The Goulston Street Apron

[Michael W Richards]

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.

.

Hi Jon,

At the Inquest Dr Brown mentioned that her upper dress was "torn", and later City PC Lewis Robinson is asked to identify an apron, "torn and discoloured with blood" as the one he saw Kate wearing when he picked her up. I am aware of Halse's claim, but it seems to me lacking in weight when we have the description of the cloth Mr Crawford presented to the PC to identify. Coupled with a torn dress, its probable that both methods were employed I believe.

Cheers

[RivkahChaya]

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.

.

Well, there's torn, and there's ripped. If you start a cut with scissors or a knife, and then tear it along the grain, and especially if it is a straight weave, and not a knit, which I'm assuming an apron would be, and probably a little threadbare, it would probably tear pretty easily and neatly. If you have ever done any sewing, there are times when you actually want to do "controlled tearing," rather than cutting, to make sure you get a straight edge.

A tear along the grain, of a light or threadbare fabric, wouldn't make much noise.

A rip is what happens when fabric gets snagged on something, and it gets a jagged rip through it, or tears in two directions at once. Or, it's along a seam. That you will hear.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

At the Inquest Dr Brown mentioned that her upper dress was "torn",

Ah yes, the dress was said to have been torn.

and later City PC Lewis Robinson is asked to identify an apron, "torn and discoloured with blood"

Thats the one where it is the words of the reporter, more like a narration for the benefit of the reader. Robinson only said "No" - if you see what I mean (below).

Mr. Crawford: Did any one appear to know her? - No. The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.

.

[Wickerman]

Well, there's torn, and there's ripped. If you start a cut with scissors or a knife, and then tear it along the grain, and especially if it is a straight weave, and not a knit, which I'm assuming an apron would be, and probably a little threadbare, it would probably tear pretty easily and neatly. If you have ever done any sewing, there are times when you actually want to do "controlled tearing," rather than cutting, to make sure you get a straight edge.

A tear along the grain, of a light or threadbare fabric, wouldn't make much noise.

A rip is what happens when fabric gets snagged on something, and it gets a jagged rip through it, or tears in two directions at once. Or, it's along a seam. That you will hear.

I see what you are getting at but the size of the apron was said to be "about half", yet a string was attached to the cutoff piece, which suggests the cut may have been diagonal, plus the 'clean' cut did go through a repair patch which a tear would not.

.

[Errata]

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.
.

Well, first of all, that's not at all true. I mean, really not remotely true, although it does make a good graphic for a horror movie. The average person has about 4 cm of tissue over the organs. The skin, which has a "grain" like cloth or wood. Then there's fat, which is tough but more mobile, and then muscles, which also have a "grain" and is pretty tough. And under the navel there are two sets of muscles stacked on top of each. And he's guaranteed to hit a tendon. Never mind the mesenteries which means nothing actually falls out of the wound at all.

Oh, and he's cutting through at least three layers of cloth.

If you look at the mortuary photos of Catherine Eddowes, you can at least three distinct and separate entrance wounds along the abdominal wound track. Personally I think it's actually five, but anyone can see three. Now if cutting open an abdomen was as easy as unzipping a purse there would be a single unbroken cut. But it is ragged, it changes directions, apparently he lost control and cut her hip, there are multiple stabs... he was clearly having trouble controlling his blade. Probably because of the clothing, and the three layers of buttons couldn't help. Cutting through cloth is terrible.

But even if none of that is true, even if none of those things happened, the force he uses on a victim has absolutely nothing to do with the force required to get the job done. Technically he only had to pierce the carotid in order to kill them. But he cut their throats down to the spine. Surely you can't argue that he only used the amount of force necessary there. Why would he restrict himself to only the necessary amount of force to expose the abdomen? Which isn't easy. It's not like cutting into a pie. I'm not sure why you think it's a butter smooth operation, but it really really isn't. Cutting into an abdomen requires effort.

[RivkahChaya]

I see what you are getting at but the size of the apron was said to be "about half", yet a string was attached to the cutoff piece, which suggests the cut may have been diagonal, plus the 'clean' cut did go through a repair patch which a tear would not.

If it's a diagonal cut, then he certainly cut it with the knife. It's impossible to rip a cloth diagonally with your bare hands, unless it has a worn or rotten diagonal line on it, which would be really odd. At any rate, if he cut it with the knife, then it wouldn't make much noise. I have lots of spare fabric around, and I just tried slicing a piece of an old cotton sheet with the knife we use for slicing Tofurky (I think it's a meat carving knife, but I've been a vegetarian for so long, I'm not really sure; at any rate, it's very sharp, and not serrated).

Well, first of all, that's not at all true. [People's guts spilling out when their abdomens are cut open.] I mean, really not remotely true, although it does make a good graphic for a horror movie. The average person has about 4 cm of tissue over the organs. The skin, which has a "grain" like cloth or wood. Then there's fat, which is tough but more mobile, and then muscles, which also have a "grain" and is pretty tough. And under the navel there are two sets of muscles stacked on top of each. And he's guaranteed to hit a tendon. Never mind the mesenteries which means nothing actually falls out of the wound at all.

Aside from the fact that you are just plain right, those horror movie graphics are always of hanging victims, which makes them a little more believable, and at any rate, there's a reason (well, lots of them), that you lie flat on your back for abdominal surgery. If surgeons had to worry about patient's innards spilling out every time they made an incision, surgery would be a much bigger ordeal than it already is. All the JTR victims were on their backs.

I'm here to tell you (not you specifically, Errata), that even during a c-section, the baby doesn't in any sense "spill" out. After the incision in the skin, and then another in the uterus, which go in different directions, the doctor still has to reach in and pull out the baby.

[Wickerman]

The issue I was referring to was that once the stomach lining is pierced the intestines erupt forth, as was noticed on the body of Nichols. It makes no difference how deep the lining is or how many layers of fat, tissue & muscle are on top.
In Nichols case no great abdominal wound was enacted, when compared with Eddowes and Chapman, and gravity may have assisted the emergence.
The internal pressure is not great, but as with any hernia, there is sufficient pressure to push the intestines out should there be a weakness or a wound to open the lining.

.

[Fleetwood Mac]

[I]

It has the further problem that he didn't keep it. I suppose he could have dropped it accidentally, and decided retrieving it was too risky, but I can't see that. I doubt he's carrying it in his hand, billowing like a freaky, serial killer flag. He'd probably stuff it in his pocket.

My personal opinion is that he intended to carry that apron farther than he did.

By all accounts, Mitre Square was not a busy place - I think Morris may have confirmed this regarding the night.

So, she's lying in a dark corner of a quiet square, off the road. My guess is that he didn't expect that the body would have been found so quickly - so why not carry the apron in full of view of passers by - there was no reason to suspect he was doing anything untoward until the body was found.

I think he heard the whistles and commotion and realised that he was in a spot of trouble carrying the apron so close to the murder scene and decided to discard it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

Not necessarily so.

Clearly, the concept of risk is subjective and beholden to context/conditions.

The facts are that JTR was in a dark corner of a quiet square off a quiet street.

When you add to this that he took the time to nick Eddowes's face then this would suggest that he perceived there was less risk at this site than the previous ones.

We don't know what he knew about night watchmen, police patrols etc.

Who knows, if he was in that square when Harvey walked down the passage and then retreated, he may have felt that that was the police patrol done for a good 15 minutes or so.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Jon.

PC Long said this:

about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.

Everything Long says here suggests the apron was farther inside the passage.

He says:

lying in the passage....

I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building.....

Why the staircase and building? Surely if the apron was where you say it was the first place he would have checked "at once" would have been the passage before he got to the staircase.

It appears to me that the man on the scene is suggesting that the apron was farther inside the passage.

Halse says this:

At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

How on earth could Halse have 'not necessarily seen the piece of apron' if it was where you say it was?

On balance, and I accept the 'above the writing' confuses the issue, I would say that it's almost certain that the apron was farther inside the passage.

[Observer]

Why the staircase and building? Surely if the apron was where you say it was the first place he would have checked "at once" would have been the passage before he got to the staircase.

It appears to me that the man on the scene is suggesting that the apron was farther inside the passage.

Halse says this:

At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

How on earth could Halse have 'not necessarily seen the piece of apron' if it was where you say it was?

On balance, and I accept the 'above the writing' confuses the issue, I would say that it's almost certain that the apron was farther inside the passage.

If the apron was where you say it was then how did he find it at all? If the apron was inside the passage, and Long did find that section of apron, then it follows that his beat took him into the passage. If his beat took him into the passage then why did he not find the apron section on his first pass?

[Wickerman]

F.M.
It isn't choosing one definition over another, it is finding an explanation which fits all definitions. The entrance to a passage is still in a passage which was still under the archway which was the entrance to the passage.

We do seem to trip ourselves up over 19th century terminology but here we do have consistency, both with the wording, and the practicality of being able to see an object from the footpath.

.

[Observer]

The crux of this argument I believe is the location of the graffito, there is not any doubt where it was written.

Warren

"The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible in the street"

Halse

"I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall."

The black facia surrounded the entrace.

[Observer]

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.

Bit of force to throw a piece of cloth 2 or 3 feet you're joking arn't you? Look at the photograph. In my opinion the killer decided to rid himself of the section of apron, and as he passed the doorway he took advantage of the entrance to throw the section away. That way the the apron would not be lying in the street. It's just a pity that it landed very near to a piece of graffito, thus sparking endless speculation that "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"

[RivkahChaya]

PC Long said this:

about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.

Everything Long says here suggests the apron was farther inside the passage.

He says:

lying in the passage....

I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building.....

Why the staircase and building? Surely if the apron was where you say it was the first place he would have checked "at once" would have been the passage before he got to the staircase.

It appears to me that the man on the scene is suggesting that the apron was farther inside the passage.

Halse says this:

At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

How on earth could Halse have 'not necessarily seen the piece of apron' if it was where you say it was?

On balance, and I accept the 'above the writing' confuses the issue, I would say that it's almost certain that the apron was farther inside the passage.

Bit of force to throw a piece of cloth 2 or 3 feet you're joking arn't you? Look at the photograph. In my opinion the killer decided to rid himself of the section of apron, and as he passed the doorway he took advantage of the entrance to throw the section away. That way the the apron would not be lying in the street. It's just a pity that it landed very near to a piece of graffito, thus sparking endless speculation that "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"

I know people have laughed at my suggestion that the wind was responsible for the cloth ending up where it did, but the wind didn't need to carry it all the way from Mitre Sq. However, if the killer dropped it somewhere, anywhere within about 20 feet of the doorway, the wind could have blown it around, until it got trapped against the arch.

It isn't necessary for the killer to have dropped it exactly where it was found. In fact, unless it was an unusually still night, he probably didn't.