From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Filby]

In terms of the killer's route and where the apron piece ended up, if they intended for it to be found and then linked to Catherine Eddowes then it was very much job done in quick time. If they dropped or discarded it without any thought to it being found and linked to the murder victim in Mitre Square then it was a rare moment of disregard by them.

The apron piece was found within the threshold of the doorway. That would suggest the person dropping it had at least stepped inside, even if only for a moment. No witness came forward to say they had seen or caused someone to step aside at that location during that time. There are no witnesses regardless for that location following the murder until PC Long finds the apron piece. Something caused the killer to step inside that doorway and leave the apron piece behind. Either something spooked the killer at that point or it was a specific spot they intended to reach.

One thing I would imagine is he entered the doorway to not be seen hence there was likely people nearby - and very close at that. Someone, somewhere in time has seen JTR more than once, I'd wager.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just a thought!

As there was a market on Goulston Street could the killer, carrying the organs in the piece of apron, have come across something more appropriate to put them in like a bit of sacking? Fleeing down Goulston street he sees this picks it up, places the organs in it and flings the piece of apron away somewhere out of the way i.e. the entrance way to the Wentworth buildings?

The organs were not carried away in the apron piece. The description of the stains on the apron piece is not consistent with freshly removed organs being carried away in it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

I would suggest that the murderer's residence was near Goulston Street.
I don't think he needed a bolthole.

I never bother, as a rule, with non-Maybrick-related threads, just as everyone on this thread evidently never bothers with Maybrick-related threads, but I was drawn to it, and chuckled out loud at this debate which has - so far - got you to the bit that we Maybrickians got to about five years ago.

Of course Jack had somewhere to 'bolt' to between Mitre Square and Goulston Street. He had a rented room in Middlesex Street, for goodness sake. He strolled slowly from Mitre Square (because he was a middle class white gentleman who would never be suspected of the crimes) in order to avoid drawing suspicion to himself, probably nodded politely at any policemen racing around post-Stride, returned to his room in Middlesex Street, cleaned himself up, cleaned his knife, left it there, and an hour or so later, strolled along to nearby Goulston Street where he had already identified where he was going to leave his 'funny Jewish joke', wrote the GSG in tailor's chalk, looked around to see if anyone was coming, then pulled-out the bloodied rag and dropped it at his feet to draw someone's attention to his scrawled message, before calmly walking away back to his room in Middlesex Street. Why choose the entrance to Wentworth Dwellings? Well, perhaps from his vantage point in his room he could look down and see it, thereby allowing him to watch the police "running around like chickens with their heads cut off" once PC Long had found the rag and the message. Perhaps James Maybrick sat there in the darkness of his room in Middlesex Street and watched Charlie Warren wipe away his golden clue?

Do try to keep up, you lot. It's like watching 'Amateur Hour' on the BBC ...

Ike

[Aethelwulf]

I never bother, as a rule, with non-Maybrick-related threads, just as everyone on this thread evidently never bothers with Maybrick-related threads, but I was drawn to it, and chuckled out loud at this debate which has - so far - got you to the bit that we Maybrickians got to about five years ago.

Of course Jack had somewhere to 'bolt' to between Mitre Square and Goulston Street. He had a rented room in Middlesex Street, for goodness sake. He strolled slowly from Mitre Square (because he was a middle class white gentleman who would never be suspected of the crimes) in order to avoid drawing suspicion to himself, probably nodded politely at any policemen racing around post-Stride, returned to his room in Middlesex Street, cleaned himself up, cleaned his knife, left it there, and an hour or so later, strolled along to nearby Goulston Street where he had already identified where he was going to leave his 'funny Jewish joke', wrote the GSG in tailor's chalk, looked around to see if anyone was coming, then pulled-out the bloodied rag and dropped it at his feet to draw someone's attention to his scrawled message, before calmly walking away back to his room in Middlesex Street. Why choose the entrance to Wentworth Dwellings? Well, perhaps from his vantage point in his room he could look down and see it, thereby allowing him to watch the police "running around like chickens with their heads cut off" once PC Long had found the rag and the message. Perhaps James Maybrick sat there in the darkness of his room in Middlesex Street and watched Charlie Warren wipe away his golden clue?

Do try to keep up, you lot. It's like watching 'Amateur Hour' on the BBC ...

Ike

And the independent evidence that actually places Maybrick at that house during autumn 1888 and on the nights in question is? As there is no actual evidence that links Maybrick to the journal or watch I won't accept those as answers.

[Iconoclast]

And the independent evidence that actually places Maybrick at that house during autumn 1888 and on the nights in question is? As there is no actual evidence that links Maybrick to the journal or watch I won't accept those as answers.

Of course, that is your right, Wulfy. I was simply pointing-out that the debate around a 'bolthole' is far from new (and predates even my own Maybrick interpretation).

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Of course Jack had somewhere to 'bolt' to between Mitre Square and Goulston Street. He had a rented room in Middlesex Street, for goodness sake.


Maybe


He strolled slowly from Mitre Square (because he was a middle class white gentleman who would never be suspected of the crimes) in order to avoid drawing suspicion to himself, probably nodded politely at any policemen racing around post-Stride, returned to his room in Middlesex Street, cleaned himself up, cleaned his knife, left it there, and an hour or so later, strolled along to nearby Goulston Street


I agree that he went home before leaving the apron piece in Goulston Street


where he had already identified where he was going to leave his 'funny Jewish joke',


I don't think there is anything funny about it - and neither did the police.



wrote the GSG in tailor's chalk, looked around to see if anyone was coming, then pulled-out the bloodied rag and dropped it at his feet to draw someone's attention to his scrawled message, before calmly walking away back to his room in Middlesex Street.


Flower and Dean Street looks more probable.


Why choose the entrance to Wentworth Dwellings? Well, perhaps from his vantage point in his room he could look down and see it, thereby allowing him to watch the police "running around like chickens with their heads cut off" once PC Long had found the rag and the message.


I suggest it was because of the set-up of the archway and the jamb, and the fact that the inhabitants were Jewish.


Ike

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The organs were not carried away in the apron piece. The description of the stains on the apron piece is not consistent with freshly removed organs being carried away in it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree.



Police Constable Alfred Long testified that one corner of the apron was wet with blood.

Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, the City Police Surgeon, noted some blood and apparently faecal matter.

He testified that the apron piece was spotted with blood and that a knife or hand appeared to have been wiped on it (although I haven't been able to find his testimony on this last point).

Had the apron piece been used to carry organs, would it not have been much more bloodstained than it was?

And why did the murderer not cut off any piece of Annie Chapman's clothing to carry her organs in?

(Members who do not accept that the murderer excised her organs are excused from answering this question).

[Curious Cat]

Paraphrasing from what I can remember of my post lost in the glitch...

If the killer intended to acquire an internal organ as part of their murder ritual then they most likely would have taken something with them to carry the organ(s) in. If the killer of Catherine Eddowes was the same killer of Elizabeth Stride then they would already have been in possession of an unused carrier for their chosen souvenir.

Either the murders were carried out by different individuals or the apron piece was used/taken for another purpose.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Paraphrasing from what I can remember of my post lost in the glitch...

If the killer intended to acquire an internal organ as part of their murder ritual then they most likely would have taken something with them to carry the organ(s) in. If the killer of Catherine Eddowes was the same killer of Elizabeth Stride then they would already have been in possession of an unused carrier for their chosen souvenir.

Either the murders were carried out by different individuals or the apron piece was used/taken for another purpose.

And, as I replied last time: the purpose of taking the apron piece was to authenticate it as having come from the victim and it was used to authenticate the message as having come from the murderer.

[Iconoclast]

Please see my replies below.

Ah - your replies tell me that you don't realise that "funny Jewish joke" was a line out of James Maybrick's scrapbook, as was "running around like chickens with their heads cut off". Are there really people posting on this website who don't know the contents of the only physical evidence we have in this case (whether you think it is authentic or inauthentic)?

For the record, the funny Jewish joke related to 'Juwes' being a cypher for 'James'. Earlier in the text, Maybrick had written, "If it is a Jew they want then a Jew I shall be". Hence, his "funny Jewish joke" embedded into the GSG.

[Iconoclast]

And, as I replied last time: the purpose of taking the apron piece was to authenticate it as having come from the victim and it was used to authenticate the message as having come from the murderer.

Absolutely, otherwise why take the apron as far as Goulston Street; and - if he had used it to carry Eddowes' kidney - why discard the apron at Goulston Street? It was clearly taken there to signal to someone "Read this message".

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely, otherwise why take the apron as far as Goulston Street; and - if he had used it to carry Eddowes' kidney - why discard the apron at Goulston Street? It was clearly taken there to signal to someone "Read this message".

and why would the killer deposit the apron piece and write the graffiti at an offroad location where they may never have been found? if the killer had cut the apron piece he could have easily parcelled it up and sent it with a note to the police.

The message clearly has no reference to the Eddowes murder or any other murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

and why would the killer deposit the apron piece and write the graffiti at an offroad location where they may never have been found? if the killer had cut the apron piece he could have easily parcelled it up and sent it with a note to the police.

The message clearly has no reference to the Eddowes murder or any other murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The apron piece was left in the archway of a residential building, whose inhabitants were overwhelmingly Jewish.

People entering under the arch or leaving via the stairs could not have failed to notice it.

The writing was chalked on the inside of the jamb - i.e. roughly perpendicular to the street - on black brick and practically pointing to the apron piece.

The murderer knew that the apron piece could be proven to have come from the latest victim.

The message was about Jews and guilt.

The murderer must have known that the police could work out what he was getting at, and they did - even Anderson and Swanson.

[Wickerman]

I agree.



Police Constable Alfred Long testified that one corner of the apron was wet with blood.

Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, the City Police Surgeon, noted some blood and apparently faecal matter.

He testified that the apron piece was spotted with blood and that a knife or hand appeared to have been wiped on it (although I haven't been able to find his testimony on this last point).

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

Had the apron piece been used to carry organs, would it not have been much more bloodstained than it was?

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

And why did the murderer not cut off any piece of Annie Chapman's clothing to carry her organs in?

Chapman's scarf was missing.

[Wickerman]

and why would the killer deposit the apron piece and write the graffiti at an offroad location where they may never have been found?...

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.

...if the killer had cut the apron piece he could have easily parceled it up and sent it with a note to the police.

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.

The message clearly has no reference to the Eddowes murder or any other murder.

Agreed - unrelated.