From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Indian Harry]

He didn't write the graffiti, in my view, but he ditched the apron as he passed the entry, possibly because he saw a constable approaching.



Far too big.

There is a story that most researchers tend to dismiss, either that or it is largely forgotten about.
Remember the story by PC Spicer?

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_express/310316.html

This was the same night as the Double-event.
Theorists have often queried why the killer would return to the streets with an empty bloodstained rag.
Maybe he went looking for a third victim that night?
Henage Court is further east in the same direction of flight from Mitre Sq, passing through Goulston St.



Agreed - unrelated.

I just read the link you provided for PC Spicer. My impression is that Spicer was well meaning but ended up arresting a an average john without any probable cause. None the less I enjoyed reading it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Check, Daily News & Times of 5th Oct. 1888.



That was the report I was looking for!

I had seen the report of the resumption of the inquest, published by the Daily News a week later.



Not necessarily, he may have placed them on the ground first while he cut the section of apron off.


Would that have prevented the apron from becoming more badly stained than it was?



Chapman's scarf was missing.


Can we book sure of that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He didn't write the graffiti, in my view, but he ditched the apron as he passed the entry, possibly because he saw a constable approaching.

Why then had he taken the piece of apron with him in the first place and why had he carried it such a great distance?

[Curious Cat]

Is PC Long's adamant testimony that the apron piece wasn't there before 2:55am due to him actually checking the doorway on each pass through?

It's not explicitly indicated whether he did this as a matter of course as part of his beat but if PC Long did a cursory sweep of open doorways along his beat then he would be very clear in his mind that the apron piece wasn't there previously. A bloody piece of cloth on the floor that was not there last time he passed by would certainly catch his attention.

In contrast, some writing on the wall at an angle to his view would be easily missed or ignored until he looked much closer which he did on finding the apron piece. If it was there before that point, of course.

If the killer was spooked by an approaching constable then that could only be PC Long. Does the killer then deliberately leave the apron piece for PC Long to find on his next circuit? A tease to say, 'Just missed me, ha ha,'?

[Trevor Marriott]

Is PC Long's adamant testimony that the apron piece wasn't there before 2:55am due to him actually checking the doorway on each pass through?

It's not explicitly indicated whether he did this as a matter of course as part of his beat but if PC Long did a cursory sweep of open doorways along his beat then he would be very clear in his mind that the apron piece wasn't there previously. A bloody piece of cloth on the floor that was not there last time he passed by would certainly catch his attention.

In contrast, some writing on the wall at an angle to his view would be easily missed or ignored until he looked much closer which he did on finding the apron piece. If it was there before that point, of course.

If the killer was spooked by an approaching constable then that could only be PC Long. Does the killer then deliberately leave the apron piece for PC Long to find on his next circuit? A tease to say, 'Just missed me, ha ha,'?

You have a vivid sense of imagination Which way did he run Pc Long was coming up Goulston St in one direction Dc Halse was at the other end?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

Why then had he taken the piece of apron with him in the first place and why had he carried it such a great distance?

This is a gruesome murder committed in mere minutes in near darkness. Was it all planned to what he took, what he took it with, and what he was going to write down and were he was going to write it ? Or is it possible he wiped his hands on the cloth put it in his pocket in his haste momentarily forgot about it and discarded it later on. Or perhaps carrying the organs in it which he discarded somewhere else, bolt hole or otherwise thinking it too risky [ in an afterthought , or perhaps spotting a PC ] to have them on him particularly since the killer seemed to be heading back into the heart of Whitechapel. And so chucked the cloth into any darkened doorway or recess where he would hope it wouldn't be spotted till he was long gone.
Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my answers below.

This is a gruesome murder committed in mere minutes in near darkness. Was it all planned to what he took, what he took it with, and what he was going to write down and were he was going to write it ?


I think the murderer at all times acted with purpose.



Or is it possible he wiped his hands on the cloth put it in his pocket in his haste momentarily forgot about it and discarded it later on.


No.

There was no need to cut the apron piece in half if he wanted to use the apron merely to wipe his hands or knife.

Nor was there any need to take the apron piece with him, unless he had some purpose in mind.



Or perhaps carrying the organs in it


As has been pointed out by Trevor Marriott, the apron piece was stained in such ways that it could hardly have been used to carry the missing organs.



which he discarded somewhere else, bolt hole or otherwise thinking it too risky [ in an afterthought , or perhaps spotting a PC ] to have them on him


If he thought it was too risky to have internal organs on him, then why carry them in the first place?



particularly since the killer seemed to be heading back into the heart of Whitechapel.


I suggest he was heading for Spitalfields, not Whitechapel.



And so chucked the cloth into any darkened doorway or recess where he would hope it wouldn't be spotted till he was long gone.


In that case, would he not have discarded the apron piece much earlier than he did and much nearer to the scene of the crime?

And if, as you suggest, he took the apron piece for the purpose of carrying the organs in it, why would he then discard it?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Please see my answers below.

I think the murderer took a victim when and where he could. Yes he knew the area and roughly were he thought he would strike but that would be the limit to his pre planning .
The purpose in mind could be to carry the organs. He may have dropped the organs off somewhere safe if he did use a bolt hole rather than carry them all the way home. . He also could have heard a policeman's steps for instance, fled quickly putting the apron piece in his pocket to wipe his hands on once he deemed himself sufficiently clear. He may have even taken the apron piece with him as a form of trophy only to think better of it once he was away from the murder site. What is certain is the murder happened very quickly and that the ripper could have easily been caught, as is the case with Liz an hour earlier.. Plus the fact that at least one PC, Long patrolled Goulston st which wasn't far at all from Mitre Square . I simply cannot see the ripper stop and write an ambiguous message like the GSG which we are still arguing over the proper meaning of over a century later in such a tight spot.
Consider this, suppose PC Watkin had entered the square before Jack had torn /cut the piece of Apron off ?
What was he going to use then to direct the police to his musings ?
Was the brutal murder cutting up and harvesting of internal organs the prime objective of the murderer or was it to leave an enigmatic message ?
He , as far as we know never communicated with the police or anyone else for that matter [ with the possible exception of the Lusk kidney, which I myself do not believe he did but I am prepared to believe otherwise ]. Why not write some kind of message on Mary's wall for instance where he would have had more time or taken something of Mary's to post later with said message ?

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think the murderer took a victim when and where he could. Yes he knew the area and roughly were he thought he would strike but that would be the limit to his pre planning .
The purpose in mind could be to carry the organs. He may have dropped the organs off somewhere safe if he did use a bolt hole rather than carry them all the way home. . He also could have heard a policeman's steps for instance, fled quickly putting the apron piece in his pocket to wipe his hands on once he deemed himself sufficiently clear. He may have even taken the apron piece with him as a form of trophy only to think better of it once he was away from the murder site. What is certain is the murder happened very quickly and that the ripper could have easily been caught, as is the case with Liz an hour earlier.. Plus the fact that at least one PC, Long patrolled Goulston st which wasn't far at all from Mitre Square . I simply cannot see the ripper stop and write an ambiguous message like the GSG which we are still arguing over the proper meaning of over a century later in such a tight spot.
Consider this, suppose PC Watkin had entered the square before Jack had torn /cut the piece of Apron off ?
What was he going to use then to direct the police to his musings ?
Was the brutal murder cutting up and harvesting of internal organs the prime objective of the murderer or was it to leave an enigmatic message ?
He , as far as we know never communicated with the police or anyone else for that matter [ with the possible exception of the Lusk kidney, which I myself do not believe he did but I am prepared to believe otherwise ]. Why not write some kind of message on Mary's wall for instance where he would have had more time or taken something of Mary's to post later with said message ?

Regards Darryl

I agree with you that he could not have known in advance that he would leave a message in Goulston Street that night.

Had he mutilated Stride, who was not wearing an apron, then he might not have got the opportunity.

However, he did not presumably just happen to be in possession of a piece of chalk with which to write the message.

When he saw Eddowes' white apron in the dark, he saw his chance.

He could not have carried the organs in the apron piece because the staining of it is not consistent with that having happened.

Why cut the apron in two, carry it such a long way, and then discard it?

And is it just a coincidence that the writing was written in such a location that it was almost pointing at the apron piece below?

[Wickerman]

I just read the link you provided for PC Spicer. My impression is that Spicer was well meaning but ended up arresting a an average john without any probable cause. None the less I enjoyed reading it.

Yes, but what is the reason for you not believing the story?

"An average John" is just your interpretation, and there is no evidence to suggest that.
There must have been plenty of "I was there..." type stories, and "I would have caught him, if it wasn't for.....etc."
So, it's just another one of those stories, but is there a grain of truth to it?

I don't think our JtR was a super-sleuth, we might have made him look like one, but in reality he was just an ordinary man with a twisted mentality.
The Yorkshire Ripper had been interviewed on nine separate occasions before he was finally arrested, so Spicer's story may be an example of JtR being discovered and then let go - just like Peter Sutcliffe had been.

[Wickerman]

Would that have prevented the apron from becoming more badly stained than it was?

I mean some of the blood would drain off the organs if they were placed on the wet stones in the rain, while he sliced off a piece of apron.
Personally, I think this line of enquiry is a red-herring, the question was raised by Trevor because he thinks his 'professional' source would 'know' how much blood would be on the piece of apron. I don't think any modern professional can say they 'know'.


I wrote:
Chapman's scarf was missing.

Can we book sure of that?

The police made a description of her body & clothing, we can only trust the evidence we are given.

[Wickerman]

Why then had he taken the piece of apron with him in the first place and why had he carried it such a great distance?

He carried the organs wrapped in the piece of apron - in my view.
If he didn't use it to carry the organs then his clothes would be blood stained - it makes no sense whatsoever to put freshly removed organs in a pocket and carry a rag away to just wipe your hands with.
Have you ever had blood stained hands?
I was a butcher's apprentice for a few years straight out of school. Wiping the hands does not remove blood, and your hands remain very sticky. To get the blood off you need to wash them.
Blood is very difficult to remove from clothing, and it will make his jacket smell after a few hours.
He has a rag in his hand, there's no disputing that, so why wouldn't he wrap the organs in it?

[Trevor Marriott]

[/B]

I mean some of the blood would drain off the organs if they were placed on the wet stones in the rain, while he sliced off a piece of apron.
Personally, I think this line of enquiry is a red-herring, the question was raised by Trevor because he thinks his 'professional' source would 'know' how much blood would be on the piece of apron. I don't think any modern professional can say they 'know'.

My professional source to which you refer was a consultant gynaecologist who removed a uterus from a live patient while performing a hysterectomy. The uterus was immediately after removal wrapped in a white cloth and the cloth was photographed a short time later giving a heavily bloodstained effect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

My professional source to which you refer was a consultant gynaecologist who removed a uterus from a live patient while performing a hysterectomy. The uterus was immediately after removal wrapped in a white cloth and the cloth was photographed a short time later giving a heavily bloodstained effect.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And how does that compare with the Goulston Street Apron stains? Not in terms of someone's subjective verbal descriptions, but in terms of actual visual comparison?

Mind you, given the piece found at Goulston Street was described as having stains looking like a hand or knife was wiped upon it, and not as one that looked like it contained a uterus (or any other organ), how does showing the stains on a cloth after an action not described as the likely source of the stains really help? (Beyond, perhaps, further demonstrating that the original explanation might be right? Of course, without the original staining pattern to compare to, how do any of us know if the above is a good or bad match to it?)

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

And how does that compare with the Goulston Street Apron stains? Not in terms of someone's subjective verbal descriptions, but in terms of actual visual comparison?

Mind you, given the piece found at Goulston Street was described as having stains looking like a hand or knife was wiped upon it, and not as one that looked like it contained a uterus (or any other organ), how does showing the stains on a cloth after an action not described as the likely source of the stains really help? (Beyond, perhaps, further demonstrating that the original explanation might be right? Of course, without the original staining pattern to compare to, how do any of us know if the above is a good or bad match to it?)

- Jeff

It shows that if the killer had removed the organs from the victim at the crime as is suggested and then placed them in the apron piece this is how it would have looked because the surgeon did just that took the uterus out of a live donor and wrapped it in the cloth and then photographed the cloth. So it is clear that the killer did not take the organs away in the apron piece, and notwithstanding how it would have looked had a kidney been added to the cloth.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk