From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[GBinOz]

I would be interested to hear an actual motive for cutting the apron in two, carrying it so far, and then discarding it, apparently about an hour after the murder, at the entrance to a building inhabited almost entirely by Jews.

Hi PI1,

Perhaps he cut himself and used it as a bandage to stem the flow of blood. Perhaps he reached a bolt hole (or his home), attended to his wound and then decided to deposit the apron and write the GSG as an indicator as to who he considered was to blame for his murderous rampage?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I think you're saying that we don't need to think about a motive given that he undertook mutilation, which the normal mind cannot compute, and it follows he may have written on a wall for reasons the normal mind cannot compute.

The problem there is that mutilation is common among serial killers.

It would be interesting to hear an actual motive for writing on a wall. What would he hope to achieve by doing that?

Hi FM,

From Ripperologist #124

6 April 1886 Central Court Proceedings. Morris Phillips (30), Moss Woolf (16), and Jacob Levy (30), Stealing 14 lb. of meat from Hyman Sampson, the master of Phillips and Woolf.

Hyman Sampson stated he was a butcher of 35 Middlesex Street and that Phillips and Woolf were his servants, Phillips having worked for him about 3 months and Woolf for about 2 to 2½ years. He had spoken to the Police and on 10 March about 5.00am he went to the market. When cross-examined by Mr Black, Sampson stated he had discharged Woolf once and took him back again and that he had previously owned a butchers shop in ‘Goldstone Street’ (sic) for 19 years.

Cross-examined by Mr Geoghegan, he stated Levy was there before him and that he had not taken any of Sampson’s customers. Hyman says he had no animosity against Levy – he had met him out of business hours. It wasn’t the best meat at 6d a pound that he had some for 11d a pound. He goes on to note that the Jewish authorities will not give a man a license unless he has an excellent character. He denied saying that if Levy left his shop he would drop charges. He states he would not let him off for £10,000. It was noted in the court transcript that Levy received a good character.

The sentences passed were as follows:
Phillips - Not Guilty.
Woolf - Guilty recommended to mercy by the jury. 4 months’ hard labour
Levy - Guilty of receiving. 12 months’ hard labour.

As we read the report of this case, we were looking for a motivation for the theft, that possibly Jacob was in financial straits through trade being bad. However, this doesn’t seem likely at the time of his arrest, because he had in his pocket £32 10s 9d, a goodly sum by anyone’s standards in the 1880s. So why commit career suicide for 7s worth of meat? For, the effect of the court hearing did not just mean that Jacob has a prison record and will serve a year in jail. He can now no longer hold a trading license. That’s it – gone. For a man who knows no other career, it is suicide. The Jewish authorities will not give him a license, so how will he feed his family? At this moment in time, the family are possibly facing the workhouse.

Jacob’s sentence of 12 months was meant to be served in Holloway Prison, yet just seven weeks later he is found in an asylum - The Essex County Asylum.

Levy went from owning a flourishing business to having a prison record and being denied a trading license by Jewish authorities.

The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing?

Jacob Levy lived on the corner of Middlesex St and Stoney Lane, the latter being a likely escape route for the Ripper, and only a street from the GSG. His brother, Isaac, lived in the building where the GSG was written and the apron piece deposited. Sampson's shop had been nearby.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It would be interesting to hear an actual motive for writing on a wall. What would he hope to achieve by doing that?

I would be interested to hear an actual motive for cutting the apron in two, carrying it so far, and then discarding it, apparently about an hour after the murder, at the entrance to a building inhabited almost entirely by Jews.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The murderer wasted seconds nicking Eddowes' eyelids and cutting her apron in two.

What are the chances that he cut the apron for no reason, that Long's testimony about it is mistaken, that the graffito was already there, and that the murderer just happened to choose that doorway in which to drop the apron?

I think you're saying that we don't need to think about a motive given that he undertook mutilation, which the normal mind cannot compute, and it follows he may have written on a wall for reasons the normal mind cannot compute.

The problem there is that mutilation is common among serial killers.

It would be interesting to hear an actual motive for writing on a wall. What would he hope to achieve by doing that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Still, it would be interesting to hear why a serial killer would take the time to a write a message on a wall aimed at incriminating 'the Jews' when those seconds could be the difference between being alive and being dead.

The murderer wasted seconds nicking Eddowes' eyelids and cutting her apron in two.

What are the chances that he cut the apron for no reason, that Long's testimony about it is mistaken, that the graffito was already there, and that the murderer just happened to choose that doorway in which to drop the apron?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I was not aware that I had made an admission, FM.

The one where you said: the murderer knew that the apron piece he took could be identified as Eddowes in post 522, PI.

If Long's testimony is correct, then the murderer must have gone to Wentworth Dwellings more than 40 minutes after leaving Mitre Square and for the express purpose of leaving the piece of apron there.

He was thereby risking his life anyway.

The alternatives are:

1) The WM went back out from wherever he was hiding and dropped the apron in that doorway at the time you suggest, but it wasn't connected to the writing. 'Difficult to understand the motive for that given a search of his home would have revealed other incriminating evidence: 'may as well have hung onto the apron.

2) As above except the WM deliberately went back out to incriminate 'the Jews'.

3) PC Long didn't see the apron first time 'round.

4) Unknown to the police, the WM was hemmed in somewhere around Mitre Square and he saw a window of opportunity to leave at some point that would marry with passing Goulston Street after PC Long passed first time 'round.

5) The WM didn't drop the apron there; the police did. The motive being an attempt to avoid a scare spreading beyond its already entrenched place.

I'll go with 3 and I'd lean towards 4 and 5 before 1 and 2. Just me.

Still, it would be interesting to hear why a serial killer would take the time to a write a message on a wall aimed at incriminating 'the Jews' when those seconds could be the difference between being alive and being dead. Why would it be so important for him to do that and what was he hoping to achieve that made it worthwhile for him?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I reckon the motive is missing.

By your own admission, this piece of apron could have linked him to the crime.

What could have happened in his life (in relation to 'the Jews') that made it worthwhile risking his life, all for a message on a wall?

What was he hoping to achieve by writing that message, that would have made it worth risking his life?

I was not aware that I had made an admission, FM.

If Long's testimony is correct, then the murderer must have gone to Wentworth Dwellings more than 40 minutes after leaving Mitre Square and for the express purpose of leaving the piece of apron there.

He was thereby risking his life anyway.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But I am going by the evidence: Long's testimony, if true, rules out the mere discarding of the apron, the murderer knew that the apron piece he took could be identified as Eddowes', and the proximity of the message, which could easily have been rubbed out had it been there the previous day or days, to the apron piece, suggests a connection with it.

I reckon the motive is missing.

By your own admission, this piece of apron could have linked him to the crime.

What could have happened in his life (in relation to 'the Jews') that made it worthwhile risking his life, all for a message on a wall?

What was he hoping to achieve by writing that message, that would have made it worth risking his life?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why would a serial killer write that message?

The police thought at the time that he did it to exploit local anti-Jewish feelings.

There had been a march down Hanbury Street with chants declaring that the murderer was a Jew, an apron reportedly found in the yard giving rise to accusations against a local Jew, and an erroneous report that the murderer had left a chalked message in the yard.

Is it purely coincidental that aprons and chalked messages figure in both the Hanbury Street and Mitre Square murders?

But I am going by the evidence: Long's testimony, if true, rules out the mere discarding of the apron, the murderer knew that the apron piece he took could be identified as Eddowes', and the proximity of the message, which could easily have been rubbed out had it been there the previous day or days, to the apron piece, suggests a connection with it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If there was no particular purpose in cutting the apron and taking half of it with him, then why commit either act?

Clearly there was a reason otherwise he wouldn't have done it.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the apron piece authenticated the graffito as having been written by the murderer.

I think you're saying the WM wrote it and the apron was dropped there to prove that point. In the event I have that wrong, then feel free to correct me.

For what purpose? Why would a serial killer write that message?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It does not make sense to me.

There was no need to cut the apron in two, no need to carry one half of it so far from the scene of the murder, and no need to discard it where it was found, unless for a specific purpose.

If, as some have suggested, he took the apron piece in order to wrap the kidney in it, then why was the kidney not found with it, unless he returned to base before leaving the apron piece where it was found?

If there was no particular purpose in cutting the apron and taking half of it with him, then why commit either act?

If he used the apron piece to wipe the knife, then why not do that and leave the apron in the Square?

There is also the fact that Pc Long testified that the apron piece was not in the entrance to Wentworth Dwellings about 40 minutes after the murderer must have left Mitre Square.

That means he could hardly have discarded it on his way back to base.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the apron piece authenticated the graffito as having been written by the murderer.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Purely anecdotal I know but making that journey by foot at a brisk place has pretty much convinced me that the killer possibly taking a similar route was fleeing back toward Whitechapel, passing the entrance way to the Wentworth model dwellings (as you do!) he dumps the bloodied/soiled piece of apron. No hanging around. No writing on the wall. No hiding in a bolt hole to emerge later on. Just passing through in a great hurry. It just makes the most sense, especially when you follow the route in person.

It makes the most sense to me too.

When he left the square, he may have left in a hurry and so didn't have his gains and tools in order, and so just bundled them all in wherever he could hide them on his person.

Goulston Street is not necessarily significant outside of him thinking he was far enough away from the crime scene to have the space to stop, get his items together and organised as best he could on his person, dress himself down a bit; and feel more composed for the walk home, wherever that was.

By the time DC Halse organised a search, the WM had approx. 20 minutes on him. We (criminals and otherwise) know that in today's society, police cars can be radioed in very quickly. He could well have known that in his society, the method of police procedure and the nature of communication/telegraphs; meant he had the time to stop at Goulston Street long before a search would be upon him.

And from there, the idea that he was running around in back alleys could well be a quick and ill-conceived judgement. 'Well away from the crime scene by the time a search was organised and may well have known that would be the case. 'No real reason to run down back alleys and his best option may have been to walk down a main road like nothing was the matter in among other people walking down the street, at least while he was confident no search was taking place (based upon what he knew of how it worked in his society).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes.

You are right.

According to the record we have, Long gave evidence just before Halse.

But Long was quite definite that the apron was not there at 2.20 a.m.

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

He did not need to be definite.

That said, Long would have been in a sticky situation if the killer had been caught and said that he’d deposited the apron as soon as he’d left Mitre Square.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It looks like Halse didn’t particularly check the doorway closely though PI:

By Mr. Crawford: “At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.“

Also, do we have any way of knowing if Long was aware that Halse had been in Goulston Street at close to the time that he himself had been there?

Yes.

You are right.

According to the record we have, Long gave evidence just before Halse.

But Long was quite definite that the apron was not there at 2.20 a.m.

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

He did not need to be definite.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But if Long was not the only policeman to pass by that doorway at about 2.20 a.m., then why should he have felt the need to explain away the fact that he did not see the apron piece at that time?

It looks like Halse didn’t particularly check the doorway closely though PI:

By Mr. Crawford: “At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.“

Also, do we have any way of knowing if Long was aware that Halse had been in Goulston Street at close to the time that he himself had been there?