The Goulston Street Apron

[curious4]

Hello Monty,

The object the killer would have touched was the apron piece - never said the killer wrote the grafitto. I think the proximity of the apron piece to the graffito would have indicated, however slightly, that the killer MIGHT have been responsible - not good police work to ignore it completely

Best wishes,
C4

Cheers,
C4

[Monty]

Apologies Curious,

I understand now.

It wasnt ignored.

Monty

[curious4]

Hello Monty,

True, my mistake.

Cheers,
C4

[RivkahChaya]

I hope that the police were all over the people living in those tenements. Because I think there is a pretty good chance that the linen was dropped by accident and the Ripper lived there. I agree that it was Shabbes, and just about everyone would have been indoors and in bed. But just because the inhabitants were Jewish, doesn't mean to say that all of them were that frum. A lodger could have been out and about and his landlords wouldn't have asked him too many questions on the premise that he wasn't their son.

Still, one of the reasons that single men who were Jewish lodged with families was to make observance easier-- someone cooked Shabbes dinner, baked challah, etc. I suppose if there was someone who was never home on Friday night, the fact that he was out on one particular Friday when there was a murder, wouldn't cause anyone to put two and two together. Which brings up the thought that JTR may have gone stalking on many nights when he wasn't successful in finding a victim.

You can accuse me of being pernickety if you like, but why would the City cops have wanted a photograph of the GSG if they didn't necessarily believe it had been written by Eddowes' killer?

Well, if it's true that the graffito wasn't there when Long went around on his beat, then it appeared on the same round that the apron appeared, then the person who wrote it may have seen the person who dropped the apron, and therefore was a witness. If the police could track down the person who wrote the graffito, they might get a good description of the killer.

Having a photograph of it would allow them to compare it to other graffiti around town, and to have something to show to people who might recognize the handwriting.

Placing a witness on Goulston St. who saw a person leave the cloth behind would be really excellent. It might even be better than matching the handwriting to the killer, because juries take eyewitnesses very seriously, even eyewitnesses who admit to vandalism, while testimony from a handwriting expert, saying the killer's handwriting matches the graffito, is less impressive. And you know the killer will claim not to have written it, and possibly disguise his writing on samples for analysis.

[Chava]

Still, one of the reasons that single men who were Jewish lodged with families was to make observance easier-- someone cooked Shabbes dinner, baked challah, etc. I suppose if there was someone who was never home on Friday night, the fact that he was out on one particular Friday when there was a murder, wouldn't cause anyone to put two and two together. Which brings up the thought that JTR may have gone stalking on many nights when he wasn't successful in finding a victim.

True, but I assume another reason would be to live with people familiar to and with similar customs to yourself. I read a fascinating article one time about the thousands of t'fillin that had been pitched into New York Harbour by immigrants eager to leave the shtetl behind and turn themselves into a completely new person. I imagine the same kind of thing happened in other big immigrant communities like London. You wouldn't walk off the boat talking beautiful English and calling yourself Henry Harris instead of Chaim Hershkowitz. You'd likely spend time lodging with other Jews before you branched out into the broader society.

But I agree with you that he went out on other occasions and didn't find prey or wasn't driven to kill it. I doubt he kills successfully every time he goes out to hunt.

[Abby Normal]

New apron theory?

Not sure if anyone else has ever put forth this idea before and its somewhat gross so forgive me. The apron had fecal matter on it-perhaps the killer had a bowel movement during the killing/mutilation of eddowes and took her apron to wipe himself with. Once he got far enough away he ducks into the doorway of the building wipes/cleans himself and discards the apron.

Of course this totally is against my opinion that the killer took the apron to validate his writing of the GSG and lessons the probability that he wrote the GSG. But I could not help but notice that there have been other serial killers that have defacated near their victims, out of excitement and or to further degrade their victim.

[RivkahChaya]

You wouldn't walk off the boat talking beautiful English and calling yourself Henry Harris instead of Chaim Hershkowitz. You'd likely spend time lodging with other Jews before you branched out into the broader society.

But I agree with you that he went out on other occasions and didn't find prey or wasn't driven to kill it. I doubt he kills successfully every time he goes out to hunt.

I know what you're getting at. I've seen Hester Street about nine times. But I still think that the absence of a Jew would be more likely to be noted, than the absence of a gentile. If the killer was a Jew, then one or more of the following things will also be true: he regularly went out on Shabbes, and therefore was probably not observant in general, and I'm going to make the leap to "he went stalking some nights, but didn't find a victim"; he didn't have a wife (or at least not one he lived with-- he could have had one who was still in Poland, or somewhere), and didn't live with his parents, because I think they would have expectations for erev Shabbes being "family time," even if they were aware that he was not observant in other ways, such as not going to daily prayers, and eating in non-kosher restaurants; he probably was attempting to assimilate, and would be making a special effort to speak English like an Englishman, so he'd have the conversation skills to talk up a prostitute, and he wouldn't dress frum, with a wide-brimmed hat over a yarmulke, tzitzis, and a full beard, so a description of the killer as Jewish, that meant "old-world looking" probably wouldn't mean someone like this.

[RivkahChaya]

Not sure if anyone else has ever put forth this idea before and its somewhat gross so forgive me. The apron had fecal matter on it-perhaps the killer had a bowel movement during the killing/mutilation of eddowes and took her apron to wipe himself with. Once he got far enough away he ducks into the doorway of the building wipes/cleans himself and discards the apron.

How fastidious were people about this aspect of toileting? I mean, I think people did have toilet paper by the late end of Victorian era, but probably not in the East End.

Heck, I was in Soviet Russia in 1977, and very naive, so that I'd go to restrooms with pocket Kleenex with me, so I didn't notice the lack of TP, and I thought the copy of the Pravda on the back of the tank was so people would have something to read.

Was this something people expected to find in public toilets, or something they carried with them, or were there a lot of people who just didn't care? So you had skid marks? so what? I have a six-year-old, and I can tell you that it takes some social conditioning (and underwear with R2D2, who we do not want to sully) for people to care about that.

[Errata]

How fastidious were people about this aspect of toileting? I mean, I think people did have toilet paper by the late end of Victorian era, but probably not in the East End.

Heck, I was in Soviet Russia in 1977, and very naive, so that I'd go to restrooms with pocket Kleenex with me, so I didn't notice the lack of TP, and I thought the copy of the Pravda on the back of the tank was so people would have something to read.

Was this something people expected to find in public toilets, or something they carried with them, or were there a lot of people who just didn't care? So you had skid marks? so what? I have a six-year-old, and I can tell you that it takes some social conditioning (and underwear with R2D2, who we do not want to sully) for people to care about that.

I think the need to take a dump might have actually added some extra urgency to the situation. Maybe he took the apron because he knew he wasn't going to make it home?

Save r2!

[curious4]

Apron

Not sure if anyone else has ever put forth this idea before and its somewhat gross so forgive me. The apron had fecal matter on it-perhaps the killer had a bowel movement during the killing/mutilation of eddowes and took her apron to wipe himself with. Once he got far enough away he ducks into the doorway of the building wipes/cleans himself and discards the apron.

Of course this totally is against my opinion that the killer took the apron to validate his writing of the GSG and lessons the probability that he wrote the GSG. But I could not help but notice that there have been other serial killers that have defacated near their victims, out of excitement and or to further degrade their victim.

Hello Abby,

PC Long says that one corner of the apron was wet with blood and that he noticed the apron before the writing on the wall. Dr Brown states that there was blood on the apron "and apparently faecal matter" - not much of it if Long didn't notice it and Dr Brown wasn't even sure what it was.

Best wishes,
C4

[Michael W Richards]

The fecal matter was from the section of Kates colon that was cut off then left between her left arm and body...in some reports one end was twisted into the wounds in her neck. The fact that its on the apron section means that the section was used to clean it from his hands and perhaps knife, or that it was transferred from something carried in the cloth that came from Kate.

I believe the second answer is probable, thats why I dont believe the killer would walk around with his makeshift parcel.

Best regards

[curious4]

Apron etc

Hello Michael,

The piece of intestine was placed between her arm and body (see Frederick Foster's sketch of the crime scene).

Don't think Jack used the piece of apron to carry his "trophies" - more than just a corner of the apron would be bloodstained. Not quite sure that he would cut off a piece of her apron to wipe hands/knife either. Why not just wipe them on the victim's clothes? He showed utter contempt for his victims so presumably wouldn't worry about wiping his hands/knife on their clothes.

The apron piece was found just over an hour after the murder with one corner "wet with blood". Could Jack have dipped the corner in Kate's blood for some reason?

Best wishes,
C4

[Damaso Marte]

The apron piece was found just over an hour after the murder with one corner "wet with blood". Could Jack have dipped the corner in Kate's blood for some reason?

The story goes that France abolished public executions by guillotine when people were disturbed by the behavior of souvenir-seekers who would dip handkerchiefs in the blood of the executed. I suppose its plausible the killer wanted a souvenir and then decided it was a better idea to abandon it.

[Damaso Marte]

Not sure if anyone else has ever put forth this idea before and its somewhat gross so forgive me. The apron had fecal matter on it-perhaps the killer had a bowel movement during the killing/mutilation of eddowes and took her apron to wipe himself with. Once he got far enough away he ducks into the doorway of the building wipes/cleans himself and discards the apron.

Of course this totally is against my opinion that the killer took the apron to validate his writing of the GSG and lessons the probability that he wrote the GSG. But I could not help but notice that there have been other serial killers that have defacated near their victims, out of excitement and or to further degrade their victim.

And where did he leave his feces?

[Errata]

Hello Michael,

The piece of intestine was placed between her arm and body (see Frederick Foster's sketch of the crime scene).

Don't think Jack used the piece of apron to carry his "trophies" - more than just a corner of the apron would be bloodstained. Not quite sure that he would cut off a piece of her apron to wipe hands/knife either. Why not just wipe them on the victim's clothes? He showed utter contempt for his victims so presumably wouldn't worry about wiping his hands/knife on their clothes.

The apron piece was found just over an hour after the murder with one corner "wet with blood". Could Jack have dipped the corner in Kate's blood for some reason?

Best wishes,
C4

I'm not sure if it was wet with blood or wet, with blood. If that makes sense. I don't know if the blood was wet, or the cloth was wet because it had rained a little, and there was blood on it.