From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Sunny Delight]

If he had dropped it any where else, we would be asking the same question. Why? And coming up with similar speculation. On the balance of probability and indications from other crimes i.e. a lack of communication I believe the graffiti is a red herring. Though interesting, it has just confused things over the years and allowed for too many wild presumptions to be made, especially when it comes to tying it to particular suspects or agendas.

Agreed. It's a red herring. Over the years it has taken on a significance it should never have had. Warren had the right idea in having it scrubbed out. But it will forever remain a bone of contention I am sure because one way or another we can't prove whether or not it was written by the killer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No it isn't it is conjecture. Plain and simple. You are declaring you know a killers mind from 135 years ago.

I am doing no such thing.

I stated that there was no need for him to have done certain things - and that IS a fact.

[Sunny Delight]

It is not conjecture.

It is a statement of fact.

No it isn't it is conjecture. Plain and simple. You are declaring you know a killers mind from 135 years ago.

[Sunny Delight]

Exactly. In any case one can never know the reasons for specific actions. There are situational events, idiosyncratic thoughts at rhe moment, etc To delve into the realm of "But why exactly there ...." is to go down rabbit holes. It was there because that is where he was when he felt it appropriate to discard it. That is as far as we can go, and even that might be too far!
.
For our interest, it is the matter of when? Meaning did PC Long miss it twice (Trevor's idea is that he did, and maybe even 3 times), or once (as per discarded when leaving the scene) or never (the volt hole).?

- Jeff

I believe the likeliest explanation is that the killer discarded the apron in Goulston Street whilst fleeing and Long did not see it first time around. That does not mean I see Long as a liar as he testified under oath just that he was genuinely mistaken. That is just my opinion. There could be a myriad of scenarios we could go through in regards the Apron and graffitti and they are plausible too. There are things we can say for certain though- the killer took part of Eddowes apron and discarded it in Goulston Street. Why he took it and why he discarded it in Goulston Street and at what time we just do not know. We can speculate and we can choose our favoured scenario but only the killer knows these answers.

I see the Apron as the only real genuine clue in the whole Ripper series. For me the killer is going home, discards the Apron and continues on the journey. That tells us that this is in all probability a Whitechapel local. Not much to go on mind you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You don't know that. It's all conjecture.

It is not conjecture.

It is a statement of fact.

[Sunny Delight]

He had no need to cut the apron in two, no need to take a piece with him, no need to take it such a great distance, no need to leave it at the entrance to a building inhabited almost entirely by Jews, and no need to leave it in such a position that a message about Jews and guilt was almost pointing to it.

You don't know that. It's all conjecture.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

One of our main problems is that we try to understand why the killer did exactly what he did. It is obvious to me the killer discarded the apron in Goulston Street. Why there? Simple answer is we don't know. Only the killer knew why he dropped it there. My guess is that it was the first spot where he felt secure enough and far enough away from the murder scene to remove it from inside his coat and discard it. I can't answer why he didn't discard it elsewhere. But he did discard it in Goulston Street. That much we do know.

He had no need to cut the apron in two, no need to take a piece with him, no need to take it such a great distance, no need to leave it at the entrance to a building inhabited almost entirely by Jews, and no need to leave it in such a position that a message about Jews and guilt was almost pointing to it.

[jerryd]

Hi jerryd,

He is one of my persons of interest and, like Abby, I would welcome your views on this suspect.

Cheers, George

George and Abby.

I will try later tonight to put something up about Bellsmith and how he potentially fits into this thread topic. In the meantime, there is information about him on both forums. Some interesting reading is a book he authored called, Henry Cadavere.(Henry Cadavere: A Study of Life and Work - Henry Wentworth Bellsmith - Google Books)

[JeffHamm]

One of our main problems is that we try to understand why the killer did exactly what he did. It is obvious to me the killer discarded the apron in Goulston Street. Why there? Simple answer is we don't know. Only the killer knew why he dropped it there. My guess is that it was the first spot where he felt secure enough and far enough away from the murder scene to remove it from inside his coat and discard it. I can't answer why he didn't discard it elsewhere. But he did discard it in Goulston Street. That much we do know.

Exactly. In any case one can never know the reasons for specific actions. There are situational events, idiosyncratic thoughts at rhe moment, etc To delve into the realm of "But why exactly there ...." is to go down rabbit holes. It was there because that is where he was when he felt it appropriate to discard it. That is as far as we can go, and even that might be too far!
.
For our interest, it is the matter of when? Meaning did PC Long miss it twice (Trevor's idea is that he did, and maybe even 3 times), or once (as per discarded when leaving the scene) or never (the volt hole).?

- Jeff

[Losmandris]

One of our main problems is that we try to understand why the killer did exactly what he did. It is obvious to me the killer discarded the apron in Goulston Street. Why there? Simple answer is we don't know. Only the killer knew why he dropped it there. My guess is that it was the first spot where he felt secure enough and far enough away from the murder scene to remove it from inside his coat and discard it. I can't answer why he didn't discard it elsewhere. But he did discard it in Goulston Street. That much we do know.

If he had dropped it any where else, we would be asking the same question. Why? And coming up with similar speculation. On the balance of probability and indications from other crimes i.e. a lack of communication I believe the graffiti is a red herring. Though interesting, it has just confused things over the years and allowed for too many wild presumptions to be made, especially when it comes to tying it to particular suspects or agendas.

[GBinOz]

hi Abby.

G. Wentworth Bellsmith

The name used by suspect Henry Wentworth Bellsmith.

Hi jerryd,

He is one of my persons of interest and, like Abby, I would welcome your views on this suspect.

Cheers, George

[Sunny Delight]

I am sorry, but there must have been plenty of dark doorways along that route where he could have dropped the apron piece but chose not to do so.

There was no need even to take it with him.

Wentworth Dwellings was not the only building which had dark doorways.

One of our main problems is that we try to understand why the killer did exactly what he did. It is obvious to me the killer discarded the apron in Goulston Street. Why there? Simple answer is we don't know. Only the killer knew why he dropped it there. My guess is that it was the first spot where he felt secure enough and far enough away from the murder scene to remove it from inside his coat and discard it. I can't answer why he didn't discard it elsewhere. But he did discard it in Goulston Street. That much we do know.

[Abby Normal]

hi Abby.

G. Wentworth Bellsmith

The name used by suspect Henry Wentworth Bellsmith.

thanks. who was he again?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

This is a uterus no matter where it would have been positioned it still would have left a heavy blood stain

Which, from the description we have, would be the corner that was wet with blood. Your photo shows that the uterus from the surgery was placed in the centre of the cloth, which means it is already unrelated to the evidence we have. It's not an attempt to see if it is possible for a uterus to have created patterns that might be described as in the testimony, but appears to be an attempt to show it is possible to create a stain pattern different from the one described, but that's not something anyone would dispute in the first place?

I have attempted to answer the blood and faecal matter before by intimating the fact that the description of both being found on one side only and the appearance of a hand or knife being wiped on it indicates to me that the description is consistent with the cloth being between the legs of Eddowes and was used by her as a sanitary device not put to finer point on this issue but the term "skid marks" springs to mind

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, and as you know your hypothesis has been discussed at length in the past and after full consideration, and quite lengthy discussions, it has not come out of the analysis as a viable alternative explanation in my view - it's fine we disagree on that and I'm not expecting you to change your view either. But let's not go down that path again as it has been discussed in depth and at length a few times now. Neither of us is going to come up with any new arguments, so no headway is going to be made on that path. We just need to agree to disagree.

- Jeff

[jerryd]

hey jer
what does GWB stand for?

hi Abby.

G. Wentworth Bellsmith

The name used by suspect Henry Wentworth Bellsmith.