The Goulston Street Apron

[Wickerman]

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.

It would be pitch black at 2:55 am, the nearest source of light was not close enough to light the dwelling.
Warren is the only one who states exactly where the writing was located:

"There were several police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City. The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once....."

And the writing was very small according to Halse:

"...The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion"

So no, not inside the building and the writing was not emblazoned across the wall, it was rather cramped and small.

Somewhere like this:



I think the dimensions were assumed from the standard size of a house brick.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

I would suggest that the basis for your disagreement is a possible solution that has no merit anyway. Of course he wouldnt trade the wrapping for his pocket...its the reason he wrapped the materials in the first place...to avoid doing that. What youve neglected to address is the infinitely more palatable solution...that he took the organs somewhere after the murder, and went out after to drop the apron section. There is a period of time from 1:45ish until almost 3am that we cannot say the apron was at Goulston, ....if it wasnt, then it was likely still with the organs and the killer somewhere off the street.

It is the delay that is extremely important to factor in here...the position of the cloth in relation to the written message and a Jewish tenanted building together paint a picture that may have been from the Mitre Square murderer.

But clearly, the message has no obvious relevance to Mitre Square....but it could have regarding Berner Street, where Jews were avoiding Blame that night.

Best regards

[Michael W Richards]

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.

.

Finally someone notices the conviction in that phrase.Morris Eagle, who would have had to step over Liz Strides body or interrupt a murder ongoing says when he entered the passageway, that he couldnt "be sure" the body wasnt there. Wess says the same thing, and he supposedly leaves before PC Smiths sighting of Liz.

People throughout these investigations hedge their statements with "I cant be sure", "I felt...", "It seemed like....", Im sure most witnesses do when faced with presenting some evidence under oath, but Long, as you note, says "It was not there."

Perhaps the earlier post by Stewart was a suggestion that the officer might make such a strong statement to conceal the fact that in reality, he might have missed seeing it or perhaps didnt pass by that specific spot, which would constitute an error or some dereliction on his part. Perhaps PC Harvey may have done something like that, perhaps he never did check Church Passage at around 1:42-1:43 but stated that he had to avoid any suspicion of dereliction. Later he discovers that based on other witnesses, like Watkins, the killer must have been over the body or just leaving at around that same time, ....making the issue of what he might have seen at that time, very important. But too late to revise his story. interesting that he does get let go I believe within a year of this for reasons we do not know.

Cheers Jon

[Fleetwood Mac]

It would be pitch black at 2:55 am, the nearest source of light was not close enough to light the dwelling.
Warren is the only one who states exactly where the writing was located:

"There were several police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City. The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once....."

And the writing was very small according to Halse:

"...The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion"

So no, not inside the building and the writing was not emblazoned across the wall, it was rather cramped and small.

Somewhere like this:



I think the dimensions were assumed from the standard size of a house brick.

Halse also states the writing would have been smudged had it been done earlier.

Can you envisage someone bouncing off that 'jamb', Jon?

[Wickerman]

Halse also states the writing would have been smudged had it been done earlier.

Can you envisage someone bouncing off that 'jamb', Jon?

Do you mean brushed by your shoulder as you pass through the doorway?
That may be what he meant.

.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Do you mean brushed by your shoulder as you pass through the doorway?
That may be what he meant.

.

That's my point.

Is it even possible?

You'd just bounce off the angle before getting to the writing.

You'd have to attack the wall walking diagonally to make this happen.

Seems to me the writing was further inside.

[Wickerman]

That's my point.

Is it even possible?

You'd just bounce off the angle before getting to the writing.

You'd have to attack the wall walking diagonally to make this happen.

Seems to me the writing was further inside.

All preferences aside, when someone who was present, and saw it, tells us where it was.... and it conflicts with our theory, we might have to amend our theory.

[Bridewell]

Harvey's Dismissal

But too late to revise his story. interesting that he does get let go I believe within a year of this for reasons we do not know.

The date was 1st July 1889. His (Harvey's) file is simply marked "Dismissed" (in heavy pencil and underlined). All that remains of his file is the outer cover and the letters, reference etc concerning his appointment. There is nothing at all concerning his disciplinary record or the reason for dismissal. It's viewable at the London Metropolitan Archive but is in a very fragile condition now.

[Errata]

I would suggest that the basis for your disagreement is a possible solution that has no merit anyway. Of course he wouldnt trade the wrapping for his pocket...its the reason he wrapped the materials in the first place...to avoid doing that. What youve neglected to address is the infinitely more palatable solution...that he took the organs somewhere after the murder, and went out after to drop the apron section. There is a period of time from 1:45ish until almost 3am that we cannot say the apron was at Goulston, ....if it wasnt, then it was likely still with the organs and the killer somewhere off the street.

The problem really isn't when he dropped it, the problem is why take it in the first place. If he needed to wrap organs in them, then he took the apron home. Once home, he had any number of ways to get rid of the evidence without going back out into the streets with incriminating evidence tucked under his arm. Like burning it. If he didn't wrap the organs in it, or do something else useful with the cloth, there was no reason to take it from the scene in the first place. Any argument that he had some useful purpose for that cloth would have to address why he either only needed it for a few blocks, or why he would jeopardize everything by leaving the house again with a bloody cloth. And then you gotta wonder why ditch it at Ghoulston street. But he really had no need for that cloth. Clearly he had done without it for previous murders, and a bloodstained WHITE cloth isn't the way to hide anything. Eddowes had dark clothing. He could have cut that.

It's one of those mysteries that I think cannot be solved, because it doesn't conform to normal human behavior. Which isn't to say crazy, just not logical or even purposeful. It's like when I found my cell phone in the bathtub. Clearly I left it there, but I have no idea what I was doing with my cell phone in the bathtub. I mean, I did it and I can't solve that mystery. Maybe he panicked and ran, and didn't realize he had taken the cloth with him until he was a couple blocks away. But I don't think this is one of those things that can be rationalized. I don't think rational thought was behind it at all. Maybe he left it there because a fairy came to him and told him to. That's not something we can deduce from the facts we have. We know the rational reasons for dropping the apron in that doorway. And none of them fit the situation. So if it was for irrational reasons, I think we may just have to accept that he did something inexplicable for reasons or impulses of his own. Like we all do from time to time.

[RivkahChaya]

It's one of those mysteries that I think cannot be solved, because it doesn't conform to normal human behavior. Which isn't to say crazy, just not logical or even purposeful. It's like when I found my cell phone in the bathtub. Clearly I left it there, but I have no idea what I was doing with my cell phone in the bathtub. I mean, I did it and I can't solve that mystery.

I'm afraid you are right, although I can suggest one rational reason for leaving the apron there, and that is that he came upon a better container, for the kidney, that is, which means he was probably on the lookout for one, which means the apron wasn't terribly satisfactory.

Is that suggestion at all viable? what is the likelihood that he came across an abandoned beer pail, or a canning jar, or something like that? a kidney, I think would fit handily into a pail, less well into a canning jar, which is why the cloth would be dropped. I think.

I'm not that up on the size of adult kidneys, nor how much trash people tended to leave around the doorways in 1888, so maybe someone who knows better would chime in.

[Errata]

I'm afraid you are right, although I can suggest one rational reason for leaving the apron there, and that is that he came upon a better container, for the kidney, that is, which means he was probably on the lookout for one, which means the apron wasn't terribly satisfactory.

Were it me, I would change containers for only one of two reasons. I am afraid of leaving a literal blood trail, or I need something that can pass brief inspection like say, by a doorman, roommate, whatever. Which means I'm doing it because I am being careful, and trying to avoid detection. So why on earth would I just drop it on the ground where anyone can see it? Why wouldn't I shove it to the bottom of the next rubbish pile? If someone sees me drop it on the ground, that's it. If someone sees me rummaging through the trash, by the time they find it, if they find it, the person who saw me no longer remembers what I look like. Not needing it anymore is fine, but the way of disposing it still doesn't make sense.

[RivkahChaya]

Not needing it anymore is fine, but the way of disposing it still doesn't make sense.

Not a lot of sense, but he might not have thought it would ever be connected with Eddowes.

Which brings up another question: how common were bloody rags? That might sound stupid on the face of it, but people didn't have disposable bandages, and when women used rags during their period, or people cut themselves, they probably washed and reused things, but sometimes if something was really saturated, or if it didn't get washed right away, and started to putrefy, maybe it got thrown away. I really don't know what trash disposal was like then. Maybe it wasn't a once in a career occurrence for a cop to find a bloody rag. The streets may not have been littered with them, but it might be something that turned up from time to time, which means that JTR may have expected the rag just to be another piece of debris on the ground; it was just because it was found so close to the time of the body that it was matched up to Eddowes torn apron.

Also, a question for you, in particular: does that photo of the mock graffito give you the creeps, because it's positioned right where a mezzuzah would be? I mean, I realize they are where they are, because they are where you would write, if you were actually writing on the doorpost of your home, but it still looks a little like someone chose that spot on purpose.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Nice to see you back on the boards, Phil.

With regard to your premise, I think it likely that the killer used the apron to absorb the initial flow of blood and serum that would have been inevitable in the minutes immediately following the removal of the organs from Eddowes' body. As I said in a previous post, these body parts were probably transferred into a handkerchief or something similar in the Goulston Street doorway and the handkechief package placed in the killer's pocket. Thus there woud have been no blood trail leading to the killer's bolt-hole and no obvious signs of blood on his hands or clothing.

[Errata]

Also, a question for you, in particular: does that photo of the mock graffito give you the creeps, because it's positioned right where a mezzuzah would be? I mean, I realize they are where they are, because they are where you would write, if you were actually writing on the doorpost of your home, but it still looks a little like someone chose that spot on purpose.

Well, yes and no. I mean, intellectually I know that we hang mezzuzahs where we hang them because pretty much that's how tall we are. I've never seen anyone measure, you just nail it up about shoulder height, maybe head height. But here's why the graffito is odd period, without it's relationship to a mezzuzah. If a guy is 5 foot 8, which was average at that point in history, He should be writing at eye level. It's what we do, we write at eye level. Which means it should be right at about 5 ft 8 in above the ground. But it's not. So okay, lets say he was kneeling or crouching. Well, that puts his eyes at about 3 and a half feet above the ground. Why on earth is he writing six inches above his head? And it's an old argument, and one where the solution seems to be that it was written by an adolescent, blah blah. Not really the point here. The point is, the only way it makes sense for an adult to write at that height was that there was something above it preventing him from writing at eye level. Like say, a mezzuzah.

Now there's no mention of one being on that doorway. Which at first glance makes sense because we don't put mezzuzahs on the entrances of common buildings. But we used to. And when all of the residents of the building are Jewish, there's no one to offend. So either mezzuzahs are so ubiquitous that it doesn't rate a mention in the reports, which seems off to me, but it depends on their experience, not mine. Or the adult who wrote under then took it. And two small nail holes in a wall in the middle of the night are not going to be seen. Probably wouldn't even be noticed in broad daylight. And it freaks me out thinking that the person who wrote that could have pried it off the wall and taken it home. Like, not only is that not cool, it's creepy in a whole now I gotta worry about this guy coming back and killing me for sport creepy. My whole life, a mezzuzah has made a house a home. Like my cats have made a house a home. So I have the same reaction as if someone broke in and killed my cats. A reaction a non pet person is never going to understand. And perhaps a reaction a non Jew is never going to understand. But that's my nightmare scenario with the graffito. That whoever wrote it, Ripper or not, pried off a mezzuzah, and was marking a place to come back to if he decided he wanted to escalate. I'd have flat out moved.

[Phil H]

Just to remind people:

a) there is no direct or causal link between graffito and apron scrap; and

b) the simplest explanation of the piece of material is that it was used to wipe his hands, nothing more.

Phil