apron

[lynn cates]

procedure

Hello Errata. Thanks.

What I mean is, you have just cut the colon and hence an unpleasant flow has begun. You take the offending part and shove it aside--or inside.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have always thought that the killer used the cloth to wrap the organs in, but it's the question of what happened to them if the empty cloth is thrown in the doorway.
- Did he transfer them into something else, if so, why?, or...
- Did he arrive 'home', then return to the streets to dispose of the cloth? if so, why, and was there a reason he picked that doorway?

Alternately, if the cloth was not empty when it was thrown, did it hit the wall and the organs spill out? Only to disappear down the grate in front of the adjacent window? These grates often were deep in rubbish.
I would prefer to think the police would look, but if they never considered the cloth being used to carry the organs, then they had no reason to look down the grate.

.

I find it almost inconceivable that he would stop to unwrap the organs, throw away the cloth and then put the organs into his pockets; and continue down the street. Seems pointless.

The only plausible explanation I can think of is that he didn't expect the body to be found so quickly and as such thought he would have a stroll down the street unchallenged. He could well have heard whistles and commotion by the time he reached Goulston Street and decided that carrying the apron wasn't a good idea, and so discarded it - which may not have been planned if he thought the body would not have been discovered so soon.

I think the fact that the apron was found where it was lends itself towards this because it seems that he didn't simply run down the street and throw it away; he sought shelter/privacy to do what he did which suggests he needed it for at least a few seconds - and that would suggest some sort of operation such as unwrapping the organs.

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

What I mean is, you have just cut the colon and hence an unpleasant flow has begun. You take the offending part and shove it aside--or inside.

Cheers.
LC

Well he would have cut the colon while the uterus was still blocking access to it. In order to reach the offending part, he would have had to remove the uterus and then go back in, which if he was done with that particular piece of real estate doesn't make a lot of sense. Also at that part of the digestive tract, the waste is solid. It's not spraying about nor is it especially flowing. The majority of the solid waste that he would have to deal with would have been above the cut, in the piece of intestine that he cut out. The spraying stuff came from farther up the colon.

This is something that happens with extremely damaged tissue, like eaten with cancer or devastated by radiation kind of damage. It can also happen if there is a prolapse of some kind. Now her peritoneum was cut, though not cut through. It would weaken the muscle significantly. In a living person that would absolutely cause a prolapse. But in a dead person, all muscles are equally slack, so having one weak muscle isn't a factor.

And it's not like this is important in any kind of forensic sense. But the only way I know that this could happen is in a living person. And even that isn't important at this point, but Jesus. Her throat had been cut, possibly her face had already been mutilated, she had been cut open from sternum to pelvis and she was still alive when he was taking her uterus. Not conscious, maybe brain dead, but still. Basically I'm stuck on a minute and unimportant detail because the implications are kind of horrifying. I am all about finding a way for that to have happened after she died, because the alternative just makes me a little ill. I just don't think he did it. I don't think it looks the same if a person does it as it does when it happens on it's own. Never mind the fact I don't see him sticking his finger in poop the plug a hole that isn't so much leaking.

[Phil Carter]

I can see how the colon got cut then, but not pushed into the rectum so that it's folded up like a telescope.

Hello Errata,

Could we here have another reason for why the rag-piece was stained with faecal matter? And or why the hands were in need of said wiping?



Phil

[Wickerman]

The floor grate wasn't there in 1888. I think the killer wrapped the organ piece in the portion of apron and went to his abode before depositing the piece in inside the doorway.

I know this pic is from the 70's, but the window below street level which is bricked up is part of the original building, so must have had light from the street at the time.


.

[Wickerman]

I find it almost inconceivable that he would stop to unwrap the organs, throw away the cloth and then put the organs into his pockets; and continue down the street. Seems pointless.

Agreed.

The killer may have been surprised how quick the body was found if he had hidden the body, but because he left it out in the open I don't think that was the reason.

I think the fact that the apron was found where it was lends itself towards this because it seems that he didn't simply run down the street and throw it away; he sought shelter/privacy to do what he did which suggests he needed it for at least a few seconds - and that would suggest some sort of operation such as unwrapping the organs.

It doesn't appear to have been found inside the building, but at the bottom of the entrance opening pretty much where the threshold would be. It could easily have been discarded as he ran passed.

P.C. Long was not one to avoid making vague responses, he had already answered so in some instances:
"......but did not find anything else."
"...I believe the words were as I have stated."
"...It may have been."
"...It is possible, but I do not think that I have."
"...I could not form an opinion."
It is clear from his testimony that when unsure Long is not shy of admitting that he was not certain.

So, when asked if the apron was not there at 2:20 am, he does not say that he did not see it or did not notice, what he does say is:
" It was not."

No wavering, just straight and to the point.
This strikes me as reflecting a definite opinion.

.

[Bridewell]

The unthinkable has to be considered, whether we like it or not.

Hi Phil,

I did consider the unthinkable when I speculated that Long might not have been where he said he was. The piece of apron found in the stairwell of the Wentworth New Model Dwellings was contaminated with "blood and apparently faecal matter. The piece remaining with the body is referred to only as having "blood spots" thereon. Even if Halse (or whoever) was intent on trying to incriminate someone, why select a section of the apron which was contaminated with faecal matter rather than a section which wasn't? The common sense explanation (to me anyway) of the missing portion bearing blood and faeces, while the remaining portion is contaminated with blood only is that the faecal contamination occurred after the two pieces were separated. Therefore (to my mind) the killer cut the apron and removed part of it to clean faeces from himself and/or his knife. The likely explanation of Long's claim that the detached portion wasn't there at 2.20am (again, my view) is that it was there but - for whatever reason - Long didn't see it.

In his evidence Long states:

"When I found the piece of apron I at once searched the staircase leading to the Buildings. I did not make any enquiries at the tenements of the Buildings. There were 6 or 7 staircases. I searched every one, found no traces of blood or recent footmarks. Having searched I at once proceeded to the Station. Before proceeding there I had heard of a murder having been committed. I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square".
Exactly how long before proceeding to the police station he learned of the murder is not specified, but I don't read his words as indicating that he had been aware of the nearby murder for anything other than a relatively short period of time (after 2.20am, but before 2.55am perhaps?). Doubtless, after hearing of the Mitre Square murder, his senses were heightened (as would be natural) and he became rather more observant and inquisitive (perhaps more diligent also) than he had been previously.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

I did consider the unthinkable when I speculated that Long might not have been where he said he was. The piece of apron found in the stairwell of the Wentworth New Model Dwellings was contaminated with "blood and apparently faecal matter. The piece remaining with the body is referred to only as having "blood spots" thereon. Even if Halse (or whoever) was intent on trying to incriminate someone, why select a section of the apron which was contaminated with faecal matter rather than a section which wasn't? The common sense explanation (to me anyway) of the missing portion bearing blood and faeces, while the remaining portion is contaminated with blood only is that the contamination occurred after the two pieces were separated. Therefore (to my mind) the killer cut the apron and removed part of it to clean faeces from himself and/or his knife. The likely explanation of Long's claim that the detached portion wasn't there at 2.20am (again, my view) is that it was there but - for whatever reason - Long didn't see it.

In his evidence Long states:

"When I found the piece of apron I at once searched the staircase leading to the Buildings. I did not make any enquiries at the tenements of the Buildings. There were 6 or 7 staircases. I searched every one, found no traces of blood or recent footmarks. Having searched I at once proceeded to the Station. Before proceeding there I had heard of a murder having been committed. I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square".
Exactly how long before proceeding to the police station he learned of the murder is not specified, but I don't his words as indicating that he had been aware of the nearby murder for anything other than a relatively short period of time (after 2.20am, but before 2.55am perhaps?). Doubtless, after hearing of the Mitre Square murder, his senses were heightened (as would be natural) and he became rather more observant and inquisitive (perhaps more diligent also) than he had been previously.

Hello Colin,

Thank you for a measured response... I can answer..well try.. the question you pose..

Even if Halse (or whoever) was intent on trying to incriminate someone, why select a section of the apron which was contaminated with faecal matter rather than a section which wasn't?

If the killer had already cut the piece and wiped his hands at the scene, then all X has to do is pick it up and dump it at the appropriate place. Easy (to my mind, at least)

Now what I do not understand, is that Halse learned of the Goulston St graffiti when coming back to Mitre Square. Who told the police in Mitre Square about the GSG? Long went straight to the police station...


Phil

[Bridewell]

How and When

Now what I do not understand, is that Halse learned of the Goulston St graffiti when coming back to Mitre Square. Who told the police in Mitre Square about the GSG?

Thanks, Phil.

I'm not sure where you get learning of the graffito "when coming back to Mitre Square". In his evidence, Halse says:

"I went back with Major Smith to Mitre Square when we went (back to Goulstone' - deleted). I then went with Detective Hunt to Leman Street Police Station. I and Detective Hunt went on to Goulstone (sic) Street and the spot was pointed out where the apron was found. I saw some chalk writing on the black facia of the wall."

Why did Halse and Hunt go to Goulston Street from Leman Street police station? He doesn't say, but the clear inference is that it was as a result of learning of the discovery of the missing apron section. Isn't it more likely that he learned of the graffito either at the police station or on his return to Goulston Street?

[Phil Carter]

Thanks, Phil.

I'm not sure where you get learning of the graffito "when coming back to Mitre Square". In his evidence, Halse says:

"I went back with Major Smith to Mitre Square when we went (back to Goulstone' - deleted). I then went with Detective Hunt to Leman Street Police Station. I and Detective Hunt went on to Goulstone (sic) Street and the spot was pointed out where the apron was found. I saw some chalk writing on the black facia of the wall."

Isn't it more likely that he learned of the graffito either at the police station or on his return to Goulston Street?

Hello Colin,

Yes, it is more likely,

But the police station that Long first went to was not Leman St was it?
I may be wrong here. though?
I am still trying to keep to the meaning of the thread..sorry Simon!

Phil

[lynn cates]

alternative

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Very well. I am open to suggestion.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

Don't feel bad. Most others have lost the thread.

PC Long [6th November report] went first to Commercial Street police station, arriving between 3.05 and 3.10 am. He and an Inspector then returned to Goulston Street before going on to Leman Street police station where the piece of apron was handed to Dr. Phillips. Long returned to "duty in Goulston Street about 5".

Sir Charles Warren arrived at Leman Street police station "shortly before 5 a.m" and spoke to Superintendent Arnold.

On 3rd October Warren wrote to Sir James Fraser about the apron piece.

On 6th November neither Warren nor Arnold mentioned the apron piece in their reports.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

But the police station that Long first went to was not Leman St was it?

No, it was Commercial Street but I'm sure the word soon spread.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Agreed.

The killer may have been surprised how quick the body was found if he had hidden the body, but because he left it out in the open I don't think that was the reason.



It doesn't appear to have been found inside the building, but at the bottom of the entrance opening pretty much where the threshold would be. It could easily have been discarded as he ran passed.

P.C. Long was not one to avoid making vague responses, he had already answered so in some instances:
"......but did not find anything else."
"...I believe the words were as I have stated."
"...It may have been."
"...It is possible, but I do not think that I have."
"...I could not form an opinion."
It is clear from his testimony that when unsure Long is not shy of admitting that he was not certain.

So, when asked if the apron was not there at 2:20 am, he does not say that he did not see it or did not notice, what he does say is:
" It was not."

No wavering, just straight and to the point.
This strikes me as reflecting a definite opinion.

.

Didn't Long say something like the writing was on the wall above the apron and he had to use his light to find the writing. Meaning it was pitch black. I take that to mean the apron was further inside the doorway.

In terms of leaving the body 'out in the open', I wouldn't agree with your conclusion. Barring murdering a woman in his home, it was as hidden as it could have been. It was in a dark spot, in a square, and in an area where not many people were milling about.

I would guess that he assumed the body would not have been found so quickly. Presumably he hadn't got very far before the alarm was called, which could have been the catalyst to dump the apron - knowing he hadn't gone far enough to reduce the risk.

And, Long's statement may well have been an attempt at not bringing attention to himself, when at 2.20 the view may have been that they could have still been on the scent if he had gone into the doorway.

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Very well. I am open to suggestion.

Cheers.
LC

I'd love to give you one. I got nothing. This wasn't a question posed to argue a point. I honestly don't know how it happened. She couldn't possibly have been still alive when the injury occurred, much less lived long enough for that to happen. And yet it happened. I have no explanation, I have no theory. I mean, if it meant that she was still alive when it happened, we have to totally rethink the order of her injuries, which doesn't affect much in terms of clues. It's not important, except that being alive while that was happening is a level of horror I'm really uncomfortable with. Having been awake and alert accidentally through a laproscopy, it makes my gorge rise a little.

But one thing seems clear to me is that if the killer got sprayed with fecal matter, it wasn't from that cut. Not that there was no chance of contamination, but solids have a tendency to essentially stay put. Spray would have come from the other end of that cut, and that technically would have been chyme, but the difference between feces and chyme to someone getting a faceful of it would be little to none. The bottom part of that piece of intestine may well have had maybe an inch or so of feces in it. Pulling the piece of intestine out may have caused it to fall on him, which is gross, but not quite the same impact as getting sprayed by the contents of a severed intestine full of liquified food.