From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Wickerman]

The important thing here is not the organs, but the pockets. It's worth remembering, I think, that on Saturday night/Sunday morning, Lechmere might not have been carrying his usual work knife; likely had had a pint or three down by his mum's; and -- most relevantly! -- wouldn't have been wearing his work apron.

I can't agree.
I'm not so much interested in suspects, especially one's that are manufactured like Lechmere - he was just a witness, nothing more.
I'm sure you have a different view, so we will not agree on what was important.

[Wickerman]

("It" refers to "must have lived within easy reach of Goulston Street".) You mentioned that he may have lived in the opposite direction of Goulston Street from Mitre Square, but if he lived within easy reach of Goulston Street, that would almost have to be NE of Mitre Square, wouldn't it? Or possibly due north or due east.

I think I was trying to make a distinction between the killer living east of Goulston St., implying he dropped the apron on his way further east, which I don't agree with.

My thoughts are more like, he carried the organs away from the crime scene in the apron. Took them to his room, returned to the street with the idea of planting the bloodstained rag at some location away from his residence.
Whether the intended spot was where it was found, or whether he was headed somewhere else and heard a constable coming towards him so ditched it anywhere out of sight, I don't know.
But, if he dropped the apron on his way home then how come it was not there at 2:25 when PC Long passed that same spot, plus, where are the organs?

So, I suspect he had to go somewhere else first, which took longer, but still reasonably close so he was able to go back to the street to pass that spot on Goulston St. after 2:25, but before 2:55.
I'm not suggesting N/E or N/W, or S/E of Goulston St specifically, it could be either. It's just that he had to live somewhere close to that spot.
The trouble is a 15 minutes walk can cover a wide area. Some suggested Mitre Square was a 10 minute walk from Dutfields Yard.
If you draw a radius of 10-15 minute walk around 108-119 Goulston St., it will encompass a huge number of houses.

The apron piece was found roughly 1 hr 10 mins after the murder.
So assuming he spends 15 minutes in his room dealing with the organs, we have about 55 minutes to account for. Split that in two (coming-going) then something in the order of 27 minutes one way is about the limit of where he could have this room.
Drawing a 27 minute radius around 108-119, makes for a huge circle, which is no help at all.

[Lewis C]

I think my interpretation above requires it.

("It" refers to "must have lived within easy reach of Goulston Street".) You mentioned that he may have lived in the opposite direction of Goulston Street from Mitre Square, but if he lived within easy reach of Goulston Street, that would almost have to be NE of Mitre Square, wouldn't it? Or possibly due north or due east.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks, Jon, especially for the information about the street lamp.

During the visit to which I referred, I took a photo of the wall you mentioned because I thought at that time that that was where the graffito was situated.

As you may recall, it was said that residents coming and going could have rubbed against the writing and, given the position of the staircase relative to the jambs, it must therefore have been written on the right one.

[Wickerman]

Now I see what you meant about the door.

As you can see, the area between the staircase and the arch is so small that we have a rough idea of where the apron piece was, and it was not far from the writing.

True, it's all relative.
Here is the supposed location of the graffiti, not to say we know exactly where it was written, but it was described as at shoulder height, but not which side of the entryway, it could have been left or right.
It's just that a hand scribbled note on a map made by the surveyor Frederick Foster, appears to place a streetlamp to the left of the entryway. Which means the light would be shining on the inside face of the right side jamb, the left side would be in shadow. This suggests the graffiti would be written on the right side, as shown, not the left.
Therefore, arguably, this is where the graffiti could have been.



The dimension at 49.5 inch (1257mm) is established by counting the rows of house bricks (one brick + cement line = 2.75 inch). There are 18 rows of bricks up to that point on the wall.
I can't remember why that dimension was identified, perhaps the black painted wall (dado) was described as being painted up to four feet (48 inch/1219mm) off the ground? I'm sure I read that somewhere.
Anyway, looking at the ground between the jamb of the entry and the first bottom step (just in the shadows), we see a short length of wall. Somewhere at the foot of that wall is possibly the most likely spot where the apron was found.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

After finishing his 14-18 hour shift, Lechmere can be assumed to have gone straight home, had dinner, and had a good rest.

It is hardly likely that he would have visited his mother's house, let alone gone there to drink.

It is much more likely that his mother would have visited his house.

Even if Lechmere had visited his mother's house, what are the chances that he would have stayed as late as a few minutes before one in the morning when he must have desperately needed to sleep, and even more ludicrously then walked a mile westwards to the City, in completely the wrong direction, if he was supposed to be making his way home?

[Mark J D]

I've always been of the opinion he sliced off a section of apron to wrap the organs in. Wet organs would really make a mess of his pockets. Which leaves me with the problem of, what happened to those organs?

The important thing here is not the organs, but the pockets. It's worth remembering, I think, that on Saturday night/Sunday morning, Lechmere might not have been carrying his usual work knife; likely had had a pint or three down by his mum's; and -- most relevantly! -- wouldn't have been wearing his work apron.

And by leaving a bloodied item in a stair-well just a little distance down a side-road off Wentworth Street, he's also creating a symbolic mirror-image of the Tabram murder scene when seen from the point of view of a commuter using that main road.

What's more, just think: since it's only a couple of doors down, he gets to stop and ask the Jews about it on Monday evening as he walks home. "Really? A piece of the actual apron? You mean the killer stood right here, just where I'm standing? Goodness me! Show me where the chalk was..."

M.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The apron, said PC Long, was "in the passage leading to the staircase".



The door at street level can be seen just to the left of the staircase.

So, the piece of apron was somewhere inside that entry way.

Now I see what you meant about the door.

As you can see, the area between the staircase and the arch is so small that we have a rough idea of where the apron piece was, and it was not far from the writing.

[Wickerman]

The apron, said PC Long, was "in the passage leading to the staircase".



The door at street level can be seen just to the left of the staircase.

So, the piece of apron was somewhere inside that entry way.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

PC Long said he found it in the passage, we can see from the ordnance survey that there was no passage as we understand the term, so he must have been referring to the entry, more like a vestibule or lobby, than a passage. So Long would have had to step into the lobby of the building where it was dark, he had his lamp on.


I saw the entrance to the building in the late 1980s.

Beyond an open arch was nothing that I would describe as a lobby.

It was just the area between the stairs, which I recall went leftwards, and the arch.

Long could have seen the apron piece without going through the arch.

Not only did he go through the arch in order to pick up the apron, but he went up the stairs.



In Howard Vincent's Police Code, 1889, Bell & Wood, 2015. We read the beat constable's duties, in one part, on night duty, he is expected to try any door or window that opens into the street to be sure they have been secured. Although the entry to the building was an open arch, there was a door beside the staircase, this gave him sufficient justification to step inside to make sure that door is secure. Naturally, he doesn't have to explain his duties to the inquest, it is sufficient to imply he came inside to as he was required to do.


I saw no door and Long testified that he searched the staircase.



It was there he found the apron. Which tends to suggest the graffiti was not "just above" on the wall, in fact it was some distance away, albeit still above, but on the inside arch of the jamb, as described by Warren.
So it isn't true to say they were together.


How close do they have to have been for them to be considered to be together?



I've always been of the opinion he sliced off a section of apron to wrap the organs in. Wet organs would really make a mess of his pockets. Which leaves me with the problem of, what happened to those organs?


It seems that the apron piece bore signs of having had a knife wiped on it and faecal stains.

I am not aware of any signs that organs had been wrapped in it.

I suggest he left the kidney at his base to savour later.



I think my interpretation above requires it.


I think so too.

[Wickerman]

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

He had no need to lie about that.

Assuming Long was right - and that is the best evidence we have - then the murderer must have returned to base before leaving the apron piece in Goulston Street.

Det. Halse also passed through Goulston St. about 2:20, he also said he didn't notice the apron. Though if it was in the building then that may be the reason, but we might think he would have qualified his statement if that had been the case.
He was a city police detective so why would he be expected to enter the building anyway?
PC Long said he found it in the passage, we can see from the ordnance survey that there was no passage as we understand the term, so he must have been referring to the entry, more like a vestibule or lobby, than a passage. So Long would have had to step into the lobby of the building where it was dark, he had his lamp on.

In Howard Vincent's Police Code, 1889, Bell & Wood, 2015. We read the beat constable's duties, in one part, on night duty, he is expected to try any door or window that opens into the street to be sure they have been secured. Although the entry to the building was an open arch, there was a door beside the staircase, this gave him sufficient justification to step inside to make sure that door is secure. Naturally, he doesn't have to explain his duties to the inquest, it is sufficient to imply he came inside to as he was required to do.
It was there he found the apron. Which tends to suggest the graffiti was not "just above" on the wall, in fact it was some distance away, albeit still above, but on the inside arch of the jamb, as described by Warren.
So it isn't true to say they were together.

According to the 'law of coincidence' so popular here, the murderer just happened to decide to cut the apron in two, rather than keep it whole, just happened to throw the piece he carried into that particular doorway, about an hour later, and the writing on the wall just happened already to be there.
I suggest that his actions were not haphazard but deliberate.

I suggest that he cut the apron in two in order to prove to the police's satisfaction (1) that the apron piece he dropped in the doorway came from the murder victim, and (2) that the message on the wall had been written by him.

I've always been of the opinion he sliced off a section of apron to wrap the organs in. Wet organs would really make a mess of his pockets. Which leaves me with the problem of, what happened to those organs?

I suggest further that he must have lived within easy reach of Goulston Street.

I think my interpretation above requires it.

[Lewis C]

While it does make sense the drawback is that the apron was not noticed there at 2:20 when PC Long passed on his beat. Some say he could have missed it, others say it can't have been there.
So PC Long finds it on his next pass at 2:55, so we don't know if the killer dropped it on the way to his hideaway, or whether he had already been there, and came back out to lay a false trail, perhaps in the opposite direction to where his room was?

That's possible. If he planted it in the opposite direction of where he lived, that would have involved greater risk, but we know that he sometimes took big risks.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

While it does make sense the drawback is that the apron was not noticed there at 2:20 when PC Long passed on his beat. Some say he could have missed it, others say it can't have been there.
So PC Long finds it on his next pass at 2:55, so we don't know if the killer dropped it on the way to his hideaway, or whether he had already been there, and came back out to lay a false trail, perhaps in the opposite direction to where his room was?

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

He had no need to lie about that.

Assuming Long was right - and that is the best evidence we have - then the murderer must have returned to base before leaving the apron piece in Goulston Street.

That makes more sense than, for example, Martin Fido's suggestion that the murderer simply threw the apron piece into the 'first' open doorway he came across following his escape from the scene of the murder.

Why carry the piece of apron all the way to Spitalfields, holding on to it for about an hour before discarding it, when he could have left it just about anywhere else?

According to the 'law of coincidence' so popular here, the murderer just happened to decide to cut the apron in two, rather than keep it whole, just happened to throw the piece he carried into that particular doorway, about an hour later, and the writing on the wall just happened already to be there.

I suggest that his actions were not haphazard but deliberate.

I suggest that he cut the apron in two in order to prove to the police's satisfaction (1) that the apron piece he dropped in the doorway came from the murder victim, and (2) that the message on the wall had been written by him.

I suggest further that he must have lived within easy reach of Goulston Street.

[Wickerman]

In a thread that was just closed, Fiver replied to a post of mine as follows: "The apron piece is evidence, but it's not a clue to the Ripper's identity. The building was searched and the people living there were interviewed by the police, but nothing was found that linked anyone to the crime."

Since I can't reply there and it really fits better in this thread anyway, I'll reply here. In saying that it's a clue, I didn't mean that JtR likely lived in that building. I just meant that he deposited the apron northeast of Mitre Square, which indicates that his bunkhole or home was northeast of Mitre Square.

While it does make sense the drawback is that the apron was not noticed there at 2:20 when PC Long passed on his beat. Some say he could have missed it, others say it can't have been there.
So PC Long finds it on his next pass at 2:55, so we don't know if the killer dropped it on the way to his hideaway, or whether he had already been there, and came back out to lay a false trail, perhaps in the opposite direction to where his room was?

[Lewis C]

In a thread that was just closed, Fiver replied to a post of mine as follows: "The apron piece is evidence, but it's not a clue to the Ripper's identity. The building was searched and the people living there were interviewed by the police, but nothing was found that linked anyone to the crime."

Since I can't reply there and it really fits better in this thread anyway, I'll reply here. In saying that it's a clue, I didn't mean that JtR likely lived in that building. I just meant that he deposited the apron northeast of Mitre Square, which indicates that his bunkhole or home was northeast of Mitre Square.