The Apron's Significance

[etenguy]

Following the murder of Catherine Eddowes, a decent sized piece of bloodied apron was found in Goulston Street just under a cryptic piece of graffiti – the exact words of which we cannot be entirely sure. The piece of apron matched perfectly the remnant of apron found at the murder site. From this we can deduce the murderer removed the apron from the murder scene and deposited it in Goulston Street. This is generally, but not universally, accepted to explain how the portion of apron arrived in Goulston Street.

If we accept the general consensus, then this will be the first time that it is known for the murderer to take a piece of clothing from the murder scene which raises the question why did he do that? I would argue this was a deliberate act for an intended purpose and I reach this conclusion after considering potential options.

1. It is sometimes suggested the apron piece was taken to transport the organs that were removed from the murder scene. I would argue this is unlikely since if that were the case, why was the apron discarded at Goulston street? To dispose of incriminating evidence I hear some shout – except the organs were not discarded and they are far more incriminating. The organs though must have been in some container, and one the murderer brought with him I would argue, since he would not have been aware he might find a useful carrying device at the scene, and besides he had used some other container when he took Annie Chapman’s uterus, so I infer he did not need the apron portion for this purpose.

2. Some have argued he took the apron portion to clean up blood from his hands or person. It is of course possible, but if that were the case, why not just wipe his hands at the scene, it would have taken seconds. But if he felt he had no time and left with the apron piece for this reason, he waited some ten minutes before arriving at Goulston street before doing so. I think this is unlikely and he would have done so sooner if this was his intention.

3. It has also been suggested that the murderer cut himself and took the apron piece to stem the flow of blood as he left the scene. I find this unlikely also. If the cut was serious enough that he needed to stem the flow of blood, it is unlikely it would have stopped in the short time he travelled to Goulston street. If the cut was more minor, then I think unlikely he would cut a piece of dirty apron to cover the cut in the first place.

4. I would argue there was a different reason and it was one or both of the following

a) He deliberately took the apron piece to Goulston street to deceive the police and suggest to them that he went that way on his route home. A subterfuge which would possibly mean that the murderer lived in the city (and hence would explain the journey direction from Stride to Eddowes murder scenes led to the city). Having given such an unintended clue he sought to send the police in the wrong direction.
b) He took the apron piece to authentic the message found at Goulston Street. He may have been agitated as a result of being interrupted with Stride and wanted to leave a message that the police would know was from him and not a hoax message from a member of the public.

I think it is entirely possible that he was attempting to do as I describe in option 4, either one or the other or both, but I would strongly suspect it was primarily to deceive the police and send them in the wrong direction. This would lead me to consider strongly whether we can deduce that the ripper lived in the city, and not in Whitechapel. He was heading home after the Elizabeth Stride attack, back to the city, when he murdered Catherine Eddowes and realizing this might point people to the general direction of where he lived, he decided on taking the apron and placing it in the opposite direction to deceive the police – and if the GSG was written by the murderer, this was potentially part of the subterfuge also, to make police think it was there for authentication of the GSG and not to send them in the wrong direction.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Following the murder of Catherine Eddowes, a decent sized piece of bloodied apron was found in Goulston Street just under a cryptic piece of graffiti – the exact words of which we cannot be entirely sure. The piece of apron matched perfectly the remnant of apron found at the murder site. From this we can deduce the murderer removed the apron from the murder scene and deposited it in Goulston Street. This is generally, but not universally, accepted to explain how the portion of apron arrived in Goulston Street.

If we accept the general consensus, then this will be the first time that it is known for the murderer to take a piece of clothing from the murder scene which raises the question why did he do that? I would argue this was a deliberate act for an intended purpose and I reach this conclusion after considering potential options.

1. It is sometimes suggested the apron piece was taken to transport the organs that were removed from the murder scene. I would argue this is unlikely since if that were the case, why was the apron discarded at Goulston street? To dispose of incriminating evidence I hear some shout – except the organs were not discarded and they are far more incriminating. The organs though must have been in some container, and one the murderer brought with him I would argue, since he would not have been aware he might find a useful carrying device at the scene, and besides he had used some other container when he took Annie Chapman’s uterus, so I infer he did not need the apron portion for this purpose.

2. Some have argued he took the apron portion to clean up blood from his hands or person. It is of course possible, but if that were the case, why not just wipe his hands at the scene, it would have taken seconds. But if he felt he had no time and left with the apron piece for this reason, he waited some ten minutes before arriving at Goulston street before doing so. I think this is unlikely and he would have done so sooner if this was his intention.

3. It has also been suggested that the murderer cut himself and took the apron piece to stem the flow of blood as he left the scene. I find this unlikely also. If the cut was serious enough that he needed to stem the flow of blood, it is unlikely it would have stopped in the short time he travelled to Goulston street. If the cut was more minor, then I think unlikely he would cut a piece of dirty apron to cover the cut in the first place.

4. I would argue there was a different reason and it was one or both of the following

a) He deliberately took the apron piece to Goulston street to deceive the police and suggest to them that he went that way on his route home. A subterfuge which would possibly mean that the murderer lived in the city (and hence would explain the journey direction from Stride to Eddowes murder scenes led to the city). Having given such an unintended clue he sought to send the police in the wrong direction.
b) He took the apron piece to authentic the message found at Goulston Street. He may have been agitated as a result of being interrupted with Stride and wanted to leave a message that the police would know was from him and not a hoax message from a member of the public.

I think it is entirely possible that he was attempting to do as I describe in option 4, either one or the other or both, but I would strongly suspect it was primarily to deceive the police and send them in the wrong direction. This would lead me to consider strongly whether we can deduce that the ripper lived in the city, and not in Whitechapel. He was heading home after the Elizabeth Stride attack, back to the city, when he murdered Catherine Eddowes and realizing this might point people to the general direction of where he lived, he decided on taking the apron and placing it in the opposite direction to deceive the police – and if the GSG was written by the murderer, this was potentially part of the subterfuge also, to make police think it was there for authentication of the GSG and not to send them in the wrong direction.

Hi Eten, good to see you posting.

Good points. I wouldn’t disagree with any of what you’ve written although none of the points are conclusive of course. On point 2 perhaps we could suggest that he may have wiped his hands at the scene but he might have taken the cloth for a better clean up when he was away from the immediate scene of the murder if he needed one. As he was getting away perhaps he noticed (as he got near to a lamp) that he had blood on his shoes or trousers so he decided on a clean up before continuing his escape. It seems unlikely that he’d have been willing to do this on the pavement with the chance of being seen and so when he saw the doorway he saw his opportunity.

I’m certainly not saying that’s what happened though. It certainly could have been the case that he was ‘authenticating’ the graffito or trying to throw the police of his track (or both)

[etenguy]

Hi Eten, good to see you posting.

Good points. I wouldn’t disagree with any of what you’ve written although none of the points are conclusive of course. On point 2 perhaps we could suggest that he may have wiped his hands at the scene but he might have taken the cloth for a better clean up when he was away from the immediate scene of the murder if he needed one. As he was getting away perhaps he noticed (as he got near to a lamp) that he had blood on his shoes or trousers so he decided on a clean up before continuing his escape. It seems unlikely that he’d have been willing to do this on the pavement with the chance of being seen and so when he saw the doorway he saw his opportunity.

I’m certainly not saying that’s what happened though. It certainly could have been the case that he was ‘authenticating’ the graffito or trying to throw the police of his track (or both)

Thanks Herlock - had a health issue which took some time to recover from, but back now and looking forward to catching up on what I have missed.

The Apron has always been niggling at the back of my mind - I am sure it tells us something, but whether my ruminations are close or not, still can't say for sure, but it seems to make sense to me that taking the apron was deliberate and with purpose.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock - had a health issue which took some time to recover from, but back now and looking forward to catching up on what I have missed.

The Apron has always been niggling at the back of my mind - I am sure it tells us something, but whether my ruminations are close or not, still can't say for sure, but it seems to make sense to me that taking the apron was deliberate and with purpose.

Glad that you’re on the mend Eten. When we look at the four options that you’ve listed it’s difficult to come up with anything else that makes sense.

[Sam Flynn]

Remember that Eddowes' extruded intestines were "smeared over" with fæcal matter, and her killer had cut through and lifted out a section of the digestive tract where fæces are fully formed (i.e. the descending colon). It is thus highly likely that the Ripper contaminated one or both hands with fæces and tried to wipe them on a "clean" part of her intestines, thus causing them to be "smeared over" with fæces.

If, as seems likely, this effort was only partly successful - that stuff takes some shifting! - it's quite probable that he cut off part of Eddowes' apron to use as a makeshift towel. Once he'd had a chance to "scrub up" at a safe distance from the crime-scene, perhaps in the shelter of a doorway, he just jettisoned the "towel" and continued to head home.

I've been pointing this out for years, including a Ripperologist article of nearly 20 years ago, but it rarely comes up in discussion. I think it should be seriously considered, if for no other reason than the apron piece was stained, not just with blood, but with fæcal matter.

[Lewis C]

Hi etenguy, I glad to hear that you're feeling better.

I agree that both of the possibilities that you mention in #4 are reasonable possibilities. The only thing that I'd question in your post as a whole is that you seem to assume that the killer must have discarded the apron shortly after the murder. The first time after the murder that a policeman passed the Goulston St. site, he didn't see the apron there. There's a strong possibility that the reason why he didn't see it is that it wasn't there yet. So the killer may have returned to his bolthole and then gone back out to deposit the apron. If that's what happened, it then seems a reasonable possibility that he took the apron because he cut himself. He may have had the apron long enough to stem the flow of blood.

It would also then be possible that he transported the organs in the apron to his bolthole, and then went back out to deposit the apron. But as you mentioned, then we'd have to ask what he did to transport the uterus after the Chapman murder.

[Abby Normal]

Following the murder of Catherine Eddowes, a decent sized piece of bloodied apron was found in Goulston Street just under a cryptic piece of graffiti – the exact words of which we cannot be entirely sure. The piece of apron matched perfectly the remnant of apron found at the murder site. From this we can deduce the murderer removed the apron from the murder scene and deposited it in Goulston Street. This is generally, but not universally, accepted to explain how the portion of apron arrived in Goulston Street.

If we accept the general consensus, then this will be the first time that it is known for the murderer to take a piece of clothing from the murder scene which raises the question why did he do that? I would argue this was a deliberate act for an intended purpose and I reach this conclusion after considering potential options.

1. It is sometimes suggested the apron piece was taken to transport the organs that were removed from the murder scene. I would argue this is unlikely since if that were the case, why was the apron discarded at Goulston street? To dispose of incriminating evidence I hear some shout – except the organs were not discarded and they are far more incriminating. The organs though must have been in some container, and one the murderer brought with him I would argue, since he would not have been aware he might find a useful carrying device at the scene, and besides he had used some other container when he took Annie Chapman’s uterus, so I infer he did not need the apron portion for this purpose.

2. Some have argued he took the apron portion to clean up blood from his hands or person. It is of course possible, but if that were the case, why not just wipe his hands at the scene, it would have taken seconds. But if he felt he had no time and left with the apron piece for this reason, he waited some ten minutes before arriving at Goulston street before doing so. I think this is unlikely and he would have done so sooner if this was his intention.

3. It has also been suggested that the murderer cut himself and took the apron piece to stem the flow of blood as he left the scene. I find this unlikely also. If the cut was serious enough that he needed to stem the flow of blood, it is unlikely it would have stopped in the short time he travelled to Goulston street. If the cut was more minor, then I think unlikely he would cut a piece of dirty apron to cover the cut in the first place.

4. I would argue there was a different reason and it was one or both of the following

a) He deliberately took the apron piece to Goulston street to deceive the police and suggest to them that he went that way on his route home. A subterfuge which would possibly mean that the murderer lived in the city (and hence would explain the journey direction from Stride to Eddowes murder scenes led to the city). Having given such an unintended clue he sought to send the police in the wrong direction.
b) He took the apron piece to authentic the message found at Goulston Street. He may have been agitated as a result of being interrupted with Stride and wanted to leave a message that the police would know was from him and not a hoax message from a member of the public.

I think it is entirely possible that he was attempting to do as I describe in option 4, either one or the other or both, but I would strongly suspect it was primarily to deceive the police and send them in the wrong direction. This would lead me to consider strongly whether we can deduce that the ripper lived in the city, and not in Whitechapel. He was heading home after the Elizabeth Stride attack, back to the city, when he murdered Catherine Eddowes and realizing this might point people to the general direction of where he lived, he decided on taking the apron and placing it in the opposite direction to deceive the police – and if the GSG was written by the murderer, this was potentially part of the subterfuge also, to make police think it was there for authentication of the GSG and not to send them in the wrong direction.

hi eten. welcome back. i think the ripper was angered at being interrupted by all those pesky jews that night and cut off and placed it and wrote the gsg for a bit of payback and or to throw off police. After eddowes he went to his bolt hole, cleaned up a bit, dropped of knife and trophy grabbed a bit of chalk and headed back out to goulston st. this would also explain the gap in time of when it was eventually found.

[etenguy]

Remember that Eddowes' extruded intestines were "smeared over" with fæcal matter, and her killer had cut through and lifted out a section of the digestive tract where fæces are fully formed (i.e. the descending colon). It is thus highly likely that the Ripper contaminated one or both hands with fæces and tried to wipe them on a "clean" part of her intestines, thus causing them to be "smeared over" with fæces.

If, as seems likely, this effort was only partly successful - that stuff takes some shifting! - it's quite probable that he cut off part of Eddowes' apron to use as a makeshift towel. Once he'd had a chance to "scrub up" at a safe distance from the crime-scene, perhaps in the shelter of a doorway, he just jettisoned the "towel" and continued to head home.

I've been pointing this out for years, including a Ripperologist article of nearly 20 years ago, but it rarely comes up in discussion. I think it should be seriously considered, if for no other reason than the apron piece was stained, not just with blood, but with fæcal matter.

Hi Sam.

Your explanation for the apron use is entirely plausible, it was just a towel which was discarded after use. And it is possible that Goulston Street was the first place he found where he felt he was able to clean up in relative safety.

However, the different descriptions of the portion of the apron found in Goulston Street that I have seen do not lead me to conclude that the apron was used as you describe.
Doctor Brown stated:

My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street.

While at the inquest Constable Long described the apron as follows:

I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it.

The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

They are not fantastically helpful descriptions, but there is no indication that the stains were smeared in the way wiping hands or clothes down with a cloth would cause. A corner wet with blood does not convey to me the cloth had been used as a wipe. While I cannot deny the possibility, I don't think the descriptions we have support the towel option.

You may have more or different information, and I would be keen to read your article if it is still available and you could point me to it.

[etenguy]

Hi etenguy, I glad to hear that you're feeling better.

I agree that both of the possibilities that you mention in #4 are reasonable possibilities. The only thing that I'd question in your post as a whole is that you seem to assume that the killer must have discarded the apron shortly after the murder. The first time after the murder that a policeman passed the Goulston St. site, he didn't see the apron there. There's a strong possibility that the reason why he didn't see it is that it wasn't there yet. So the killer may have returned to his bolthole and then gone back out to deposit the apron. If that's what happened, it then seems a reasonable possibility that he took the apron because he cut himself. He may have had the apron long enough to stem the flow of blood.

It would also then be possible that he transported the organs in the apron to his bolthole, and then went back out to deposit the apron. But as you mentioned, then we'd have to ask what he did to transport the uterus after the Chapman murder.

Hi Lewis C

Thank you for your best wishes.

You are right that I assume that the killer left the apron shortly after the murder, in which case I am also saying that Long did not notice it until a little while after it was deposited there.

If you are correct that he came back out into the streets some time later to discard the apron, then it would mean I would need to rethink some of my reasoning.

I am asking myself which is more likely, that Constable Long did not see the apron at first or that the murderer went home (or to some bolthole) and then came back out into the streets with a piece of apron which had one corner 'wet with blood' to discard it, knowing that the police were looking for him. I think it more likely he would discard it later when the coast was clear - why chance getting caught with evidence associated with the murder?

I cannot be sure, but I think it more likely he discarded the portion of apron before he reached his home/bolthole and not long after the murder..

[etenguy]

hi eten. welcome back. i think the ripper was angered at being interrupted by all those pesky jews that night and cut off and placed it and wrote the gsg for a bit of payback and or to throw off police. After eddowes he went to his bolt hole, cleaned up a bit, dropped of knife and trophy grabbed a bit of chalk and headed back out to goulston st. this would also explain the gap in time of when it was eventually found.

Hi Abby

Thanks for the welcome, Abby.

In my reply to Lewis C above, I explain why I think it more likely the apron was dropped in Goulston Street soon after the murder. However, you raise an interesting point - if he needed to go somewhere first to collect some chalk and then come back to Goulston Street to write his message and leave the apron as corroboration, it would indeed support constable Long's evidence and would explain the reason he ventured back into the street. For this to be compelling we would have to believe that the murderer wrote the GSG, which may be the case.

I cannot find any reason/evidence to suggest that the scenario you describe is not what happened, but I still feel it unlikely he would venture out so soon. A day or two later would be safer from the police catching him perspective, but perhaps he thought the blood on the apron needed to be wet and it needed to be the night the murder happened to draw attention to the apron in the first place.

You could well be right Abby, but I think either way - Goulston street was chosen to send the police looking for the murderer in the wrong direction, and the killer might actually have lived in the city.