The Bloody Piece of Apron Redux

[Chava]

Having just read a very interesting dissertation on the piece of apron, it seems to me that I am wrong in thinking it wasn't used to convey organs. I had checked the dimensions of that cloth a while ago but obviously got the wrong info. It is a sizeable piece of cloth, and as such wouldn't have been easy to hack off. Any dressmaker knows that cutting through a length of material that size takes longer than a few seconds, especially when using a knife rather than shears. He needed that cloth, and not just to wipe his hands on. So I think it's highly likely he used it to transport the trophies he took. In which case he went back to wherever he kept them, put them away/hid them, and then went back out to ditch the thing that basically nailed him for the murder.

Now on reflection this suggests a couple of things to me: first off, he had to get rid of that piece of cloth. If he was living by himself, the urgency would be less severe. If there's no one around to see it, he can stay safely at home and deal with it whenever he felt like it. Hell, if there's no one else to see it, he can keep it as another trophy. But he ventures out into a night full of policemen, with incriminating evidence on his person. So I think wherever he dropped it is within a couple of hundred yards at most of where he lived. He needs to get rid of that as soon as possible and get back indoors. However, if he lives with someone else, he has to have some access to a private hiding place where he can keep his stuff without anyone knowing about it. And also he has to be able to come in late at night and go right back out again without any comments being made about it. So I suspect it might be possible that he is a lodger. And a lodger in some place on a higher level than Cressingham's Rooms for Gentlemen, because there he would have no expectation of being able to keep his little box of tricks to himself. Possibly, therefore, he is a lodger with a family in the area.

The second thing that occurs is this: in the Chapman murder he transported trophies as well. And no cloth is missing from her body. I doubt he stuffed the bits and pieces in his pocket, because that might cause problems immediately or later. I think he came prepared for that. In which case he might also have come prepared for his activities on the night of the Double Event. I wonder if he lost his handy-dandy carrier during the events around the Stride murder. Probably impossible to find out, but I wonder if there were any bits of cloth/old wrapping paper/smashed-up box found in the area of Berners St after the Stride murder. Because if there were, then I think that would have his fingerprints everywhere.

[Jane Coram]

Annie's clothing

Hi Chava,

Although no-one can say what happened to it, Annie was wearing a grey woollen muffler when she left her lodging house, which seems to have been unaccounted for in later reports. It has to be a possibility that Jack used that to take any organs in, although of course that is pure speculation.

Ultimately though, we do have missing muffler and missing organs. There could be a link.

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[LadyG]

What sort of fabric was her dress? I'm sure it's in here some where but it takes me too long to find anything! If it was as 'grubby' and old as I've heard it described, it would be easier to tear, depending on the material. Piece of petticoat might have been easier, but our boy was pressed for time. And out of curiosity, do we know if the fragment found the entire missing piece?

[Moon-Shadow30]

Chava, you have a very good theory which makes a lot of sense. However, can I throw another theory at you and see what you think. As you say, it would have been a pain to cut the cloth with a knife and would have taken a while to cut off. Time which he didn't have, considering he only had a short while to commit the murder and the mutilations. I think that perhaps Eddowes cut the cloth herself. Forgive the icky details. Perhaps she used it to absorb the blood from her period. If she was on the game that night then she'd have to remove it and maybe for lack of anything else handy, used the cloth to wipe herself after going to the toilet.

As for Annie Chapman's muffler, well anything could have happened to that. Whitechapel wasn't the friendliest neighbourhood after all.

[Raoul's Obsession]

I think that perhaps Eddowes cut the cloth herself. Forgive the icky details. Perhaps she used it to absorb the blood from her period. If she was on the game that night then she'd have to remove it and maybe for lack of anything else handy, used the cloth to wipe herself after going to the toilet.

I think that what we have to remember is that an apron such as the one Eddowes was wearing would have been a fairly valuable possession to someone in her situation who owns almost nothing - remember, she just pawned a pair of boots the day before for some money to eat. As such I think it is highly unlikely that she would have cut it herself for any purpose. Remember - these weren't disposable items for a lady in her position.

Most of the above depends on whether you believe that the policeman (sorry forget his name, working from memory) was correct in stating that the apron wasn't lying in the arch way the first time he passed. If it was, it would make sense to say Jack left it as he was fleeing Mitre square to some place more distant. Of course, in your theory Chava, I would like to know your guess as to why he was living somewhere sufficiently safe to keep the organs but not be able to keep the apron they were wrapped in. That's the point that stumps me. I can only conclude that he left the apron so as to highlight that the graffito was his.

Raoul

[Monty]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty
Inquest Testimony of PC George Hutt

Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, City Police: I am gaoler at Bishopsgate station. On the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, at a quarter to ten o'clock, I took over our prisoners, among them the deceased. I visited her several times until five minutes to one on Sunday morning. The inspector, being out visiting, I was directed by Sergeant Byfield to see if any of the prisoners were fit to be discharged. I found the deceased sober, and after she had given her name and address, she was allowed to leave. I pushed open the swing-door leading to the passage, and said, "This way, missus." She passed along the passage to the outer door. I said to her, "Please, pull it to." She replied, "All right. Good night, old ****." (Laughter.) She pulled the door to within a foot of being close, and I saw her turn to the left.
The Coroner: That was leading towards Houndsditch? - Yes.
The Foreman: Is it left to you to decide when a prisoner is sober enough to be released or not? - Not to me, but to the inspector or acting inspector on duty.
[Coroner] Is it usual to discharge prisoners who have been locked up for being drunk at all hours of the night? - Certainly.
[Coroner] How often did you visit the prisoners? - About every half-hour. At first the deceased remained asleep; but at a quarter to twelve she was awake, and singing a song to herself, as it were. I went to her again at half-past twelve, and she then asked when she would be able to get out. I replied: "Shortly." She said, "I am capable of taking care of myself now."
Mr. Crawford: Did she tell you where she was going? - No. About two minutes to one o'clock, when I was taking her out of the cell, she asked me what time it was. I answered, "Too late for you to get any more drink." She said, "Well, what time is it?" I replied, "Just on one." Thereupon she said, "I shall get a ---- fine hiding when I get home, then."
[Coroner] Was that her parting remark? - That was in the station yard. I said, "Serve you right; you have no right to get drunk."
[Coroner] You supposed she was going home? - I did.
[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.
[Coroner] What is the distance from Mitre-square to your station? - About 400 yards.
[Coroner] Do you know the direct route to Flower and Dean-street? - No.
A Juror: Do you search persons who are brought in for drunkenness? - No, but we take from them anything that might be dangerous. I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief.

And inquest testimony of PC Robinson

City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.
The Coroner: What state was she in? - Drunk. Lying on the footway? - Yes. I asked the crowd if any of them knew her or where she lived, but got no answer. I then picked her up and sat her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied "Nothing." She was then put into a cell.
[Coroner] Did any one appear to be in her company when you found her? - No one in particular.
Mr. Crawford: Did any one appear to know her? - No. The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing. The Foreman: What guided you in determining whether the woman was drunk or not?
Witness: Her appearance.
The Foreman: I ask you because I know of a case in which a person was arrested for being drunk who had not tasted anything intoxicating for eight or nine hours.
[Coroner] You are quite sure this woman was drunk? - She smelt very strongly of drink.

And inventory taken of Eddowes belongings at the scene by Inspector Collard.

Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.
Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
White calico chemise
No drawers or stays
Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread
1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
1 large white pocket handkerchief
1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned at the feet with white cotton

Possessions

2 small blue bags made of bed ticking
2 short black clay pipes
1 tin box containing tea
1 tin box containing sugar
1 tin matchbox, empty
12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained
1 piece coarse linen, white
1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
1 piece red flannel with pins and needles
6 pieces soap
1 small tooth comb
1 white handle table knife
1 metal teaspoon
1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings
1 ball hemp
1 piece of old white apron with repair
Several buttons and a thimble
Mustard tin containing two pawn tickets, One in the name of Emily Birrell, 52 White's Row, dated August 31, 9d for a man's flannel shirt. The other is in the name of Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street and dated September 28, 2S for a pair of men's boots. Both addresses are false.
Printed handbill and according to a press report- a printed card for 'Frank Carter,305,Bethnal Green Road
Portion of a pair of spectacles
1 red mitten

Apologies for the length of the thread and the fact its off topic.

Monty

Conflicting evidence in fact there is no evidence that at the time she was murdered she was wearing an apron.

In fact its to the contary as yu have highlighted and i will re iterate as described in the folowing

1. “Piece of old white apron” (Jack the Ripper A-Z)
2. “Piece of old white apron with repair” ( Casebook lists this under possessions and not clothing worn.)
3. “Piece of White apron (As described by Inspector Collard who listed her clothes and possessions at the mortuary when the body was stripped at 3am on arrival at the mortuary)

If she had been wearing the apron surely it would have been documented as such instead of decswribing pieces after all the piece found in Goulston st was no that large so as to make the apron nothing more than a piece

Apoligies for going off thread but issue need to be clarified

As the apron was split it twain, and half (the piece as stated by Collard) found at the scene with Eddowes body, it is logical to assume the apron entered the square with Eddowes.

Care to explain the 12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

[I]


As the apron was split it twain, and half (the piece as stated by Collard) found at the scene with Eddowes body, it is logical to assume the apron entered the square with Eddowes.

Care to explain the 12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained?

Monty

It is not logical to assume anything as far as the ripper mystery is concerned

But if she was wearing the apron at the time of her murder it would still have been tied around her when her body was taken to the mortuary and the items listed, Clearly it was not otherwise it would have been listed as clothing.

This another argument I am not going to get embroiled in Insp Collard was the last officer to come in contact with the body. He noted all the items and possesions down at the time. I am prepared to accept the details he gave as being correct.

In fact none of the other police officers actually say they saw her wearing an apron in their testimony. They identifed a piece of apron which they say was from the one they belived she was wearing when they last saw her.There is a big diference in that evidence.

As to the 12 pieces of white rag perhaps she was carrying them to remind her of the 12 days of christmas

[Errata]

Well, they don't really say what kind of an apron it was. A bib apron (like the french maid apron) is quite small, and half would not be such a great swatch of cloth. Not all aprons tie around the waist or neck. In fact there's a quite neat style that attached with buttons.

As for cutting fabric, cutting along the weft is much easier than the warp. In fact with most fabric you can tease out a weft thread and tear the cloth with ridiculous ease. which is what they did with The Hulk and Hulk Hogan's shirts. *rawr* *riiip*

[Hunter]

Settled

Here is part of Dr. Brown's testimony at the Eddowes inquest reproduced from this website. This should settle the apron question definitively.

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? -

[Dr. Brown] Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

[The Good Michael]

Hunter,

It's a shame you had to post that. It should be embarassing for a published author not to have known that. I'm not naming names.

Cheers,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Here is part of Dr. Brown's testimony at the Eddowes inquest reproduced from this website. This should settle the apron question definitively.

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? -

[Dr. Brown] Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

He was referring to the body of the apron he refers to it as a portion not a specific apron.

[Monty]

Hunter,

You beat me to it.

Shall we also list....

Halse

"I came through Goulston Street at 20 past 2 and then went back to Mitre Square and accompined Inspector Collard to the mortuary. I saw deceased stripped and saw the portion of the apron was missing."

Frederick Foster

"A piece of cloth was found in Goulston Street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased."

Trevor Marriott states It is then a matter for people to accept or disregard them. What does p..s me off is the people that pour scorn on the issues are the people that are unable to make a case to disprove the facts by producing any evidence

The evidence has been provided.

Where is your evidence supporting this theory that she wasnt wearing an apron as she entered Mitre Square?

What p*sses me off is unfounded arguements which portray an outlandish theory as fact. The because such statements get picked up by others and used in future references and lo, we have another myth.

Still, it sells books eh?



Mariab posted - And the rest of the apron found at the murder scene was what? She was carrying it around, planning on using it for the next 3 months? Besides, there was no sanitary equipment found with the body.

There was sanitary equipment found with Eddowes. 12 pieces of rag...this is why I asked the question knowing Trevor couldnt answer it.

Monty

[Hunter]

More

[Dr. Brown] Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

He was referring to the body of the apron he refers to it as a portion not a specific apron.

The remaining portion (which was the body of the apron)... was still attached by the strings to the body (of Catherine Eddowes). He had to refer to it as a portion because the bloody thing had been cut in half.

From the writen deposition of Inspector Collard on file at the London Records Office:

[Edward Collard]
'I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress...'

Kate was 45 years old. She was very likely menopausal by that age. The apron was cut and the only knife found on her was a table knife.

All of this is evidence; real, substantuated evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

[Dr. Brown] Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.




The remaining portion (which was the body of the apron)... was still attached by the strings to the body (of Catherine Eddowes). He had to refer to it as a portion because the bloody thing had been cut in half.

From the writen deposition of Inspector Collard on file at the London Records Office:

[Edward Collard]
'I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress...'

Kate was 45 years old. She was very likely menopausal by that age. The apron was cut and the only knife found on her was a table knife.

All of this is evidence; real, substantuated evidence.

Well thank you you for pointing this out and assisting in attempting to clear up this ambiguity.

It just goes to show that the best of us cant be totally right all the time.

Having said that I should point out that Collard says "Apparently wearing" surely he should know he was there when she was undressed and noted everything down. If she was wearing it why didnt he show it under "clothes she was wearing" and not amongst her possesions ?

I would refer you to an extract from a consultant gynecologist regarding the issues you raised. I am sure you are many things but gynecolgist you are certainly not.

"In respect of the piece of apron and whether it was used as a sanitary towel or not, it is quite possible that even in Victorian times women in their late forties would still be menstruating and may well have used this piece of rag as a sanitary towel. Blood spotting is a part of the female menstrual cycle. I have not been shown a photograph of the apron piece, which shows the blood spotting as described. I therefore cannot give a definitive answer as whether the blood spotting on the apron piece is consistent with the menstrual cycle."

[Monty]

12 rags bespotted with blood.

Monty