Apron placement as intimidation?

[c.d.]

It just occurred to me that the offer of a reward came after the double event so it could not have factored into the placement as intimidation. My mistake.

c.d.

[Merry_Olde_Mary]

there were only two pieces of apron that were matched by the seams so that as previously stated could only have been top left, bottom left or top right bottom right, meaning two quarters of a potentially four quarter apron.

I am sorry I am copping out by not reading this whole thread (have made it to p.4) but by "seams", could they have meant "hem"? A seam is where two pieces of fabric are joined, as would happen where a (separate length of cloth used to form the) waistband were joined to the body of the apron, which would in a less expensive garment be made of 1 single piece of cloth. (More seams = more sewing = more workmanship = more cost.) Such an apron could be turned under and hemmed at the bottom and perhaps along the sides, which seem like a more likely place to compare how the two pieces were finished, and if the sewing technique matched.

I don't think I have heard of aprons made with seams running through them...unless they were striped, made of alternating fabrics.

When I hear that the "seams" were compared, it makes me think part of the waistband were attached to each piece...as the waistband is commonly (?) where a seam would appear in a (common?) apron.

I'd like to know more about the original construction of this garment : ( The simplest would be constructed like this, though it could be longer, too: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/aR4AA...cnu/s-l300.jpg


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: If you have all the time in the world and want to read about seven 19th Century ways to finish a seam (NOT a hem) go HERE: http://historicalsewing.com/seam-fin...ntury-garments

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

That is interesting. You will probably produce some new knowledge from it.

Cheers, Pierre

Pierre

As suspected, the method i am using via mapping is of little use here.

Unlike the Bucks Row case where we have sources giving us walking speeds for police and sources telling us both Lechmere and Paul were running behind time and thus almost certainly walking at above average speed, here we are missing those parameters.

Firstly we have no idea how sober Eddowes was when released.

We do know she went toward Houndsditch, and was probably not fully sober, but that is all.

We have no references to what speed drunks walk at, and even if we did the first point stops us drawing any conclusions about Eddowes.

I said i would start at 3mph and if she managed that she could indeed have done as Trevor suggests.

If she went at 2.5 mph it is still certainly possible, if at 2 or less it becomes first highly unlikely and latterly impossible.


I think it is reasonable to assume that it highly unlikely that she managed 3mph, but that is all I feel we can make any sort of judgement on.

While my method shows what was possible, there is no way of relating it to Eddowes and therefore as a tool it is of very limited use in this instances.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

It just occurred to me that the offer of a reward came after the double event so it could not have factored into the placement as intimidation. My mistake.

Hi c.d.
I'm not sure you're mistaken....although an official (City) police reward was offered only after the double event, there were numerous unofficial rewards offered by private individuals and organisations before that.

[andy1867]

If the apron was dropped at the locality to intimidate a certain person, maybe that ties it , however tenuously, to the graffiti .
A message that is still argued about a century later, may have made more sense to a particular individual when aside a piece of clothing from a Ripper victim.

Just thinking aloud lol

[Joshua Rogan]

I don't think I have heard of aprons made with seams running through them...unless they were striped, made of alternating fabrics.

When I hear that the "seams" were compared, it makes me think part of the waistband were attached to each piece...as the waistband is commonly (?) where a seam would appear in a (common?) apron.

Hi MoM!
I think you need to bear in mind that it wasn't a new apron, and had apparently been patched at some point in it's life. When a portion was cut off it was cut through this patched area. Dr Brown's evidence makes it clear the seams referred to are where the patch of material was sewn on;

"I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street.....I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn onto the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding"

[Merry_Olde_Mary]

Hi MoM!

I am actually your middle school Home Ec teacher...and I SEE YOU!

I think you need to bear in mind that it wasn't a new apron, and had apparently been patched at some point in its life. When a portion was cut off it was cut through this patched area. Dr Brown's evidence makes it clear the seams referred to are where the patch of material was sewn on;

AH! That makes much more sense now.

I was secretly thinking, "Now this is the WHOLE PROBLEM! These male police officers didn't know the difference between a SEAM and a g@ddamn HEM!!"

Thanks for the very informative reply : )

And, I can't really see you.
.

[Bridewell]

The idea that the piece of apron was placed where it was as an act of intimidation is interesting but not without problems of its own. If you wanted to intimidate an individual or a particular family why would you not leave it on the doorstep or even through a letter box? If you wanted to intimidate all the residents of the Dwellings, most of whom were Jewish, why would you not leave it on the stairs where it couldn't be missed, rather than in the stairwell where it might not be seen for days or before the GSG (assuming relevance) was obliterated?

Various theories have been postulated as to why the killer took this item but I think, with one possible exception, that the consensus view is that it was the killer who took it.

Why, having taken it, did he discard it? Did he do so at a time of his own choosing, (in which case the choice of location may be highly significant)? Did he discard it because it had served its purpose (e.g. because he had cut himself and the bleeding had stopped) - in which case the location was probably random. Did he discard it, not because he wanted to, but because he thought he had to? In that case the location is relevant IMHO only insofar as it might identify the compelling factor.

Personally I think the possibility of his having sustained an injury himself and used a piece of apron to stem the blood flow to be not without merit. There is also the possibility that he used it to wipe the blade of his knife - which would explain the presence of blood and faeces. Whatever the reason, while he retained a piece of the Eddowes apron he kept a metaphorical noose around his neck because being caught with it in his possession would surely have hanged him. It's a possibility that he wanted to intimidate, but it's one that works better in a detective novel than in real life I would suggest. If I had to back one of the many horses in this particular race it would be the one where the killer took it as a memento but discarded it on his way home because he thought himself in danger of being caught with it. In that scenario the choice of a dark stairwell would fit inasmuch as he would stand a chance of retrieving it later when the immediate hue and cry had died down.

[Abby Normal]

The idea that the piece of apron was placed where it was as an act of intimidation is interesting but not without problems of its own. If you wanted to intimidate an individual or a particular family why would you not leave it on the doorstep or even through a letter box? If you wanted to intimidate all the residents of the Dwellings, most of whom were Jewish, why would you not leave it on the stairs where it couldn't be missed, rather than in the stairwell where it might not be seen for days or before the GSG (assuming relevance) was obliterated?

Various theories have been postulated as to why the killer took this item but I think, with one possible exception, that the consensus view is that it was the killer who took it.

Why, having taken it, did he discard it? Did he do so at a time of his own choosing, (in which case the choice of location may be highly significant)? Did he discard it because it had served its purpose (e.g. because he had cut himself and the bleeding had stopped) - in which case the location was probably random. Did he discard it, not because he wanted to, but because he thought he had to? In that case the location is relevant IMHO only insofar as it might identify the compelling factor.

Personally I think the possibility of his having sustained an injury himself and used a piece of apron to stem the blood flow to be not without merit. There is also the possibility that he used it to wipe the blade of his knife - which would explain the presence of blood and faeces. Whatever the reason, while he retained a piece of the Eddowes apron he kept a metaphorical noose around his neck because being caught with it in his possession would surely have hanged him. It's a possibility that he wanted to intimidate, but it's one that works better in a detective novel than in real life I would suggest. If I had to back one of the many horses in this particular race it would be the one where the killer took it as a memento but discarded it on his way home because he thought himself in danger of being caught with it. In that scenario the choice of a dark stairwell would fit inasmuch as he would stand a chance of retrieving it later when the immediate hue and cry had died down.

Hi Bridewell
He took it because he knew he was going to use it to throw police off and blame the jews-to sign the GSG so to speak. that's my top interpretation.

or he needed it because he used the first rag he brought with him that night to clean the blood off his hands after the stride murder (church st sighting).

[Michael W Richards]

The idea that the piece of apron was placed where it was as an act of intimidation is interesting but not without problems of its own. If you wanted to intimidate an individual or a particular family why would you not leave it on the doorstep or even through a letter box? If you wanted to intimidate all the residents of the Dwellings, most of whom were Jewish, why would you not leave it on the stairs where it couldn't be missed, rather than in the stairwell where it might not be seen for days or before the GSG (assuming relevance) was obliterated?

Various theories have been postulated as to why the killer took this item but I think, with one possible exception, that the consensus view is that it was the killer who took it.

Why, having taken it, did he discard it? Did he do so at a time of his own choosing, (in which case the choice of location may be highly significant)? Did he discard it because it had served its purpose (e.g. because he had cut himself and the bleeding had stopped) - in which case the location was probably random. Did he discard it, not because he wanted to, but because he thought he had to? In that case the location is relevant IMHO only insofar as it might identify the compelling factor.

Personally I think the possibility of his having sustained an injury himself and used a piece of apron to stem the blood flow to be not without merit. There is also the possibility that he used it to wipe the blade of his knife - which would explain the presence of blood and faeces. Whatever the reason, while he retained a piece of the Eddowes apron he kept a metaphorical noose around his neck because being caught with it in his possession would surely have hanged him. It's a possibility that he wanted to intimidate, but it's one that works better in a detective novel than in real life I would suggest. If I had to back one of the many horses in this particular race it would be the one where the killer took it as a memento but discarded it on his way home because he thought himself in danger of being caught with it. In that scenario the choice of a dark stairwell would fit inasmuch as he would stand a chance of retrieving it later when the immediate hue and cry had died down.

I think a rather plausible reason for the apron section is the organs, and it would a;lso be plausible to suggest it was discarded rather than kept when the organs had been safely placed somewhere. Since around 70 minutes tick off between the murder and the discovery, a local bolt holes seems probable. And much safer getting off the streets almost immediately after the murder. He could come back out later after having washed his hands and having dropped off the organs, and that would lend itself to a scenario where the item was placed rather than merely discarded. Which would make a message just above it very probably linked. Why place it there without giving a reason....and the writing gives us a reason....The Jews are not the men who will be blamed for nothing....ie, without cause or reason.

Since the first murder of the evening is tied closely to the local Jewish Immigrants in the form of Anarchists, and since they were trying to blame the Phantom Menace from the get go...maybe Eddowes killer wanted the records to reflect who did what. The author, and the apron section placer, killed only Kate.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Bridewell;419692]

The idea that the piece of apron was placed where it was as an act of intimidation is interesting but not without problems of its own.

Hi Bridewell,

Good questions!

If you wanted to intimidate an individual or a particular family why would you not leave it on the doorstep or even through a letter box?

It would not be known in the press.

If you wanted to intimidate all the residents of the Dwellings, most of whom were Jewish, why would you not leave it on the stairs where it couldn't be missed, rather than in the stairwell where it might not be seen for days or before the GSG (assuming relevance) was obliterated?

It would not be connected to the GSG.

Various theories have been postulated as to why the killer took this item but I think, with one possible exception, that the consensus view is that it was the killer who took it.

Why, having taken it, did he discard it?

It was not discarded but placed there.

Did he do so at a time of his own choosing, (in which case the choice of location may be highly significant)?

It was a good place to put it. The dado was black. The dado was not too high up.

Did he discard it because it had served its purpose (e.g. because he had cut himself and the bleeding had stopped) - in which case the location was probably random.

It had not served its purpose but it would serve its purpose.

Did he discard it, not because he wanted to, but because he thought he had to?

The same thing.

In that case the location is relevant IMHO only insofar as it might identify the compelling factor.

If a factor is A, then the action is a and not b.

Personally I think the possibility of his having sustained an injury himself and used a piece of apron to stem the blood flow to be not without merit. There is also the possibility that he used it to wipe the blade of his knife - which would explain the presence of blood and faeces. Whatever the reason, while he retained a piece of the Eddowes apron he kept a metaphorical noose around his neck because being caught with it in his possession would surely have hanged him.

No. It was cut away.

This is my understanding of the sources about a piece of fabric.

Cheers, Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi all

There are a few reasons why the killer could have dumped/placed the apron in the doorway.

I've never liked the suggestion that he could have used it to wipe his knife though. Surely it would have been far simpler and quicker to wipe the blade in situ without wasting valuable time in cutting away a fairly sizeable section of cloth. This would have also incurred the added risk of finding a spot to clean his knife as opposed to doing it in 3 seconds in the dark seclusion of Mitre Square.

Serial killers, as we know, often take souvenirs. But in this case the obvious, and difficult question would be, why discard it?

The 'bandage' solution is an interesting and possible one. The only question that I would ask is; to require that size of cloth it must have been quite a nasty cut. Would it therefore have stopped bleeding by the time Jack got from Mitre Square to Goulston Street? This 'solution' would also speak of a random discarding rather than a signpost to the chalked message.

The other option is that he used it to wrap body parts. I'd be interested to hear opinions on this one. As has been mentioned this one would definately imply that Jack wrote the message as he would have had to go 'home' to store/hide the body parts and then go back out to discard/place the cloth. He didn't need to do this as he would not have expected a police search of his room/house. He could have burnt it in the grate or slipped out the next day and chucked it over a fence somewhere.

The placing of the cloth could have been an act of intimidation as could the graffito. Jack could have been saying : there's even been a murdered women found in the yard of a Jewish club yet the Jews still seem immune from blame.

It this distance of time will we ever really know?

Regards

Herlock

[Sam Flynn]

I was secretly thinking, "Now this is the WHOLE PROBLEM! These male police officers didn't know the difference between a SEAM and a g@ddamn HEM!!"

The Whitechapel police would have been keen to avoid stirring up any anti-seamitic feeling. And anti-hemitism, for that matter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Whitechapel police would have been keen to avoid stirring up any anti-seamitic feeling. And anti-hemitism, for that matter.

Herlock

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell,

Good questions!

It would not be known in the press.

Are you saying that the finding of the piece of apron elsewhere than the stairwell would not have come to the attention of the press? If so why?

It would not be connected to the GSG.

This assumes that there ever was a connection.

It was not discarded but placed there.

What is your evidence for this?