Eddowes Apron Style - Confused

[BooksbyBJThompson]

I finally see how it went with Tom's help.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

Yes, I heard again from Tom Wescott. The bottom was removed, leaving the top portion still around the neck.

Here is what Tom said in a DM to me

"He took the bottom portion of the apron, not the top portion, which is why it may have still been attached to her by strings around the neck. It would appear he first made a cut towards the middle of the apron (assuming this was the cut seen in the other garments) and then cut the apron off by sawing each way until the portion was detached and he was able to access the abdomen. As I mentioned before, the purpose of the apron wasn't to wipe his hands or knife, it was removed to allow access to the abdomen. He probably set it aside near the head and when he threw the bloody and feces laden intestines over the shoulder, they came in contact with a corner of the apron. What's interesting was his choice to take the apron with him when he left."

[The Rookie Detective]

Thats correct, the top section was found among her clothes as they were being removed by the doctor.

"My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached - The blood spots were of recent origin . . .
. . . . I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street It is impossible to say it is human blood I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently 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 found in Goulstone Street."

The deposit of faecal matter suggests that the piece of apron was cut off from the lower section of apron and not from the top, or that the killer wiped his knife on the apron piece before dropping it under the chalked message.

[Wickerman]

Hi c.d.,

Tom Westcott told me one of the strings of that top apron was still around her neck.

So, she hadn't removed it before the attack.

Thats correct, the top section was found among her clothes as they were being removed by the doctor.

"My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached - The blood spots were of recent origin . . .
. . . . I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street It is impossible to say it is human blood I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently 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 found in Goulstone Street."

[BooksbyBJThompson]

I'm having trouble understanding the significance of this.

What if she took it off in order to kneel on so that it is already off when he begins his attack?

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

Tom Westcott told me one of the strings of that top apron was still around her neck.

So, she hadn't removed it before the attack.

[c.d.]

I'm having trouble understanding the significance of this.

What if she took it off in order to kneel on so that it is already off when he begins his attack?

c.d.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

Yeah, me, too, CF. This is why I stopped cold and to rethink this scenario.
Yes, I do know of those types if fancy aprons, but I always that the top was sewn to the bottom.
Obviously, I got that wrong, too.

And I agree with you re: Catherine owning such a fancy piece.

If the plain ones were simply tied on with strings, I guess Jack just knifed through those strings to get at her top clothing???

Geez, I wish I could get a handle on this visual.

Why would a mere apron hinder Jack?
Why not knife right through it and the clothing???

[C. F. Leon]

I probably should also mention bib-aprons, which are more complicated- partially because some people use the term as just another name for the full aprons. Properly, though, they are fancier, more ornate. They may vary from just a fancy full apron with frills or such to a 2-piece thing with a bib that fits over a more-or-less standard full apron. Because they are more fancy (expensive), they are rarely, if ever, used in cooking (although perhaps on the visible servers at the high-class affairs) or industrial. They are the ones that you often see on nurses or nannies. They are two-piece because you may have to deal with the baby's spit-up or whatever from the patient. So you have the bib piece that you can launder by itself with the skirt piece that you can re-wear for the rest of the week or so.

I very much doubt Eddowes was wearing a bib-apron. Frankly, I had the impression that she was wearing a half apron, tied at the waist, until I saw these reports about it being around the neck.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

The piece has to be around the neck, NOT from the lower skirt portion of a 19th century apron. But for the life of me, I can't visualize what it is Jack cut off???

[BooksbyBJThompson]

And this passage is from the Jack the Ripper Sourcebook pic attached

[BooksbyBJThompson]

C.F. Leon and Tani, how do you two read this? pic attached

[Tani]

Maybe the word 'apron' was being used here somewhat loosely?

[C. F. Leon]

Tom Wescott may be able to help you. He refers to the apron often, especially in connection to the GSG, although he seems to believe that the apron was tied ONLY at the waist.
I don't know the situation in LV London, but in my cooking career, I used half-aprons, which tie at the waist, or full aprons, which either tie at BOTH the waist and neck (although often just an over-the-neck loop without loose ends to tie) or had sleeves (and then often tied at the waist). If you are talking about over-the-neck, then you are usually referring to bibs, which don't tie at the waist (but may have sleeves). And then you have coveralls, which are usually specialty industrial/recreational use (rather than cooking), which actually have legs and sleeves, so ties usually aren't necessary.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

Hi Tani ,

Maybe, yes. Sadly, Donald's book doesn't give enough details but neither the Source book either on their documents on Eddowes.

Did Jack knife it away, initially, to get at her chest?
And he decided afterwards to use it as a cleaning cloth?

I wish I could visualize this better.
Before reading this, I assumed a piece had been ripped off the apron's lower skirt area.

Assuming is truly not healthy. Lol...

[Tani]

Hi, thanks to you both for your much valued help.

Rumbelow writes it's THIS top area the Ripper sliced off, not the shirt end.

I can't visualize this if it's a bodus bib we're talking he cut away.

Sadly old Donald is not always quite accurate. If it is the top part of an apron it would only make sense for it, at least to me, for it to be the bib portion. It's all I can imagine.

Could be something like this on the round-the-neck portion?