From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Indian Harry]

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.

Spicer's man can certainly be entered into a suspect pool and there is always a chance he was the ripper. With that said Spicer seems to have been driven purely by emotion when he decided that this man was the ripper. We see this in his own words:

"As soon as I saw the man in that dark alley-way in the early hours of the morning I felt sure he was the Ripper."

And again here.

"What is a respectable doctor doing with a notorious woman at a quarter to two in the morning?"

Spicer mentions that his suspect gave a Brixton address. Is that a street or a neighborhood? It would be interesting to look through census data for a Brixton doctor.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Spicer's man can certainly be entered into a suspect pool and there is always a chance he was the ripper. With that said Spicer seems to have been driven purely by emotion when he decided that this man was the ripper. We see this in his own words:

"As soon as I saw the man in that dark alley-way in the early hours of the morning I felt sure he was the Ripper."

And again here.

"What is a respectable doctor doing with a notorious woman at a quarter to two in the morning?"

Spicer mentions that his suspect gave a Brixton address. Is that a street or a neighborhood? It would be interesting to look through census data for a Brixton doctor.

Brixton is an area south of the Thames

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

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?


[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.


He could not have been more definite.

He did not say, 'I cannot say because I did not look'.


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.


Exactly!

If he was as unobservant as his critics suggest, why did he find the apron at all?


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.


Correct.

The best evidence we have is that the writing was on the inside of the jamb, i.e. roughly perpendicular to the street.

Upon finding the apron piece and walking back out, the writing would have been on his immediate left, almost at eye level.


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,'?


If you mean that the murderer may have been about to write the message when he saw Pc Long approaching, he could have hidden on the stairs out of view and waited until Long had passed.

[Curious Cat]

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

Seeing as PC Long and DC Halse didn't see each other when they were on Goulston Street at the same time then neither of them seeing the killer while he slipped into the shadows of a staircase is rather basic. In fact, we know they did not see the killer due to their testimonies. Or rather, they were unaware if they had. But we do know all three were present in that street over a similar time and the only one seemingly aware of at least one of the others at any point was the killer.

If PC Long momentarily stopped on the pavement at 2:20am and casually circled his torch around the outside of the doorway before moving on he would not be aware of someone further inside and up a few steps in the stairwell. He also wouldn't necessarily notice any specific graffiti being there or not, so whether the killer wrote it will always be inconclusive. However, a bloody piece of apron would be a notable difference in being there if it wasn't before. PC Long occasionally stopping along his new beat may also account for the length of time it took him to complete a circuit. The killer would've known the constable was the one person who was due to return to that spot. As the bodies were supposed to be found in good time, so was the apron piece. It's completely in keeping with the killer's apparent thought process.

[Curious Cat]

Please see my replies below.

If you mean that the murderer may have been about to write the message when he saw Pc Long approaching, he could have hidden on the stairs out of view and waited until Long had passed.

You posted just as I was typing my reply to Trevor so I've pretty much said the very same thing. But I would add, it's possible PC Long was walking north up Goulston Street as the killer walked south, spotted the constable first - maybe seeing his torch - and ducked into the doorway. Obviously we don't know whether DC Halse entered the street before or after PC Long.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You posted just as I was typing my reply to Trevor so I've pretty much said the very same thing. But I would add, it's possible PC Long was walking north up Goulston Street as the killer walked south, spotted the constable first - maybe seeing his torch - and ducked into the doorway. Obviously we don't know whether DC Halse entered the street before or after PC Long.

Yes, indeed.

We are necessarily speculating.

I did myself speculate here some months ago that the murderer may have spotted Long on a yet earlier beat, at about 1.50 a.m. and came back after 2.20. a.m.

I imagined that the murderer would have been heading north and Long south, but unlike the beats of Harvey and Watkins, I don't think I have come across Long's.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

I am assuming here PI that you are suggesting the murderer had the piece of chalk on him, not by chance but as a forethought of leaving a message regarding the Jews ?

To me if he wanted to leave a message he would have chose a victim more carefully, even if it meant biding his time and running the risk of not satisfying his warped fantasies. [ Don't forget he killed two victims that night, both in tight spots with very little time ]. Perhaps a victim indoors like Mary where if a message was left, there would be no doubt it was from the murderer.
And why chuck the apron in a doorway anyhow ? It may have never been discovered but thought of as say, a makeshift sanitary towel when the rubbish was cleaned up . Why not take it back home with him and perhaps send it to the police the day after with said message.

This is part of the apron I tore off the woman I murdered in Aldgate . Plus whatever writings he wanted to convey for instance

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

I am assuming here PI that you are suggesting the murderer had the piece of chalk on him, not by chance but as a forethought of leaving a message regarding the Jews ?


Yes.


To me if he wanted to leave a message he would have chose a victim more carefully, even if it meant biding his time and running the risk of not satisfying his warped fantasies. [ don't forget he killed two victims that night, both in tight spots with very little time ].


I think leaving the message was a secondary consideration for him and when he saw the white apron, he saw his opportunity.

I believe he had already selected Wentworth Dwellings as the place where he would leave the message.


Perhaps a victim indoors like Mary where if a message was left, there would be no doubt it was from the murderer.


He intended the murder of Mary Kelly to be his masterpiece.

Writing a message would have been superfluous.


And why chuck the apron in a doorway anyhow ?


It was an archway and the way he wrote the message, the writing was almost pointing to the apron piece.

He obviously thought that was clever.


It may have never been discovered but thought of as say, a makeshift sanitary towel when the rubbish was cleaned up .


Not just after the so-called Double Event.


Why not take it back home with him and perhaps send it to the police the day after with said message.

This is part of the apron I tore off the woman I murdered in Aldgate . Plus whatever writings he wanted to convey for instance


Following the Hanbury Street murder, it was reported erroneously that the murderer had left a chalked message.

At the same time, it was reported that young men marched down Hanbury Street, shouting that the murderer was a Jew.

I suggest that the two reports suggested to the murderer the idea of leaving a chalked message incriminating the Jews, following a subsequent murder.

[Wickerman]

Just a minor point Mr P.I.
Have you ever tried to reply to someone's post where they bury their replies within a quoted section like you have?
It's a great deal of work.

It would be easier if you placed a [ / q u o t e ] to limit the question you are responding to. Then write your reply.
Then precede their next sentence with a [ q u o t e ] and end it with a [ / q u o t e ].
(I put spaces between each character so you can see them, as they are Commands so would be invisible)

[Wickerman]

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

Yes, I recall you explaining this at the time.
But, what is the point when we have no photograph of the original piece of apron with which to make a comparison?
You are comparing a photo with written testimony that has been edited, and trying to make a case out of the fact they are not the same?
Seriously, what kind of argument is that?

PC Long said:
"The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood....", also, if I recall correctly you tried to make a case about the removed piece being described as "spotted" with blood, as opposed to "stained" with blood.
These are not reliable details with which to base an argument. All are too subjective.

All that said, how would you prove the above stains (in your pic.) were not made by wiping the blood off the hands?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Please see my replies below.

I believe he had already selected Wentworth Dwellings as the place where he would leave the message.

So what was he doing in Berner st murdering Liz ? And how did he know he would find a victim near Goulston st ? And for that matter , how did he know the victim would have something he could take with him to link him to the murder ?

[JeffHamm]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Provided, of course, the uterus was placed in the middle of the cloth, and not at a corner and then rolled up that way. Provided also that the material of the cloth used by the surgeon is the same as the apron material, provided also that the material in your photo was to some degree already wet (as the apron would likely have been, given the rain). Provided, of course, the killer didn't first put the uterus down on the ground, while cutting away the apron to carry it, and as such the uterus would have had some blood removed (again, the rain), and I'm sure there are other assumptions that have to be made in order to reach the conclusion you've pro-offered.

It's not as simple as that, I'm afraid. Even showing that it is possible to wipe bloody hands on a cloth and produce a pattern that doesn't correspond to one's own subjective satisfaction to the written descriptions we have doesn't mean anything. It's just demonstrating that one can produce a pattern they don't like. What one has to do is demonstrate it is impossible to create a pattern that looks like a hand or knife was wiped upon the cloth by actually wiping hands and knives over a cloth. And that to me just seems unlikely to be possible.

We do not have the original apron piece, so we cannot evaluate or make any meaningful comparison between the evidence and any of the staining patterns you have. These photos, which you've shown before, are incapable of being used in the way you are trying to use them. To do so requires having the original evidence, and even then, it is not enough to show that one can make a stain that looks different, but that it is impossible to make stains that looks similar. The idea that the apron piece was used to transport organs is not a contemporary idea (as far as I'm aware), rather, the stains were thought to reflect wiping of hands and/or knife (used for cleaning up). Staining patterns will depend on the material, and you've used something completely unlike a Victorian apron's material, making these even less informative.

You've just shown that if you do something completely unlike that which was described at the time using materials completely different from the piece of evidence in question, you can create a stain that in your view doesn't match a vague and subjective verbal description.



- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I believe he had already selected Wentworth Dwellings as the place where he would leave the message.

So what was he doing in Berner st murdering Liz ? And how did he know he would find a victim near Goulston st ? And for that matter , how did he know the victim would have something he could take with him to link him to the murder ?

He was an opportunist and he committed a murder in Berner Street because the opportunity presented itself there.

He did not need to find a victim near Goulston Street.

He didn't know about the apron till he saw it, but he was on the lookout for something that he could use in that way.

[Darryl Kenyon]

He was an opportunist and he committed a murder in Berner Street because the opportunity presented itself there.

He did not need to find a victim near Goulston Street.

He didn't know about the apron till he saw it, but he was on the lookout for something that he could use in that way.

He did not need to find a victim near Goulston st to leave the apron at Wentworth dwellings which he had already selected as a place to leave his message, as you say . The closer the better as far as I can see. So if he mutilated Liz he would have still walked from east to west to leave the apron at Wentworth dwellings ? instead of what he actually did, put some distance between himself and Berner st to find another victim to satisfy his cravings , as most people would think. And just suppose a policeman had been on Goulston st when he wanted to deposit the apron ? What was Jack going to do, just hang around ?

Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

Provided, of course, the uterus was placed in the middle of the cloth, and not at a corner and then rolled up that way. Provided also that the material of the cloth used by the surgeon is the same as the apron material, provided also that the material in your photo was to some degree already wet (as the apron would likely have been, given the rain). Provided, of course, the killer didn't first put the uterus down on the ground, while cutting away the apron to carry it, and as such the uterus would have had some blood removed (again, the rain), and I'm sure there are other assumptions that have to be made in order to reach the conclusion you've pro-offered.

It's not as simple as that, I'm afraid. Even showing that it is possible to wipe bloody hands on a cloth and produce a pattern that doesn't correspond to one's own subjective satisfaction to the written descriptions we have doesn't mean anything. It's just demonstrating that one can produce a pattern they don't like. What one has to do is demonstrate it is impossible to create a pattern that looks like a hand or knife was wiped upon the cloth by actually wiping hands and knives over a cloth. And that to me just seems unlikely to be possible.

We do not have the original apron piece, so we cannot evaluate or make any meaningful comparison between the evidence and any of the staining patterns you have. These photos, which you've shown before, are incapable of being used in the way you are trying to use them. To do so requires having the original evidence, and even then, it is not enough to show that one can make a stain that looks different, but that it is impossible to make stains that looks similar. The idea that the apron piece was used to transport organs is not a contemporary idea (as far as I'm aware), rather, the stains were thought to reflect wiping of hands and/or knife (used for cleaning up). Staining patterns will depend on the material, and you've used something completely unlike a Victorian apron's material, making these even less informative.

You've just shown that if you do something completely unlike that which was described at the time using materials completely different from the piece of evidence in question, you can create a stain that in your view doesn't match a vague and subjective verbal description.


- Jeff

Are you for real? we have a description of how the apron piece was described, that description is said by some to be as a result of taking the organs away. I dispute that the killer did not remove the organs in any event, and therefore could not have taken them away in the apron piece. You are talking out of your backside when you refer to patterns and different cloths. The fact is that if the killer had taken the organs from the victim at the crime scene the blood which would have been transferred from the organs to any piece of material would not have been consistent with the description of the apron piece.

For a start, the killer would have had to have had both hands inside the abdomen and would therefore have blood on both his hands if he had cut the apron piece in advance of the mutilations then when he used the apron piece and with both hands being bloodied a certain amount of blood would be transferred to the apron piece on both sides even before he wraps the organs up in it. There was a minimal amount of staining on one side. If the killer had have taken the organs out there would be a significant amount of blood transferred to the apron piece which likely as not would have been on both sides or by the amount of blood still on the organs as can be seen from the photo I posted seeped through to the other side if the apron piece was thin material.

Again another example of you using any excuse to prop up the old previously accepted theory, because I can't win if I argue against the written evidence I am wrong, if I go to the next level and produce photographic evidence to prove a point I am still wrong. I think you and several others on here need to wake up to the reality of what happened in 1888 and what was written in 1888 may not be as accurate as you seem to want to accept without question.

I have one question for you what facts or evidence do you personally dispute from 1888

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk