The Goulston Street Apron

[Wickerman]

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.

If it was only a handkerchief, maybe. But several sq ft of course apron?

No matter what solution is proposed, there will never be a consensus.

.

[RivkahChaya]

If it was only a handkerchief, maybe. But several sq ft of course apron?

No matter what solution is proposed, there will never be a consensus.

.

There's not a consensus on whether aliens would, if they could, fly millions of light-years just to stick probes up people's butts, or whether there really should be licorice Necco wafers (they are a dirty trick, and they sully the wafers on either side of them). Heck, I know people who will argue very easily verifiable facts, like what the capital of Kentucky is, or how to spell "Baptist." (He had been one all his life, and as far as he was concerned, it was spelled "Babtist," no matter what the dictionary said. Maybe he belonged to some little-known sect founded by John and Charles Babb. I am not making this up. )

Of course there will never be a consensus. Even if we had the killer in front of us to tell us that no, he did not, in fact, drop the cloth in exactly the spot where it was found, that still wouldn't tell us how it did get there.

It's not really a question for consensus, although I suppose there could be a consensus that something was a good theory, but that still wouldn't make it true, and a person can believe that two incompatible ideas are both good theories.

[RivkahChaya]

If it was only a handkerchief, maybe. But several sq ft of course apron?

BTW, is that several square feet, or several feet, square? I'm still getting confused about how big a piece of cloth we are talking about.

Eddowes was what? 5' even? so her apron was about 28" long, or maybe 30", and, what? 4' at the widest part of the hem, or more like 3'? or would it be even wider back then?

That makes a piece of fabric that is really a strip, a little wider than a foot, and three or four feet, or even five feet long.

Wow. That makes it sound even more like it was for wrapping up the kidney, than for wiping his hands or his knife, because it sounds a lot like butcher paper, that I remember from when I was a kid.

I really think if it were just for wiping his hands, and no other purpose, he'd wipe them on the spot, and leave. It would take longer to cut or tear the fabric than it would to just wipe his hands.

[Observer]

Hi Rivkah

A large section of what this woman is wearing

[Wickerman]

Thankyou Observer.

Yes RivkahChaya, some estimates were given here..

This type of apron was wrapped around the body, from the waist to the ankles, almost meeting at the back. Taking a measure from the waist down, we have 30-36" and to wrap around at the back at ankle level, would be something like 36" wide. This lower section (from the waist, down) of apron was in the order of 9 square feet of material, not including the bib portion.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

When Detective Sergeant Halse stated that "about half" of it was missing, if accurate, we are looking at a piece of about 4.5 sq ft.
This is not a trivial piece, but it is way too large for simply wiping the hands, but not too large to absorb the blood from wet organs.

And yes, we can query all this because we have no precise details, but at the same time there is nothing unreasonable about the figures used.

.

[Observer]

No problem Wickerman

Yes quite a substantial piece of cloth. I must admit that it was quite a surprise to me when I learned of the amount of apron the killer had taken away.

I wonder if Sinn Fein had hired a killer to knock Kate Eddowes off, and he took away the piece of apron to prove to his paymaster that the job had been carried out?

Of course why did he discard it?

The only thing I can think of is one of the stray dogs hanging around Goulston Street got a whiff of the blood and kidney and decided he wanted the kidney more than the killer. So he stalked the killer ala Jack the Ripper and snatched the apron from his pocket. The kidney jumps loose and the killer picks it up. The dog makes off with the apron and the killer gives chase but it disappeared up the stairs of number 108-119 Goulston Street. The killer is about to follow it when he hears the copper's whistle's and decided it was time to get out of there.

The dog meanwhile realising it is no longer being chased comes back down the stairs, and stands at the entrance sniffing and inspecting the apron piece. He soon realises that the kidney he sniffed out is not in evidence ,so he leaves the apron in disgust, and wonders if h'ell ever get another chance at some human offal, his only success being the womb he nicked out of the pocket of that mad Swiiss butcher he met in Hanbury Street a month earlier.

By the way the dog did not write the graffito, as has been suggested. That was written by a disgruntled cat ,whose owner had been sold some dodgy catsmeat by a Jewish catsmeat vendor. What do you think?

Regards

Observer

[curious4]

The apron

Hello all,

If the apron was old and worn thin it would be far less bulky. It was patched and mended, so it was obviously not new. Don't forget that the tear went over and divided the seam joining the patch to the apron. Quite hard to do on a robust piece of material.

I think it feasible that Jack used it to wipe his hands. Also that he may have thrown it where he did to draw attention to the writing on the wall - something white would show up in the dark.

Best wishes,
C4

[curious4]

Really wish I could "like" this, Observer. I do! Like it I mean.

Best wishes,
C4

[Bridewell]

something white would show up in the dark.

How white was it though? It was an old apron, probably dirty before the murder, and certainly thereafter spattered with blood and smeared with faecal matter.

[Wickerman]

Also that he may have thrown it where he did to draw attention to the writing on the wall - something white would show up in the dark.

If the killer wanted to leave a message, wouldn't he have emblazoned it across the wall where it could be easily seen from a distance?

The writing was not even an inch tall, the capitals were about 3/4 of an inch. The whole graffiti was so small it clearly was not intended to attract attention.

.

[curious4]

Apron

Hello Bridewell,

Biggish piece? Not smeared all over? Probably white enough to show up against a dark background. I take your point though.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Apron piece

Hello Wickerman,

Spur of the moment thing? Qulck taunt on his way? Possibly, only faintly possibly, that he wanted to fool the police about which way he was going. Could have written his message quickly, noticed it didn't show up, thus apron piece. I think emblazoning a message would have taken too much time.

Speculation, pure speculation.

Best wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

Not the kind of verse a dosser would throw together?, you think our man had breeding, education?

If he wanted to make a point, why take the time to be poetic?

.

[Bridewell]

Not the kind of verse a dosser would throw together?, you think our man had breeding, education?

If he wanted to make a point, why take the time to be poetic?

.

If the graffito was intended to refer to the murders and the alleged perpetrators, why be so vague? Rather defeats the point if we're still debating it 124 years + after the event!

[Wickerman]

If the graffito was intended to refer to the murders and the alleged perpetrators, why be so vague? Rather defeats the point if we're still debating it 124 years + after the event!

Exactly, if the killer was pressed for time wouldn't we expect a brief but pointed statement in large hand to be easily read by anyone from a distance?

This has all the hallmarks of schoolboy scribble.