The Goulston Street Apron

[Abby Normal]

I absolutely agree with this and I think it has nothing whatsoever to do with the murder. By the way, Errata, whereabouts is your synagogue that it gets hit like that once or twice a year? I'm just trying to find out so I can avoid going there with my yarmulke-wearing husband! No reason to make ourselves that much of a target!

But I want to back up a little. Let's just remind ourselves that this is a guy so unworried about being caught that he killed in bottle-neck situations where, if he was discovered, he would have been either apprehended or lynched. And even though he had a nice sharp knife, there were a lot of people in the streets at all hours who would have come running with their own handy knives etc if someone set up a cry of 'The Ripper!!!!!' He doesn't consider that he will get caught. So why is he going through elaborate complicated machinations to write graffiti and leave clear evidence to point to the Jews? And if he does intend to implicate the Jews, why does he not write something so equivocal? Why does he not write 'I seen the killer and he was one of them Juwes!' Or 'I will kill every whore in creation signed The Hebrew Hammer of God'.

The apron is the only piece of real hard evidence here. The graffito won't get us anywhere but the apron will. And I seriously doubt he did anything but chuck it. It was cumbersome, bloody and no longer needed. And it will kill him if he's found with it. He ditches it at the first convenient moment and then moves along.

Also don't forget the East End was teaming with Jews at this time. The Goulston Street tenements were not the only place to find them. I agree with Errata, if he'd wanted to yell at all the Jews he would have gone for a kosher butcher or a synagogue. There were plenty of both all over the place!

If it was meant for one man only, why does it say "Jews" and "the men". And If it was personal or for someone specific, why didn't the writer just write something like "cohen is a swindler" or "dont buy from Levi" or " Sam koski is an evil jew'?

You cant use the apparent ambiguousness of the message as pointing it not being from the killer because you can make the same argument if it was not from the killer. Why would anyone write graffiti ambigous? why would anyone write grafitti small?

However,As i said before, if there were more deep seated reasons why the killer wrote it like that-as in he was pissed off at being interupted by jews that night and/or disliked jews in general and/or wanted to blame them than that may be why it appears ambiguousness to us now, but of course could have made perfect sense to the killer at the time.

To me it seems you have to do more logistical cartwheels to disassociate the apron from the grafitti than vice versus.

-A large(and easily visable) portion of apron is found DIRECTLY below the writing
-The killer had been disturbed by jews that night and the writing references jews
-The writing and apron was not there the first time the PC walked past, meaning the time frame supports the idea the killer took sometime to cleanup, drop off the knife and trophies and get some chalk.
-Many police at the time and afterwards beleived it was written by the killer
-the grafitti being written on the doorway of a new building inhabited mainly by jews support the idea that the grafitti had never seen the light of day as someone living there would have surely wiped it off-meaning the grafitti was probably written that night.
-no other mention of other grafitti in the immediate area(or rags for that matter) is mentioned by any one-meaning the coincidence of finding said apron/writing together as just random makes it more improbable
-History has taught us that serial killers exhibit just this sort of behavior
-The "riskiness" of leaving the apron and writing the grafitti is nothing compared to what the killer was used to getting away with.

[Chava]

The author may not have liked Jews, but he hated one. Someone in that building. That message was for that man, not the community at large. It's on the inside wall. It wasn't a public message. It was a private one.

I absolutely agree with this and I think it has nothing whatsoever to do with the murder. By the way, Errata, whereabouts is your synagogue that it gets hit like that once or twice a year? I'm just trying to find out so I can avoid going there with my yarmulke-wearing husband! No reason to make ourselves that much of a target!

But I want to back up a little. Let's just remind ourselves that this is a guy so unworried about being caught that he killed in bottle-neck situations where, if he was discovered, he would have been either apprehended or lynched. And even though he had a nice sharp knife, there were a lot of people in the streets at all hours who would have come running with their own handy knives etc if someone set up a cry of 'The Ripper!!!!!' He doesn't consider that he will get caught. So why is he going through elaborate complicated machinations to write graffiti and leave clear evidence to point to the Jews? And if he does intend to implicate the Jews, why does he not write something so equivocal? Why does he not write 'I seen the killer and he was one of them Juwes!' Or 'I will kill every whore in creation signed The Hebrew Hammer of God'.

The apron is the only piece of real hard evidence here. The graffito won't get us anywhere but the apron will. And I seriously doubt he did anything but chuck it. It was cumbersome, bloody and no longer needed. And it will kill him if he's found with it. He ditches it at the first convenient moment and then moves along.

Also don't forget the East End was teaming with Jews at this time. The Goulston Street tenements were not the only place to find them. I agree with Errata, if he'd wanted to yell at all the Jews he would have gone for a kosher butcher or a synagogue. There were plenty of both all over the place!

[curious4]

Kate hopping

Hello Errata,

It was a bad year for hopping, but she still managed to buy herself a new jacket in Maidstone and Kelly got new boots, so they must have done some, at least.

Best wishes,
C4

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

Yes indeed I have picked hops - hurt my delicate little hands lol, but, with an abundance of sacking, they would have foolish not to have made use of it for aprons - and they did. Wasn't that easy to wash anything in the hop fields, so white aprons would be protected, if worn at all.

Regards,
C4

PS Must confess that I can't envisage Kate being able to walk easily with her apron wound round and round her body to fit. One size fits all?

Not exactly one size fits all, but there's an art to it. I've used a bunch of different styles of aprons for various costumes. And I can easily make any length or width apron fit, but I honestly can't tell you how. It involves folding, tucking, and cinching, but I just do it automatically. I can't really describe the process any more than I can describe the process of donning a toga. It's just a skill I lack. But it's not wrapped tightly like a towel, so mobility isn't really an issue. It's a little like belting a skirt that is way too big. Or tying a sack shut. Yeah. I'm really no good at describing this.

I'm also not entirely sure she actually made it to the hops picking part. There was some statement about not getting along and just going home, and then they had no money when they got back to town which seems odd if they'd just had a job... She may have dressed for the work, but she may not have actually done the work. If it matters.

[curious4]

Hopping

Hello Errata,

Yes indeed I have picked hops - hurt my delicate little hands lol, but, with an abundance of sacking, they would have foolish not to have made use of it for aprons - and they did. Wasn't that easy to wash anything in the hop fields, so white aprons would be protected, if worn at all.

Regards,
C4

PS Must confess that I can't envisage Kate being able to walk easily with her apron wound round and round her body to fit. One size fits all?

[Errata]

Morning all,

Kate was tiny, her apron was presumably smaller than average, as well as (most probably) thin and worn. Almost child-sized perhaps. Hobbit-sized myself, I could wear children's clothes before all the chocolate cake caught up with me - certainly at Kate's age.

Best wishes,
C4

While it certainly would have been hemmed to suit her height, the beauty of aprons is that you can wrap them all the way around if you so choose. To a certain extent there was a fashionable apron to dress ratio, but the whole point of an apron is surface area available to be dirtied, or to protect clothing. So unless the apron was just ridiculously large, she wouldn't have cut it to fit fashion standards. Plus, she had been picking hops. I don't know if anyone has ever done this, but it's freakin miserable. Aside from being... prickly implies thorns but there are tiny little edges all over the place that make you itch like crazy, there are also chemicals that cause a rash, not entirely dissimilar to poison ivy, although the rash subsides maybe a day later as opposed to the nightmarish longevity of poison ivy. Plus hops are long unwieldy plants so they get in your hair, get dragged over your face... the whole experience is really pretty awful. And you really don't want the sap or whatever all over your clothes, because then you'll have a rash everywhere. Were I her, I would have put on so many aprons that I would have invented the Hazmat suit. I would have wrapped myself up like a mummy. So I don't think the apron was for simply wiping her hands. I think it was for protection, and in that case the more coverage the better.

[curious4]

Apron size

Morning all,

Kate was tiny, her apron was presumably smaller than average, as well as (most probably) thin and worn. Almost child-sized perhaps. Hobbit-sized myself, I could wear children's clothes before all the chocolate cake caught up with me - certainly at Kate's age.

Best wishes,
C4

[RivkahChaya]

You know, rubber-soled shoes are very, very quiet compared to leather, but they are not silent, and if it was raining a little, they may have been noisier than usual, even squeaky, so he could have heard Long coming.

[RivkahChaya]

But if he was injured it might explain either why that was his final murder and maybe we should comb hospital records for a guy who lost a leg to sepsis , or why he moved indoors depending on which way you lean. He didn't have to run away from the Kelly crime scene. Which is good if you have a injury that makes running excruciating or even impossible. And if that was his final murder... well if he accidentally stabbed himself with a dagger covered in feces... that could easily mean death. Especially if he won't get it treated for fear of being discovered. If I stabbed myself in the leg with a dagger covered in feces I might want to lose the leg just on principle.

I've often wondered how he could do such quick work, and not nick himself with a knife covered with every blood- and fecal-borne disease known to western Europe at the time. If I wrote a novel, JTR would die of sepsis after cutting himself, and MJK would be his last hurrah, once he realized he was done for, which is why he abandoned his usual type and, the attack was so vicious, and "gluttonous."

[Errata]

If he had been injured i.e. he cut himself whilst mutilating Kate Eddowes, wouldn't there have been some sort blood trail leading away from the murder site? You can be sure that the police made a detailed inspection of that square for blood spots, and I can't recall there being any mention of a trail of blood exiting Mitre Square.

Well if he wrapped up his injury at the scene, there wouldn't be a blood trail. Just more blood at the scene,and who's to say it wasn't the victim's blood? And yes the rain bit.

He might not have been running. I don't think he would have been sauntering, but a brisk walk would not be amiss with the rain and the cold.

I also think the apron was more bloodstained than just the corner. I think Long saw the corner poking out, and saw that bloodstain, but that wasn't the only staining. Just what he noticed first. But I think when unfurled it would have more staining on it. Not completely soaked, but likely some spatter.

Taking the graffiti completely out of the picture, there are three major questions that need to be answered. The first is, what in all the hells did he need 3 feet of cloth for? Cutting off a corner to wipe off, sure. Tearing off the hem to wrap something, fine. Three feet. I can sail on three feet of canvas. So really, what on earth? Especially since the apron would have been inside all the skirts he shoved up, and he would have to dig around for it, as opposed to the bottom skirt which likely would have been more accessible.

The second question, what is he doing with all that cloth that he can't leave it at the scene? And it may have been one of those things where he gets startled, starts running and then realize he is still holding on to a sail. But this guy is smart. Not necessarily reads Proust smart, but he did all that to a woman and vanished in 15 minutes. If it wasn't horrifying, I'd give that guy a standing ovation. So he's smart, he's never seen, I'd need a reason he made such a dumb mistake.

The third question in, why did he need the cloth for four blocks and then not need the cloth anymore? Because dumping the cloth is insanely risky. Anyone could have seen him do it. Not even in the streets. Someone in a second floor apartment could have been at the window. Far better to stuff it in his pants so it isn't visible, get home, and burn it. But no, he throws it away. And to a casual observer in that neighborhood, only a crazy man throws out perfectly good white cloth. So they are going to immediately go check it out. The only remotely smart reason to throw it away is because hanging on to it is more dangerous than not. Which since he could have shoved it in his pants, means a much more imminent danger. If it was impeding his movement, or he was moving into a very well lit area, or if he's coming up on a cop and he's pretty sure he won't be seen for a few more seconds.

A leg bandage is the only thing I can come up with that might require that much cloth, explains why he didn't leave it at the scene, and why he may have ditched it if it was falling apart and impeding his movement. Or ditched it if he saw a cop and felt the bandage would be more suspicious than a limp and just took a chance on blood. Or maybe he was on the roofs and used it as a wee parachute to land softly on Goulston street. I mean, its a lot of cloth, and not a lot of mileage out of it. It's not easy to explain at all.

[Bridewell]

It would have been there at 2:20 when Long states..."It was NOT there."

Perhaps it was there, Michael. A witness can be certain yet still be mistaken. Police officers are as fallible as any in that respect, believe me.

[Michael W Richards]

If he had been injured i.e. he cut himself whilst mutilating Kate Eddowes, wouldn't there have been some sort blood trail leading away from the murder site? You can be sure that the police made a detailed inspection of that square for blood spots, and I can't recall there being any mention of a trail of blood exiting Mitre Square.

This was a night that had some rain happening earlier, and it would be next to impossible to try and follow bloodstains on damp cobblestones. Its why they tried employing the bloodhounds...they could smell what could not be seen.

There are 2 things that make me believe nothing happened to injure the killer....for one, if he had cut himself he would have been distracted by that and spent some of his time in Mitre Square assessing his wound and trying to stop the bleeding...and 2, if he was fleeing and compressing the apron section to stop a cut from bleeding... then it wouldnt have shown up more than 45 minutes after the murder. It wouldl have been there at 2:20 when Long states..."It was NOT there."

Plus...it was reported that there is not much blood on that section..something which works against my own idea that he wrapped the organs in it. The staining was light, and mostly confined to a single corner of the apron section.

Heres an idea I dont recall anyone else mentioning...its just sort of popped into my head.....could he have used the section to cover his hand when he pulls out the severed organs? They would be very slippery and awkward to grab tightly...a cloth might allow him to grip better. Might he have been squeamish about handling them? If so...thats no Jackie boy.

Interesting that the medical man who saw more Canonicals in death than anyone else didnt think Kate was killed by the Ripper.

Best regards

[Observer]

If he had been injured i.e. he cut himself whilst mutilating Kate Eddowes, wouldn't there have been some sort blood trail leading away from the murder site? You can be sure that the police made a detailed inspection of that square for blood spots, and I can't recall there being any mention of a trail of blood exiting Mitre Square.

[curious4]

Running?

Why would he be running? Quickest way to draw attention to himself I would have thought and not a good idea.

Cheers,
C4

[Errata]

Did you mean to say "unpredictable," in that you can't really aim your clothes, or did you mean it goes flying off from about a 45° angle from the person who tosses, and barring a lot of wind interference, lands about 8 yards (meters, if it suits you better)?

This I know from PT tests in the Army. People showed up in the early am in full PT sweats and sock hat. It'd be 5am in February. By 9am, we were running two miles around a track, and peeling off sweat shirts, pants, and hat. Amazingly, nothing ever hit the track.

I don't know what was up with the "oops" or the frown face.

No what I mean it is somewhat predictable. For example, if someone is running and ditching a jacket, typically they just let it fall off the last arm out of the sleeve, so it doesn't go as far as other items of clothing. Which they can do because it lands behind them. Anything off the arm is flung straight out. Sometimes it's just dropped, but since the point is to get rid of it without tripping on it, it goes straight sideways. But I don't think it would be an arm bandage because that's a lot of cloth. So it's either torso or leg. If it was wrapped around his waist, it would be like a towel when you get out of the shower. Because the fastening tuck and both ends of the cloth would be in front, like a towel, when it comes off it just falls and doesn't get wrapped up in the legs. So it would still be in the middle of the sidewalk, or where ever he was running. Or he would have pulled it off and dropped it, not thrown it.

But I have a bum knee, and I have done any number of things in wraps and braces. And they slip down and you have to get rid of it so you kick it off like a shoe. But when it happened when I was running, I didn't want to trip over it later, and because I was kind of hopping because the thing was coming of my foot I would kick it off but a little to the side. You can't get a 45 degree angle without stopping. But with a cross kick you can get it pretty close. If he kicked it off, I bet it hit the wall on the inside of the doorway, and banked off so it landed in the passageway. Or he ripped it off bundled it up and just fired it sideways into an open doorway without stopping.

But if he was injured it might explain either why that was his final murder and maybe we should comb hospital records for a guy who lost a leg to sepsis, or why he moved indoors depending on which way you lean. He didn't have to run away from the Kelly crime scene. Which is good if you have a injury that makes running excruciating or even impossible. And if that was his final murder... well if he accidentally stabbed himself with a dagger covered in feces... that could easily mean death. Especially if he won't get it treated for fear of being discovered. If I stabbed myself in the leg with a dagger covered in feces I might want to lose the leg just on principle.