The Goulston Street Apron

[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

[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.

[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.


.

[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.

[Phil H]

There is every reason to question Long's statement.

And of course, he would say that, wouldn't he. He ain't going to tell his bosses I was not doing my job properly, is he?

Phil

[RivkahChaya]

This may be relevant, not to the possible Goulston St. graffito, but to the presence of them in Brooklyn.

The rule on whether or not to take one down is a bit ad hoc, and depends on whether or not you know the next tenants will be Jewish. If you know for a fact that they will not be, you are supposed to take it down, because the new tenants might not know what it is, and desecrate it, out of ignorance, not malice. If you know the next tenants will be Jewish, you should leave it up. If you do not know, generally, you are supposed to leave it up, unless you have reason to think there's a good probability they will not be, or that if they are not, they may be anti-Semitic, and desecrate the scroll on purpose.

I assume that when they were put up on the outer doors of buildings where everyone was Jewish, and the population became less and less Jewish, they were still left up. If someone moving out knew for fact there were no other Jewish tenants, he might have taken it down, but in all likelihood, it would have stayed up until it was taken down to repair or remodel.

Now, most buildings don't have main doors that lend themselves easily to putting up mezzuzot-- they have steel frames instead of wood or brick. Buildings that are home dwellings, and are new, are frequently huge high-rises, with so many units, it's impossible to know personal details about the neighbors.

This is probably why it isn't done anymore.

I know people who have set-up co-ops, sort of, while in college, or just after, where several unrelated people rent a house together, because they all want to keep kosher and Shabbes, or they are all vegans who don't wear leather, or they are all single parents who want to share childcare, or they are all in AA, and want a no-alcohol house. In a case like that, if they were Jewish, I'm sure they'd put up a mezzuzah.

[Errata]

You have no idea...

As for the communal mezuzah, I can see putting it on JCCs and yeshivahs and Jewish dorm rooms and community centres of course. But those are communal buildings which are all of a piece. I don't see putting a mezuzah on the front door of a block of flats because there are separate dwellings within. It's an interesting shayla and one I might put to a handy rabbi when I get the chance. But in the meantime, those tenements are still standing I believe. Easy for someone in London to go check the doorpost for the outline of a mezuzah. I'll be there myself in a couple of weeks and I'd planned a trip to the East End to go to Spitalfields Market which is just round the corner. I'll check!

The nail holes might not have survived repeated paintings.

I have seen mezzuzahs on apartment building doors in New York, one of them on a Columbia University dorm. The story on that one was that someone put it up because the first floor and basement were all Jewish, and didn't have the requisite door frame space. But it stayed up for probably 30 years. The other tenants don't mind it, and my sister's roommate really appreciated it because she was crazy superstitious and felt like she could use all the help she could get.

But we did use to put them up in communal areas. My grandmother's apartment building in Brooklyn had one, as did my grandfather's building, and my grandfather put one up on their apartment building in the Bronx when they first got married. So it was a thing, I just don't know if it was a Brooklyn Jew thing or a Jewish thing that fell out of practice after say... 1938.

[RivkahChaya]

You have no idea...

Why on this night do we eat matzah and not bread?

Because it's a commandment. A better question is why we eat it any other night. In the kosher section of the store, they sell matzah labeled "Not for Passover use." Who buys that?

4) The soiled apron is a memento to relive the event.

4 is a dark horse.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

I think the "rag" was there earlier, but the PC didn't 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. That still seems reasonable to me. Of course, when wiping hands, if pre-occupied, we don;t always stop as soon as we might. Ever been drying the washing up with a tea-towel and heard some news on the TV - gone through to watch and still been drying the item a while later? I certainly have.

And Jack was probably pre-occupied that night.

I find a "Jack" getting away from the murder scene, no doubt high on adrenalin, walking fast, glancing behind him, wiping his hands now and then, passing a doorway and simply discarding the apron scrap without much thought, far more convincing than all this time delays, going in and coming out, pausing to write incoherent messages on walls...

I'm not saying I'm right. Simply, I prefer simplicity in this and the old conventional wisdom has merit in my eyes.

Phil

Phil

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.

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.

With that apron section on him out of doors, he is in great danger....Police are everywhere and are looking for a single man outdoors now that they know murder has been committed that night. He wouldnt walk around with it for more than 45 minutes.

My best regards

[Fleetwood Mac]

Agreed.

Such a 'simple' assumption leaves two problems..

Jon,

The problem with this is that we're all making assumptions because we don't have the answers. It's bit of a redundant argument, and ultimately pointless.

If we're talking logic:

Then logic dictates that he needed that apron for some sort of operation that he couldn't perform at the scene, i.e. anything that he could have done at scene was not the reason he took the apron - that is fairly logical.

This would leave:

1) To carry the organs.
2) To wrap around a cut.
3) To plant the apron next to the writing.
4) The soiled apron is a memento to relive the event.
5) Some other hitherto unexplained reason.

I don't find 3 plausible; admittedly I'm basing this on the fact I wouldn't have done so, but, logically, it is more plausible than wiping his hands or his knife.

4 is a dark horse.

1 is the obvious explanation. He has organs; he takes something that could act as a carrier.

[Chava]

Are you already sick of matzah?

You have no idea...

As for the communal mezuzah, I can see putting it on JCCs and yeshivahs and Jewish dorm rooms and community centres of course. But those are communal buildings which are all of a piece. I don't see putting a mezuzah on the front door of a block of flats because there are separate dwellings within. It's an interesting shayla and one I might put to a handy rabbi when I get the chance. But in the meantime, those tenements are still standing I believe. Easy for someone in London to go check the doorpost for the outline of a mezuzah. I'll be there myself in a couple of weeks and I'd planned a trip to the East End to go to Spitalfields Market which is just round the corner. I'll check!

[RivkahChaya]

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.

Well, we do put them on synagogue doors, and the doors to Hillel centers, and JCCs, even if the JCC is a large collection of buildings. I have seen them in Orthodox areas where part of the eruv is an actual wall, and not just a wire, and they are on dormitories at yeshivas.

It might not be mentioned if the officer writing the report didn't know what to call it, and especially if they were ubiquitous. I've never seen a photo older than the 1970s, and by then, there wouldn't be one.

Anyway, the mitzvah is the write them on your homes and on your gates, so if you have a fence around your house, you should have a mezzuzah on the walk-in entrance-- although, not the drive-in entrance, unless it is the only entrance, or so I've been told. I've even seen scrolls sealed in plastic tubes for outdoor placement where they'll be exposed to the elements.

Are you already sick of matzah?

[Phil H]

You clearly didn't read my earlier post, I think the "rag" was there earlier, but the PC didn't 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. That still seems reasonable to me. Of course, when wiping hands, if pre-occupied, we don;t always stop as soon as we might. Ever been drying the washing up with a tea-towel and heard some news on the TV - gone through to watch and still been drying the item a while later? I certainly have.

And Jack was probably pre-occupied that night.

I find a "Jack" getting away from the murder scene, no doubt high on adrenalin, walking fast, glancing behind him, wiping his hands now and then, passing a doorway and simply discarding the apron scrap without much thought, far more convincing than all this time delays, going in and coming out, pausing to write incoherent messages on walls...

I'm not saying I'm right. Simply, I prefer simplicity in this and the old conventional wisdom has merit in my eyes.

Phil

Phil

[Wickerman]

Just to remind people:

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

Agreed.

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

Phil

Such a 'simple' assumption leaves two problems..

- Wiping your hands only takes seconds it should have been discarded on leaving Mitre Square. The rag was found several streets away. Why carry it so far?

- If he only wiped his hands, then the rag must have been dropped in Goulston St. only minutes after the murder, then why was it not there at 2:20 am?

Both questions are problematical, so your claim that "wiping the hands" is the simplest solution actually causes other problems.

I don't think there is a simple solution.

.

[Phil H]

Sorry, if I didn't make myself clear, but if you read my earlier post, Bridewell, I do not claim to be correct or otherwise. I assume all my conclusions are wrong in this case!!!

I simply interjected a simple explanation into a discussion that, to me, is getting lost in complex speculations and theorising which have only the flimsiest foundation (if that).

Phil