From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, Trevor, you quoted it and it states that the heart was found on the table.

If it is not correct, then where was the heart found?

Having always stated that press reports are unsafe that doesn't mean to say that they should be disregarded. In this instance, the two reports I published corroborate what Insp Reid said that the heart was not taken away by the killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have said before press reports are unsafe to totally rely on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, Trevor, you quoted it and it states that the heart was found on the table.

If it is not correct, then where was the heart found?

[Losmandris]

Lets try and stay on topic everyone!

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you please clarify whether you are saying that the postmortem report attributed to Dr Bond was written by Dr Hebbert.

Yes Hebbbet was Dr Bonds assistant

Whoever wrote that report, it contradicts the Lloyds Weekly report you quoted about the heart being found with the breasts on the table.

The post-mortem report has the breasts in different locations and no mention of the heart being found at all.

I have said before press reports are unsafe to totally rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

"Despite having his hands full with the Whitechapel murders in the autumn of 1888, Reid was able to leave the direction of the inquiry to Scotland Yard, represented by the more-than-able Abberline. He himself gave his attention to some of the other major crimes that were still being committed in the East End."
The Man who Hunted Jack the Ripper, Connell & Evans, 1999, p.64.

Reid was only the local inspector, the mutilation murders were above his station and their investigation was controlled by Scotland Yard.

Reid was a detective inspector promoted by Scotland Yard and was head of Whitechapoel CID and he was a highly respected officer stop muddying the water by trying to malign his status

I know, Connell & Evans mention Reid showing up at Millers Court with Thicke to conduct investigations "on the spot". The quote is not referenced and could mean a number of things. Regardless, Reid was at the inquest but there is no surviving paperwork to clarify his involvement in the case.

I have answered this several times clearly you do not read the previous posts

In 1888?, yes I would agree, but neither do you.
Being in police today does not mean you know the procedures back in 1888.

It is basic procedure all paperwork goes through the chain of command and it was the same in 1888

I do know that Warren had dictated that Swanson was to be the hub where every paper, memo or report was to go across his desk. That nothing is to bypass his eyes. So lets not over-egg the pudding, Reid had been transferred from J Div. to be the Local Inspector of H Div. CID, replacing Abberline who had moved up to Scotland Yard.
Reid was not in a key position to know everything about the investigation.

Well I beg to differ on that point as I keep stating and you don't listen all the case papers would have had to have gone through Reid before they went to Swanson and besides swanson was taken off the case in December 1888

Reid's memory is just as deficient as all the other officers who reflect back on the case, and there is plenty of evidence of missing organs in the cases of Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly, regardless of your preference to cherry-pick what suits your theory.

There is no cherry picking I am stating facts and there is nothing wrong with Reids memory in 1896 below is the part of the interview relating to Kelly I have highlighted the facts that are proven facts about the case and have to ask where in that piece can it be said that his memory had failed him and he got things wrong. Either his memory was spot on or he had his own police report which he had retained to rely on.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.

Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.

I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain.

The suggestion having been made that in the eyes of a murdered person a reflection of the murderer might be retained, we had the eyes of Kelly photographed and the photographs magnified, but the effort was fruitless. We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail. An example of the difficulty we had may be found in that women came forward who swore that they saw Kelly standing at the corner of the court at eight o’clock of the morning her body was found, but the evidence of the doctors proved this to be an impossibility. By that hour the woman had been dead not less than four hours.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

In the case of Kelly, one would have to believe that when Bond reported that her heart was missing from the pericardium, he inexplicably failed to mention where in the room it was found, even though he did so for every other organ.

Bond didn't write his own report it was transcribed by Dr Hebbert who was Bonds assistant

In the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, one is bound to ask how common it was for murder victims to be mistakenly declared victims of a mutilating madman when in reality mortuary staff had merely helped themselves to some organs.

You need to read up on the activities of body dealers and corrupt mortuary attendants

If so, how kind of the murderer to open up the victim to make things easier for the mortuary staff and not take anything himself.

I am sure the killer did not have that intention, but do you not think it strange that the killer is alleged to have been seeking to excise organs from his victims yet we see no attempts made to do just that with Tabram, Stride, Nichols, Coles, Mckenzie because no one could remove the organs from those other victims without being detected because the abdomens of those victims had not been opened up by the killer in a way that organs could be removed un-noticed.

Yet the abdomens of Chapman and Eddowes were the only two victims that had been ripped open thereby making it easy for the organs to be removed from the mortuary before the post mortems which were carried out at two different mortuaries and that two different methods of extraction of the uterus were seen to have taken place.

So with that in mind, if the killer had removed these organs at the crime scene then he had to not only be proficient in the knowledge of not only how to locate the organs but highly skilled to be able to use two different methods of extraction

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk