From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Wickerman]

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.

A 'reason' for cutting off a large portion of apron would be to carry away the organs. It only stands to reason he can't put bloody organs in a pocket without messing up his jacket.
We can only speculate that he must have realized that piece of apron could implicate him if found at his lodgings, maybe he couldn't burn it, so went out to ditch it somewhere, no particular place in mind.

[Wickerman]

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

A bandage?
Half an apron is like 3 ft x 4 ft, it's like half a table cloth, it's huge.

[Fleetwood Mac]

To go back to what I was saying originally. If from Mitre Square you have a rough idea of which direction Whitechapel is (which I did) and then start heading that way it is very easy to end up in Goulston Street. Maybe it is the way the streets are laid out or something or is just the most direct route but you just pass through there. And that is exactly what I think happened. The murderer is back on home turf or indeed just back home in Whitechapel 10 or so minutes after the murder. Having dropped the apron piece, for whatever reason in Goulston Street on the way back. He is not hanging around or heading out at a later point. Long just did not see the apron piece first time around, easy mistake to make, easy to gloss over too.

I think you're saying that he lived or stayed broadly in that direction and so it would have been difficult to not pass Goulston Street on his way home.

The map of the streets doesn't suggest that. There were many ways to make it broadly north east of Mitre Square.

Furthermore, Liz's murder not too long before that is a bit of a problem for the argument that claims Goulston Street must have been on his way home. In the event Dutfield's Yard was in between him and his home, then that wouldn't have been a good route considering he committed a murder there not too long before that.

He may have chosen to head towards Goulston Street and beyond simply because the direction of Berner Street wasn't an option, and let's say he lived or stayed south of Whitechapel Road somewhere as far east as Buck's Row; it wouldn't have been much of a detour to get off the main road, work his way along and then pop up again at the other end of the Whitechapel Road before heading south.

Poor Liz eh, reduced to a mere inconvenience 150 years later.

I think the most that can reasonably be concluded is that he lived or stayed somewhere east of Mitre Square.

[GBinOz]

A bandage?
Half an apron is like 3 ft x 4 ft, it's like half a table cloth, it's huge.

Hi Jon,

Eddowes was about 5 ft tall. You're suggesting she wore an apron 6 ft tall and 4 ft wide? A quick Google search suggests the standard size of an apron is 33" Wide x 32" Long.

One would image that if Jack intended on carrying away organs he might have come prepared for that task. Had he used the apron for that purpose there would have been a large bloodstain in the middle, but there wasn't. The apron was, according to Long, who saw it first, wet with blood in one corner.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

On Stoney Lane. Is it? It looks very much to me like the simplest and most direct route is straight up Aldgate High Street onto Whitechapel Road, and straight down Goulston Street: one turn after leaving Mitre Street. 'Debatable I suppose.

Just a minor point, George: all of the ideas we put forward involve unknowns. It's a common theme on the board that posters put forward an idea that involves unknowns, and half way through the same conversation use "we can't know" or "we just don't know", i.e. there are unknowns in your idea and so it's a dead end (when a few posts earlier in the same conversation they put forward an idea that involved unknowns).

No offence intended, a minor point but I think it's worth mentioning in order to keep conversations in the spirit of an exchange of ideas.

Hi FM,

No offence taken. We have different ideas about the escape route that might have been taken. That is the debatably point. The unknown is not contained in the premise for the argument but in the eventuality. No one can know which opinion is correct, or indeed, if either is correct.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Eddowes was about 5 ft tall. You're suggesting she wore an apron 6 ft tall and 4 ft wide? A quick Google search suggests the standard size of an apron is 33" Wide x 32" Long.

Hi George.

What type of apron did you Google?
One typical from the period..

One would image that if Jack intended on carrying away organs he might have come prepared for that task.

Are we assuming he came out with the intention of removing an organ?

Had he used the apron for that purpose there would have been a large bloodstain in the middle, but there wasn't.

Right, because you roll something up from the edge, not from the middle.

The apron was, according to Long, who saw it first, wet with blood in one corner.

Precisely, you might watch a shopkeeper wrapping produce, (Butcher, Fish & Chips,etc), they place the produce nearer to one corner & roll it up from one edge.
They don't put it in the middle.
Click on link below..

https://youtu.be/dOpuuNoVUpI

[Curious Cat]

Do we know if the apron was hand made or produced by a supplier and bought? Was it made to fit or adjusted to fit?

All we know about the apron in question is that it was worn by Catherine at the time of her murder, was cut into two separate pieces, one piece was still tied around her waist while the other piece was found in a doorway some distance away from the body over an hour after the murder.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

What type of apron did you Google?
One typical from the period..



Are we assuming he came out with the intention of removing an organ?

Right, because you roll something up from the edge, not from the middle.

Precisely, you might watch a shopkeeper wrapping produce, (Butcher, Fish & Chips,etc), they place the produce nearer to one corner & roll it up from one edge.
They don't put it in the middle.
Click on link below..
https://youtu.be/dOpuuNoVUpI

Hi Jon,

I Googled "size victorian apron". The photo that you show is of a pinafore rather than an apron, the later extending only to the waist. Leaving that aside, for an apron to be six ft high, as you suggest, the women in your photo would need to have been extraordinarily tall.

If it is assumed that Jack took away the uterus and other parts from Chapman, it might be logical deduced that it was his intention to also remove organs from Eddowes, and that he would have come prepared for that eventuality. At this stage I am not entirely persuaded that Jack did remove and take away the organs from either victim.

I take your point about the wrapping shown in the video that you linked. However, Jack wouldn't have had the convenience of a plastic bag, and blood soaked organs wrapped in the method shown in that video (a third of the distance from the corner) would extend the wet blood stain considerably away from the edge. IMO this would not match Long's description, but I appreciate that you may hold a different viewpoint on that conjecture.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jon,

I Googled "size victorian apron". The photo that you show is of a pinafore rather than an apron, the later extending only to the waist. Leaving that aside, for an apron to be six ft high, as you suggest, the women in your photo would need to have been extraordinarily tall.

If it is assumed that Jack took away the uterus and other parts from Chapman, it might be logical deduced that it was his intention to also remove organs from Eddowes, and that he would have come prepared for that eventuality. At this stage I am not entirely persuaded that Jack did remove and take away the organs from either victim.

I take your point about the wrapping shown in the video that you linked. However, Jack wouldn't have had the convenience of a plastic bag, and blood soaked organs wrapped in the method shown in that video (a third of the distance from the corner) would extend the wet blood stain considerably away from the edge. IMO this would not match Long's description, but I appreciate that you may hold a different viewpoint on that conjecture.

Cheers, George

I think you will find it was this type of apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A 'reason' for cutting off a large portion of apron would be to carry away the organs. It only stands to reason he can't put bloody organs in a pocket without messing up his jacket.
We can only speculate that he must have realized that piece of apron could implicate him if found at his lodgings, maybe he couldn't burn it, so went out to ditch it somewhere, no particular place in mind.

If the murderer was worried that the apron piece might be found at his lodgings, then what about Eddowes' kidney and uterus?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I Googled "size victorian apron". The photo that you show is of a pinafore rather than an apron, the later extending only to the waist.

Hi George.
I have a copy of a memo from Warren to Fraser (City Police), asking if "...it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer".
It is dated 3rd Oct. 1888.

So, apparently Eddowes apron had a bib up the front as shown in the photo's.

This style of apron was for men & women, back in the 70's butchers still wore the same calico apron. Men would often fold the bib portion down behind the skirt, it was viewed as feminine to wear the bib up. Only the manager was expected to wear it that way - and he didn't do anything!
This was the most common apron we see in a lot of photographs of women in the streets, of the time.

Leaving that aside, for an apron to be six ft high, as you suggest, the women in your photo would need to have been extraordinarily tall.

Well I'm sorry about that, I didn't mean to suggest the apron was 6 feet tall. The width is about 3 ft, it doesn't just cover the front, it is intended to curl around the legs. There's only a slight gap at the back.

If it is assumed that Jack took away the uterus and other parts from Chapman, it might be logical deduced that it was his intention to also remove organs from Eddowes, and that he would have come prepared for that eventuality.

It looks like he used his initiative with Chapman too.
Apparently, Chapman was seen wearing a scarf when she left the lodging house, but no scarf was listed among her possessions. It seems to have disappeared the night she was murdered.
Not many people mention this, but it adds to the spontaneity of his actions, that they were not premeditated.
That's the way it looks to me, at least.

At this stage I am not entirely persuaded that Jack did remove and take away the organs from either victim.

You are kidding, right?

I take your point about the wrapping shown in the video that you linked. However, Jack wouldn't have had the convenience of a plastic bag, and blood soaked organs wrapped in the method shown in that video (a third of the distance from the corner) would extend the wet blood stain considerably away from the edge. IMO this would not match Long's description, but I appreciate that you may hold a different viewpoint on that conjecture.

I hoped you would accept the plastic bag was to be ignored in our case.
But, you must have noticed the meat was placed nearer to the bottom corner, not in the middle of the paper, and that near corner is pulled up and over the raw meat. Which explained why this one corner will be more wet with blood (in the absence of a plastic bag), than the other three corners. This is the only corner that is in direct contact with the meat/organs. This is what the evidence suggested, one corner was wet with blood, the others were not.

[Wickerman]

If the murderer was worried that the apron piece might be found at his lodgings, then what about Eddowes' kidney and uterus?

An apron is likely a bit hard to digest.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

An apron is likely a bit hard to digest.

Are you not making an assumption?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... you roll something up from the edge, not from the middle.

Precisely, you might watch a shopkeeper wrapping produce, (Butcher, Fish & Chips,etc), they place the produce nearer to one corner & roll it up from one edge.
They don't put it in the middle.

But, you must have noticed the meat was placed nearer to the bottom corner, not in the middle of the paper, and that near corner is pulled up and over the raw meat. Which explained why this one corner will be more wet with blood (in the absence of a plastic bag), than the other three corners. This is the only corner that is in direct contact with the meat/organs. This is what the evidence suggested, one corner was wet with blood, the others were not.

The act of rolling up the apron would surely have resulted in a lot of wet blood all along that side of the apron and not just in one corner.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If it is assumed that Jack took away the uterus and other parts from Chapman, it might be logical deduced that it was his intention to also remove organs from Eddowes, and that he would have come prepared for that eventuality.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

We could have a look at the experience of serial killers.

While 'disorganised' and 'organised' probably doesn't work in that you cannot fit serial killers into tidy boxes, for example: they're all organised to a degree otherwise they wouldn't evade capture; all serial killers display traits that are 'disorganised'.

It really wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that he improvised with the apron, the reason being that we have the experience of other serial killers.