The Goulston Street Apron

[Bridewell]

Hi Phil,

What you are doing is negating the emphasis that is clearly in Longs remarks about the earlier pass near 2:20am...he said, "It was NOT there". The caps are mine, but the point is clear in that remark...I looked at that spot and saw the specific area when I passed, and there was no cloth in that location at that time.

The fact that he says it wasn't there is by no means proof that it wasn't. It entirely depends how much weight is placed on Long's testimony. A witness can be certain of something and yet be mistaken.

You see, we do have to reconcile that the "rag" was not there at 2:20, and there is no need to speculate it was and was missed by PC Long.

You see no need to speculate on this, and that's fine, but by not speculating you assume that
(a)Long carried out his duty conscientiously throughout the night and
(b)was definitely not mistaken.

I prefer to keep all options open which includes considering the possibility that Long was less conscientious than he claimed to be, or that he was less observant than he claimed to be, or that he was less certain than he claimed to be, or that he was mistaken. I also consider the possibility that Long was diligent and observant and correct in his assertion that the apron piece definitely wasn't there at 2.20am but, as that would mean that the killer dumped it at least 40 minutes after the murder and at least 30 minutes after he could have got rid of it at the same location, I think it the less likely scenario.

[Wickerman]

You clearly didn't read my earlier post, I think the "rag" was there earlier, but the PC didn't see it.

This 'rag' was possibly quite a large 'rag'. It was described as "half" the apron, which if true means this 'rag' was at least 3-4 sq feet of material, but you say he did not see it?

On the location, in the past the assumption was that the opening was likely the first he'd pass en route from Mitre Square.

The first? - oh, well that explains the erroneous reasoning..
See if you can follow this on a map.

If Jack left Mitre Square by St James Place, he would be crossing the square about 100 ft, to the northern passage exit, then up the passage, 55 ft, (still wiping his hands) then diagonally across St James Place, passing the all night manned mobile Fire station and the nightwatchman at the roadworks, about 120 ft, then eastward along little Duke Street passing several houses, (still wiping his hands) crossing Hounsditch then along Stoney lane passing about 40+ houses (still wiping his hands) to Middlesex street, about another 850 ft, still carrying the rag presumably not finished wiping his hands. Turning right running down Middlesex street for about 100 ft passing another 6 houses, then left, eastward again along New Goulston street until the end, another 250 ft. At this point he crosses the road and presumably discards the rag in the doorway of 108-119 Goulston street.

Quite the distance considering he was only 'supposedly' wiping his hands.

The intention of wiping the hands is to remove any evidence, and to not be seen removing this evidence. Which also means, he must discard this 'rag' ASAP, typically within a few feet of the body.


.

[Damaso Marte]

2) To wrap around a cut.

This is a fine suggestion. It explains why he would carry it for several blocks and then get rid of it...long enough to stop the bleeding.

[Phil H]

Wickerman

Your tone suggests that you are getting defensive and that you are not sure how strong your case is.

To reassure you - you may be right. I don't know. I think bridewell put it excellently when he wrote just now (in thread terms) "I prefer to keep all options open which includes considering the possibility that Long was less conscientious than he claimed to be..." I agree entirely.

As to the size of the apron piece, it could have been the size of a sial on the Cutty Sark (metaphorically speaking) but if it was crumpled that would considerably reduce the size. I never heard anyone argue it was lying flat. If it had been tossed well into the stairwell/entry it might also have made it more difficult to see. The whole area was likely pretty liberally scattered with detritus after all - why focus on one piece of cloth.

Think what you will about the "first doorway". I have an open mind and no axe to grind so can think widely.

Your novelist's wholly invented are over-detailed (for our knowledge) reconstruction, amused me. You must relive these scenes in your mind so often it becomes real to you. You don't, however, seem to read other posters comments. I dealt with the issue of the time lapse some posts ago - preoccupation (in a word) is why he took a while - but not I think, so long as you make out, to discard the rag. To comment on just one point, if he passed a hundred houses and they did not have recessed doorways they were likely no use to him - it is a recess he would find useful to discard the now unwanted cloth.

As I said above, you may be right. My point in posting in this thread is to argue for the older, simpler, explanation which fits the available facts well enough, rather than the more complex rigmaroles which seem to be fashionable at present.

But cutting himself, "needing a container" and all the rest are frankly based on unwarranted assumptions. I'm not saying they are implausible, they just don't have enough foundation for me to take them seriously at this stage.

Phil

[Wickerman]

This is a fine suggestion. It explains why he would carry it for several blocks and then get rid of it...long enough to stop the bleeding.

Isn't it a bit large to cover a cut?
Presumably you mean a cut finger or something small, several sq ft of cloth for a cut to the hand?
If the cut really needed 'that' much material, why did it suddenly stop bleeding in Goulston St.?

[Wickerman]

If it had been tossed well into the stairwell/entry it might also have made it more difficult to see.

We are told where it was found, right in full view at the foot of the archway, not inside where it was dark.

The whole area was likely pretty liberally scattered with detritus after all - why focus on one piece of cloth.

So you 'think' there was rubbish everywhere?

I might draw your attention to the, East End Photographs and Drawings, thread. Where contemporary photo's show East End streets remarkably clean.
But of course they would be, there was no such thing as rubbish in them days, people made use of everything. And it being long before disposable containers. This was a time where everything, if not carried on your person was either eaten, burned or sold.

Your novelist's wholly invented are over-detailed (for our knowledge) reconstruction, amused me. You must relive these scenes in your mind so often it becomes real to you.

The detail is obtained from Ordnance Survey maps, and Yes, it is best to try place yourself in the role, rather than guess.

You don't, however, seem to read other posters comments. I dealt with the issue of the time lapse some posts ago - preoccupation (in a word) is why he took a while - but not I think, so long as you make out, to discard the rag.

Yes I read them, I don't always respond to every comment.

To comment on just one point, if he passed a hundred houses and they did not have recessed doorways they were likely no use to him - it is a recess he would find useful to discard the now unwanted cloth.

It was not found 'in' a recess.
Warren told us the writing was "on the jamb of an open archway,...visible to anyone in the street".
Long told us the 'rag' was directly below the writing.

By accounts the 'rag' appears to have been where the red circle is below.



Or at least, there are no opinions from anyone who was there that it was any further inside.

.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Warren told us the writing was "on the jamb of an open archway,...visible to anyone in the street".
Long told us the 'rag' was directly below the writing.

By accounts the 'rag' appears to have been where the red circle is below.



Or at least, there are no opinions from anyone who was there that it was any further inside.

.

Yes, if Warren is to believed then the writing was where you say it is. And, without evidence to the contrary I would agree with you.

Where you're stretching it is that Long didn't say 'directly above'. That leaves room for the apron being a little further inside.

Either way, the jamb of the doorway was a little further back from the path, so he would have had to have used a bit of force to throw the apron into the passage/doorway. Why? Would he not simply have dropped it as he ran if the issue was just getting rid of it?

Looks to me that the murderer went into the archway.

[Phil H]

Wickerman, I have never said you were wrong - a criminal offence anyway it appears.

Have it your way. there are, however, other views.

Phil

[Bridewell]

See if you can follow this on a map.

If Jack left Mitre Square by St James Place, he would be crossing the square about 100 ft, to the northern passage exit, then up the passage, 55 ft, (still wiping his hands) then diagonally across St James Place, passing the all night manned mobile Fire station and the nightwatchman at the roadworks, about 120 ft, then eastward along little Duke Street passing several houses, (still wiping his hands) crossing Hounsditch then along Stoney lane passing about 40+ houses (still wiping his hands) to Middlesex street, about another 850 ft, still carrying the rag presumably not finished wiping his hands. Turning right running down Middlesex street for about 100 ft passing another 6 houses, then left, eastward again along New Goulston street until the end, another 250 ft. At this point he crosses the road and presumably discards the rag in the doorway of 108-119 Goulston street.

If you want to follow it in photographs instead of on a map:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=61&page=308

(Posts 3072 to 3082 - apologies for the amateur photography)

[Wickerman]

Where you're stretching it is that Long didn't say 'directly above'. That leaves room for the apron being a little further inside.

Agreed, he said "above it", (as opposed to "near it"?), so I'm take it as meaning what he said.

Just be careful, the more distance you put between the rag and the writing the less connection we have between the two.

Either way, the jamb of the doorway was a little further back from the path,...

Not sure what you mean here, the wall/arch is where the path begins, and the footpaths were rather narrow in those days.

[Wickerman]

If you want to follow it in photographs instead of on a map:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=61&page=308

(Posts 3072 to 3082 - apologies for the amateur photography)

Thankyou Colin, I had not even noticed that you had taken the trouble to do that, otherwise I would have mentioned it.
Sorry

.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

In light of some recent comments its worth noting that the way the killer removed the section of cloth from Kates apron would have certainly caused some discernible noise in that square,.... for you Londoners, that could be an interesting field test. I believe that the square today retains most of the same feel and conditions that would make the test viable.

The cloth was cut and torn, and if Lawende did in fact see Kate outside the square at approx 12:35....(remember, the guy claimed within a fortnight that he could not recognize the man again,and he essentially just saw some womans back), then that activity had to have been taking place at about the time that Harvey says he was looking into the square from Church Passage. There is no possibility that the killer got Kate to the murder location just after 1:35, killed her, and was able to finish all he did there and still leave before 1:42am...its not plausible. Plus, he has 3 egress options, and 2 of them will have patrolmen in them between 12:42-12:44.

My point being that he took some substantial risk in the manner in which he obtained the cloth, so it lends itself to a belief that it was something he felt important enough to take the risk for, and he was incredibly fortunate it seems from any possible ear witness point of view, the city Policeman and his family in #3 with their bedroom window facing the murder site, and the nightwatchman, with his door ajar. Then there is PC Harvey, approaching via Church Passage.

The taking of the cloth was significant,... now, is that because it shows us he wanted to clean his hands off...(he didnt clean the blade on it anyway), that he wanted a trophy aside from the organs he removes, that he intended to use the cloth later to implicate Jews for this or other murders, that he cut himself and needed to stem the bleeding...(not enough blood evidence on the cloth to sustain that argument), that he perhaps intended to write a note on it....(few people had suggested that, but I kind of like it myself), that he used it to transport the organs he takes....(another favorite of mine, but it requires an answer to the question as to why a killer who mutilates with the objective of taking organs didnt think ahead and bring a container, he has done this before, right?), ...there are Im sure other options, but these seem the most relied upon.

They all are possible, but which seem most feasible based on the profile of the killer who killed Polly and Annie?

Best regards all

[Errata]

Isn't it a bit large to cover a cut?
Presumably you mean a cut finger or something small, several sq ft of cloth for a cut to the hand?
If the cut really needed 'that' much material, why did it suddenly stop bleeding in Goulston St.?

Given the force used to open up Eddowes abdomen, and human behavior with knives, if he cut himself he didn't slice his thumb. He likely got a pretty serious leg wound. He was using short sharp powerful jerks, pulling the knife towards him. He was probably kneeling, maybe squatting. If he jerks the knife towards him and loses control of the knife, say, it slips out of the wound track, ramps up on a button, whatever, then his instinct will make him point the knife, whose blade is going right for abdomen, downward so instead it plunges into his thigh. I have done this a thousand times, I've seen it done a thousand times. As best I can tell it's one of those things that the body deems useful to it's own preservation, but also assumes your reflexes are a lot better than they actually are.

From my own experience, I can say this. Stabbing yourself in the top of the thigh doesn't bleed a whole lot. It's a known impact zone, and there are fewer major blood vessels there. But you also have the possibility of cutting two major muscles at once, and aside from hurting like all get out, it can seriously affect mobility. Putting weight on that leg is iffy, and collapse is possible. And what you need in that case is a splint. Two sticks, a cloth, and swing the leg around rather than trying to lift the knee. The inside of the thigh is obviously very dangerous. As someone who doesn't particularly believe that Mary Kelly was a victim of the same man, I get a certain amount of satisfaction in imagining the Ripper nicking his femoral artery and being found dead the next morning by his landlady. But assuming you miss the artery, it bleeds a lot, but the problem is more pain than a lack of mobility. The outside of the thigh is a game killer. You cut that muscle, you might be able to stand on it, but you can't swing your leg. And stabbing yourself in the knee is an injury that pretty much curls you up into fetal position vomiting.

And any of these injuries would require a pretty wide swatch of cloth to manage. Except the knee thing where I'm convince that had that happened, he would have been discovered next to the corpse mewling and retching. But none of these injuries would allow him to ditch the cloth after a few blocks unless he somehow got treatment. Which is sort of a Dr. Mudd scenario, but not entirely impossible. And not an encounter that would be reported to the cops. But there's not a lot to explain running around with a cloth the size of your average bath towel.

[Wickerman]

Given the force used to open up Eddowes abdomen,...

No force is necessary, once the incision is made it practically opens itself. The abdominal contents 'burst' forth, so to speak.

I guess we can always push the extreme in order to try sell a point.

And any of these injuries would require a pretty wide swatch of cloth to manage.

It looks like its the vivid imagination which requires the cloth, in reality none of what you envisage is likely. Not that it couldn't have happened, but any severe laceration bordering on immobility, or life threatening, is not about to be rectified by the time he reached Goulston St.

The more severe you choose to make his self inflicted wound, the less likely it is that he will be able to discard the cloth.

.

[Wickerman]

The cloth was cut and torn, ....

We do have the words of Det. Halse, who saw the piece and noticed...
"...It had been cut with a clean cut."

The suggestion it was torn came only from a reporter who saw the piece introduced in court, and said it was a piece of torn apron. I don't think we can rely on this as an intentional description.

That aside, I fully agree that the sound of a torn cloth would echo around the square.

.