From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[GBinOz]

Do you mean use instead of used?
Huh??

If you are arguing that he could have deposited the organs at his lodgings, after which he disposed of the incriminating piece of cloth in a predominately Jewish area of residence, with an accompanying accusation, then I agree.
If he did carry away organs, IMO he would have come prepared for that task.

As for the possible bloody hand mark on the apron, is it not just as likely that he wiped blood from an uncut hand on the apron?

Hi FM,

He could have quickly wiped blood from his hands and knife at the scene, rather than take away incriminating evidence. I think he needed the apron portion to address an unanticipated occurrence that needed time to resolve itself. JMO.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am as yet unpersuaded that Jack didn't cut himself, an unanticipated occurrence requiring an adhoc solution, and used the apron piece to stem the flow until it had stopped, or he reached a bolt hole, after which he disposed of the incriminating piece of cloth in a predominately Jewish area of residence, with an accompanying accusation. JMO.

Do you mean use instead of used?

If you are arguing that he could have deposited the organs at his lodgings, after which he disposed of the incriminating piece of cloth in a predominately Jewish area of residence, with an accompanying accusation, then I agree.

As for the possible bloody hand mark on the apron, is it not just as likely that he wiped blood from an uncut hand on the apron?

[GBinOz]

Inquest report filed in the Corporation of London Records Office - written statements of witnesses at the Eddowes Inquest:
Alfred Long 254 A, Metropolitan Police Force, being sworn saith - "I was on duty in Goulston street, Whitechapel on the 30th September, about 2.55 AM. I found a portion of a woman's apron which I produce. There appeared blood stains on it, one portion was wet, lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House."

Inquest - Alfred Long:
[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

Inquest - Dr Brown - Daily news 5 Oct:
My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent. Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body. It is impossible to assert that the blood is human blood. It looks as if it had had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped upon it.

The portion of apron that Eddowes was still wearing was spotted with blood. The portion found in Goulston street is reported as having one corner wet with blood by Long, and stains of a bloody hand or knife by Brown.

If the apron was used to wipe hands or knife, why was that not done at the scene without the necessity to cut and carry away an incriminating piece of evidence? If it was used to carry away organs, what happened to the organs after the cloth was abandoned?

I am as yet unpersuaded that Jack didn't cut himself, an unanticipated occurrence requiring an adhoc solution, and used the apron piece to stem the flow until it had stopped, or he reached a bolt hole, after which he disposed of the incriminating piece of cloth in a predominately Jewish area of residence, with an accompanying accusation. JMO.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You've been reading about this case for a good while, Jon, have you ever come across Duke Street, or Mitre Street for that matter, being a place for women to congregate for purposes of prostitution? If not, then the better bet is that Aldgate High Street was where they met and Mitre Square was where they 'did business'.

The only evidence we have of business being conducted at around the time of the murder in that area is of a rough man who had the appearance of a sailor being charmed by a woman who had her hand on his chest in a passage off Duke Street that led to Mitre Square.

[Losmandris]

Something else may have played a part - whether Eddowes bumped into the killer, or the killer came across Eddowes.
Was she taking a short cut through St. James Place or Mitre Square and he was there, perhaps also passing through.
Or, did they meet up out on a main street, and she suggested "I know a quiet place", and led him the Mitre Sq.?

If we assume the killer fled east from Mitre Sq. when passing G.S. - heading home?, then why was he heading west from Berner Street to end up at Mitre Sq., in the first place?

Heading towards St Boltophs, a known spot for prostitutes. Too late to pick someone up in a pub. So he had to find an alternative.

[Losmandris]

'Seems the thread has lost its direction.

Mitre Square to Goulston Street.

In the event the murderer simply stumbled upon Goulston Street, broadly walking in that direction, as the OP suggests; then how did he avoid PC Harvey?

Maybe that is why he got rid of the apron piece. He sees Harvey coming towards him so casually drops the incriminating evidence.

[The Rookie Detective]

If we assume the killer fled east from Mitre Sq. when passing G.S. - heading home?, then why was he heading west from Berner Street to end up at Mitre Sq., in the first place?

A most excellent question Jon

The killer heads WEST after Stride, and then EAST after Eddowes, With the GSG between the 2 locations.

So...

Could the reason the killer headed west, be because he chose to deliberately head out of Met jurisdiction and into the City of London?
That would have a lot of benefits to the killer.

Of course, if Stride wasn't a Ripper victim, then he may not have been as far East anyway and already been near Mitre Square before Eddowes murder AND at the time Stride was murdered by another man.

If we mark the locations of Stride's murder, Eddowe's murder, and the GSG, then do those 3 points make any sense in terms of geo-profiling?


RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

Something else may have played a part - whether Eddowes bumped into the killer, or the killer came across Eddowes.
Was she taking a short cut through St. James Place or Mitre Square and he was there, perhaps also passing through.
Or, did they meet up out on a main street, and she suggested "I know a quiet place", and led him the Mitre Sq.?

If we assume the killer fled east from Mitre Sq. when passing G.S. - heading home?, then why was he heading west from Berner Street to end up at Mitre Sq., in the first place?

You'd have to ask the question: why did a woman known for prostitution head away from home at one in the morning, what business would she have in doing that, and in the event it was prostitution; then why wouldn't that woman head for the place known for prostitution? Aldgate High Street. And in the event she headed there, which seems most reasonable, then Houndsditch would be the obvious route; which of course wouldn't involve going by Mitre Square.

As for the murderer, Aldgate High Street would seem a decent bet. An area known for vulnerable women/targets.

You've been reading about this case for a good while, Jon, have you ever come across Duke Street, or Mitre Street for that matter, being a place for women to congregate for purposes of prostitution? If not, then the better bet is that Aldgate High Street was where they met and Mitre Square was where they 'did business'.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If we assume the killer fled east from Mitre Sq. when passing G.S. - heading home?, then why was he heading west from Berner Street to end up at Mitre Sq., in the first place?

You are assuming he did not go home from Berner Street.

[Wickerman]

To an extent, aye.

Unfamiliarity would lend towards the way he came.

Familiarity would have given him a choice/evaluation to make.

In both scenarios, I reckon up Aldgate High Street is the most likely scenario but that assumes he left via Mitre Street.

Something else may have played a part - whether Eddowes bumped into the killer, or the killer came across Eddowes.
Was she taking a short cut through St. James Place or Mitre Square and he was there, perhaps also passing through.
Or, did they meet up out on a main street, and she suggested "I know a quiet place", and led him the Mitre Sq.?

If we assume the killer fled east from Mitre Sq. when passing G.S. - heading home?, then why was he heading west from Berner Street to end up at Mitre Sq., in the first place?

[Fleetwood Mac]

It all depends on how familiar the killer was with that area.

To an extent, aye.

Unfamiliarity would lend towards the way he came.

Familiarity would have given him a choice/evaluation to make.

In both scenarios, I reckon up Aldgate High Street is the most likely scenario but that assumes he left via Mitre Street.

[Wickerman]

I imagine that you are going by the report in the Telegraph of the following exchange between Watkins and the coroner:

[Coroner] At half-past one did anything excite your attention? - No.

[Coroner] Did you see anyone about? - No.


I refer you to my #184 in Did Lawende see Kate Eddowes?


"And when did you pass through the square again?" asked the reporter.

"At about a quarter before two."

"Had you met any person on your rounds?"

"Not a soul."

(The Star, 1 October 1888)

I know it is sometimes preferable to take such statements at face value, but I believe Watkins passed through St. James Place, and we know Blenkingsop was on duty as nightwatchman in the Place. So, once again, we have to make allowances for another "saw no-one" claim. It's not as accurate as we might like to believe.

[Wickerman]

I agree with the conclusion, Jon.

'Not sure about the idea that PC Harvey would have forgotten seeing a man cross the street moments before a body was discovered, however, particularly when you consider that he was paid to take notice of that which was going on around him.

I wouldn't say 'forgotten' either, but he didn't think it was relevant if he did see anyone. Though there's little to be had by picking that scenario apart when we can't say for sure where either party was (killer or Harvey) at that moment in time. They may have been out of sight of each other.

On the other hand, when you look at PC Watkins' testimony, I don't think he was saying that he saw nobody on his beat. I think he was saying that he saw nothing unusual, and when he stated he didn't see anybody about, I reckon that related specifically to when he checked the square at 1.30am.

So, aye, both PC Harvey and PC Watkin could well have passed people or seen people ahead of them. Were it the case, as you suggest, then that would tell us that the WM didn't make his escape by running 'round drawing attention to himself, which is the way I always conceived of it.[/quote]

In many cases "not seeing anyone" only means "not seeing anyone acting or looking suspicious".

Maybe you're right in that it's not the mystery we assume. Maybe he walked away looking outwardly calm, did pass police officers, but so did others; and he was just another face among a few, 'no reason to take a great deal of notice.

That is precisely my take.

Still, in the event he came down from Aldgate High Street and entered the square via Mitre Street, then I see no good reason for him not to go back that way; he may even have passed DC Halse and associates when they were around St Botolph's Church.

I don't think we know how DC Halse got to Middlesex Street, but given he came down from Aldgate High Street way, and entered from Mitre Street (I think that's a fair assumption given that Morris ran in the direction of Aldgate from Mitre Street); it's reasonable to assume he went back that way and turned down Middlesex Street. I'd say it looks the simplest route from Mitre Street and they may have seen it that way also.

I reckon it depends on which exit the WM left from: Mitre Street makes it more likely he went back up Aldgate High Street and Duke Street means Stoney Lane becomes a decent option.

It all depends on how familiar the killer was with that area.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I agree, and I thought I made it clear that I am not disagreeing with you about that.

My point is that the answer Watkins gave the reporter means that he did not see anyone between that visit to the square at 1.30 and his discovery of the body at 1.44 a.m.

Which newspaper? The Star?

This is the same reporter, in the same newspaper, in the same supposed interview/conversation; that claimed Watkins said this:

I never saw such a sight. I went at once to Dr. Sequeira.

[Wickerman]

A neckerchief is usually tied around the neck, this piece of cloth was not tied as a neckerchief would be.

These are the accounts I have been looking for, they tell us the apron was around the neck, or at least on the body.

She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck.
Times, 1 Oct. 1888.

....large white handkerchief round neck. She wore a pair of men's old lace-up boots, and a piece of coarse white apron.
Daily Telegraph, 1 Oct. 1888.

It's the last item on her list of possessions.
Trevor & I had this same discussion a couple of years ago. The above report naturally was the clincher, and predictably Trevor dismissed it as untrustworthy newspaper tattle.

The last item on Collard's list of possessions reads:
"1 Piece of old white apron".
The confusion comes from the question whether the G.S. piece was added to the bottom of her list of possessions, by rights, it shouldn't have been.
All items removed from her body must be kept separate from evidence found elsewhere. It isn't for the police locating evidence at or near the crime scene to assume what is or is not her possession.
If that last item had been removed from the body we might expect it to have been listed either before or after the red gauze (12th item).

Had Phillips arrived after the body was stripped, then the piece of apron that came off the body was in the pile of clothes, or spread out on a table. It would be removed from the pile and pieced together with the G.S. piece brought by Phillips to determine the match.
After which, the 'body' piece is dropped back at the end of the pile. It would then be recorded last.

The actual copy of the List of Possessions cannot be the original. The inspector had his notebook for any notes made at the crime scene or when gathering evidence. The present list is not written on pocketbook size paper.
The copy we find in the court records must be a clean copy made for the purpose of presenting in court - rewritten, neat & clean, devoid of any blood stains & strike-outs.