The Bloody Piece of Apron Redux

[mariab]

vinegar's PH is similar to the body's so irritation would be minimal unless exposure was for a very extended time.

Wow, vinegar's PH is similar to the human body's cultures? How can that be? Vinegar is an acid, right? (Not an alcali?) Then why does it burn if anyone inhales it (accidentally, while seasoning an Italian salad, not that I've ever tried inhaling vinegar for entertainment purposes!). If I'm not mistaken, it was also used in the (dark) ages when women fainted, to revive them?

Completely agree with Hunter's assessment of the cuts in the garments and with the blood on the edge of some of the cuts having had its provenance most probably from the knife already having been bloody – and here I'd wager, from the face mutilations. I have a feeling that the face mutilations came first. Pure conjecture, but it seems that collecting the organs was so important to the killer, that afterwards he might have not possessed the inclination to proceed with the face, especially when seriously smeared with blood and fecal matter, which most probably was a first for him. Plus, the facial mutilations required much less time than the disembowelling and getting out the kidney. And I too believe that the facial mutilations' shape was semi-random.

This seems to be a more frenzied murder that those of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman... which could mean a lot of things I guess. If Kate's murder was linked to Liz Stride's, it may have been the result of a bad night for the killer up to that point and he was quite worked up or it may have been a progression of the killer's general mental state...who really knows?

I'd say, BOTH, Hunter. Rage from having missed his aim with Stride, plus progression of slaying “needs“.

But I don't think the organ removal was randon chance because the uterus was targeted in two other instances and the kidney is easily overlooked. There was a deliberate reason for the uterus removal. This guy knew where this stuff was and had a reason for taking them.

Darn, this makes me think of Tumblety. Whom I don't believe that we should completely dismiss as a suspect.

[Dark Ali]

Phillipa Gregory routinely makes me want to spit.

Ok, then we will go with this source then, if you find it more tasteful

[curious4]

contraception (sorry)

Hello Maria,

I rather think the idea behind the sponge plus vinegar was to make the (er.. )environment less condusive to the (er...) little swimmers. Something to do with alkaline or acid - wish I hadn´t slept through my chemistry lessons now.

I can´t see it being used to stop or lessen menstrual bleeding - think your author has got hold of the wrong end of the stick (or sponge).

Regards,
c4

P.S.
Interesting fact? I first heard of this from an old cleaning-lady, when I had an after-school job working at Malling Place - formerly West Malling Place - a private asylum mentioned as a place where one of the mad medical students was a patient for a while.

[Errata]

I really do think Errata, that you were on the money there with your suggestion! Be interesting to see if others agree or not!

Wow. To be honest I'm not sure it was so much of a suggestion as thinking out loud, but sure!

I think he cut through the upper layers. Buttons are everywhere, the upper part of the cut is a mess... I don't know what cuts or stains were found on the bodices and vest, but that makes sense to me. What we know about the skirts is this:

1. By the time the artist was on scene, the skirts were shoved up to the breasts, exposing the body.

2. Ticking, alpaca, chintz, and I would imagine canvas for the apron are INCREDIBLY difficult to cut. Ticking and canvas are even hard to stab through they are so tightly woven. Alpaca being a wool is probably easy to stab through, difficult to cut through, and has the added bonus of dulling the knife.

3. The skirts were cut to varying degrees. from an inch and a half to ten and a half inches

4. There is evidently a wide variety of blood staining on the skirts.

5. No matter what other cuts may have been made to the apron, it was cut deliberately at some point to remove a large portion.

What we don't know:

1. We don't know how much her skirts were twisted around in the course of normal wear, or from the attack. I personally don't know whether the cuts to the skirts were evaluated on the body, or after removal. A cut 5 inches left of center on the table might have been dead center on her.

2. I offhand don't know how much blood there was pooling around the body. The larger the blood pool, the greater the chance for staining not coming from the injuries themselves.

3. We don't know when the killer shoved the skirts up, whether it was utilitarian or whether is was staging.

Theres more on both lists, but I thought that might be a good start.

[Hunter]

Being a man, I'm a little hesitant to add this... but vinegar was used by women for other than cooking... its PH is similar to the body's so irritation would be minimal unless exposure was for a very extended time... not elaborating further, though... LOL.

One quick observation on the cuts in the garments. I don't think the killer cut through the skirts, petticoats, chemise and abdomen at the same time. He appears to have lifted the garments initially (as Brown stated), encountered the various drawstrings around the waste... then cut in that area to gain access up to the sternum. The key is the chemise, which was closest to the body and torn but not cut. It was of a thinner material that the skirts or petticoats - of which some of these were lined.

The blood on the edge of some of the cuts was probably from the kinfe already being bloody and the further blood on them - especially on her chemise - would be from the eviseration afterwards.

Just a theory based on Foster's drawing and Collard's report.

There was a report in The Times that her apron (the part remaining with Kate's body) was thrown up around the neck... for whatever press reports are worth.

There are some points in Gareth's essay that I agree with and some that I don't. This seems to be a more frenzied murder that those of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman... which could mean a lot of things I guess. If Kate's murder was linked to Liz Stride's, it may have been the result of a bad night for the killer up to that point and he was quite worked up or it may have been a progression of the killer's general mental state...who really knows? But I don't think the organ removal was randon chance because the uterus was targeted in two other instances and the kidney is easily overlooked. There was a deliberate reason for the uterus removal. This guy knew where this stuff was and had a reason for taking them.

The facial mutilations could have been random slashes, for the most part, but the nicking of both eyelids expresses more detail. This killer, in my mind, set out to do a certain thing. I think the facial mutilations were last because of that... an afterthought to further dehumanize the victim after he had attacked her feminimity.

[mariab]

And Isabelle Huppert in La dame aux camélias (in the part of Alphonsine Duplessis, the real Lady of the camelias) was solliciting when menstruating (when she was poor and living on the streets of Paris, not when she got richer).

[Errata]

Phillipa Gregory has Mary Boleyn having a sponge inserted as to stop her post childbirth bleeding being distasteful to Henry VIII in The Other Boleyn Girl.

Phillipa Gregory routinely makes me want to spit.

[Dark Ali]

Phillipa Gregory has Mary Boleyn having a sponge inserted as to stop her post childbirth bleeding being distasteful to Henry VIII in The Other Boleyn Girl.

[mariab]

No, don´t think it would burn (not tried it at home, however) vinegar was often used to disinfect. once had a bottle of wine poured over my knee when I had fallen down the outside (obviously) of Mount Vesuvius by some nice Italians.

Vinegar would be harmful for the sensitive flora/ph, resulting in inflammatory diseases. It's fine to use on one's scratched knee, but try inhaling it, or putting some inside of your nose (which also features sensitive ph).
I like your Neapolitan wine story, though. You could have used the wine for dual purposes, desinfection andrelief from the pain. Reminds me of the dual purposes of using a cold bottle of beer when injured – as it's also pretty handy for icing one's injuries with it. It's a good excuse for ordering a second cold beer, and a third one, when one's injured.

[mariab]

Actually I doubt that the vinegar was a good choice. It would kill the natural flora of the environment, resulting in all kinds of allergic reactions (which I doubt that Victorian medicine was sensitized about anyway).
I feel a bit tempted to one-up Jane's post in “shocking value“, so I'm gonna go for it, even if not completely related (it's related medicinally, if not Ripperologically): Vinegar is a basic antiseptic, still, there's another possibility for a natural antiseptic that we always carry on ourselves, and it can be used for basic purposes for tending to injury if missing a first help kit when outdoors, before eventually getting to a doctor. I'm referring, of course, to urine. Jellyfish sting, snake bite, dog bite, insect bite, dehydration, you name it, it can save you. (OK, the dehydration part was a joke.) And I guess it's my responsibility for having turned this thread towards , when I first mentioned the fecal matter on the apron, but I think it was relevant.
As for the cuts on the Victorian clothing, incidentally I happen to know what calico is, but tape strings, chintz skirts, petticoat vs. apron, it all sounds completely obscure to me. Total lack of information due to my own deficiency, and I almost feel compelled to highjack this part of the discussion to the movie quotes thread, as I'm recalling people saying “Would it kill you to wear a skirt once in a while?“ (from Girlfight). (And no, no pun intended against the deceased.)

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I just checked it out on the internet, and it looks as if vinegar was used right back to the stone age practically! It seems that it was actually pretty effective as far as it went. I found some good stuff, so thanks for the tip-off.

I think the most sensible option is what you've suggested, the girl stuck it in before she went out and rinsed it through quickly before she went out the next day. I do wonder though, how many girls might have got infections and things from not being too scrupulous about things like that?

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[curious4]

contraception

No, don´t think it would burn (not tried it at home, however) vinegar was often used to disinfect (Jack and Jill, bucket, hill, vinegar and brown paper) - if you are familiar with the nursery rhyme. Possibly wine vinegar - once had a bottle of wine poured over my knee when I had fallen down the outside (obviously) of Mount Vesuvius by some nice Italians.

Hello Jane, I take your point, but I should think it was probably put in before leaving home and removed (and hopefully rinsed) before being used again. Don´t think it was something used for menstrual purposes though - there I am with the 12 pieces of rag. Good advice!


Regards to you both, c4

[Jane Coram]

Hi Curious,

That was a little voice in the wilderness there Curious. Lol.

I hadn't heard that, but that sounds like the sort of thing they would have used. Vinegar is an antiseptic, so they might well have thought it would work. Good snippet of info there, thanks Curious.

I think (and this is purely speculative) that they would have either had to change it periodically (and that is an ironically apt word under the circumstances) because when they did have their period, it would have naturally been a fairly serous problem, unless they had some sort of trick to get around it. Apart from that they would probably have died of septicaemia if it hadn't been replaced at least now and again, especially after a period. I think you're right though that it was left there for a lot longer than it should have been in most instances, unless they did have some method of avoiding the problems!!! Doesn't bear thinking about!

The sponges used today are made of plastic and need to be removed, but of course heaven only knows what the girls back then had to use. I had heard that they also used silk hankies from someone on the board. That was an interesting discussion as well!


WARNING. IF YOU ARE SQUEEMISH DON'T READ THE NEXT BIT!

With reference to the above comment about septicaemia:

Women that use tampons regularly need to make sure they remember to take them out again! There have been lots of cases when a woman has forgotten to take one out before putting the next one in, and it's pushed the tampon up into the neck of the womb, where it has stayed until it naturally worked it's way down again or been removed by a doctor.

Apart from the fact that this is extremely dangerous, it can become more revolting than can be described in words after a few weeks. It can kill a woman because of the toxins entering the blood stream. It can happen sometimes when a woman forgets to take her last tampon out and has sex as well, and it ends up where it shouldn't be! So those bits of sponge could have been a problem if they weren't changed now and again at least!

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Jane Coram]

Shut up you lot. We're supposed to be intelligent. Seriously (see I can be serious!). Sorry it's a bit of a long post. I've been taking lessons from Fisherman. Lol. I do think it's interesting stuff though.

Going back to Errata's suggestion that the body was cut through the clothes (which I think is a good one):

I noticed in the inventory that there were an awful lot of layers to get through there. I was wondering if any knife, no matter how sharp, could get through that many layers without a few separate goes. It seems to me that the layers in the list are given in a sensible order, i.e starting at her head and working downwards, the chintz skirt being the outside skirt. Her outer skirt was covered in a floral chintz pattern of michaelmas daisies, as described by witnesses, so that must have been the outside layer.

Anyway: The knife had to get through -



2 tape strings from the calico pockets (probably strong cotton tape like you use for name tags in kids clothes.)

A blue ticking pocket with stringe (plural) cut through

The apron waistband (at least)

A chintz skirt (quite heavy material) 6 and a half inch cut down left side of waist (possibly directly over the wound underneath), blood around edges.

Grey petticoat, cut one and a half inches, edges bloodstained. Same as above applies, although probably even more so.

Old green alpaca skirt jagged cut ten and a half inches, blood stained inside front under cut.



Right, now this is interesting (well to me anyway. Lol). We suddenly go from a one and a half inch cut in the petticoat, to a jagged ten and a half in cut through a skirt which seems to have been underneath the grey petticoat. I have to think that he cut through those first layers up to and including the grey petticoat and then had to stop and start again on the lower layers. How else can we account for the very small cut in the petticoat and the longer one in the layers underneath?

Best guess is that he cut through those first layers and threw them up, then started on the lower layers. He seems to have had trouble with the green alpaca skirt and the cut was jagged, but there is a very important note on that alpaca skirt. The inside was bloody under the cut. That would fit in very well indeed with Errata's suggestion that he cut the body through the clothes, not all of the layers obviously, but those lower layers. The blood inside the cut on the underside, gives support to that theory, and the fact that the cut was jagged does as well.

The next layer under the alpaca skirt was an old blue skirt, with the same length cut, and blood inside front under cut.

The calico chemise underneath was very much blood stained all over, and torn in the middle of the front, but quite honestly, that would still be consistent with him cutting through those lower layers of clothing and having to tear the material of the chemise open wider because it was still in the way a bit.

Really, going through it piece by piece like that, I think that Errata's suggestion is a bloody good one. (sorry, no pun intended)

I think he probably slid his left hand fingers under the waistband and cut through the first six layers, ( 3 strings, the apron and the petticoat). Then found he couldn't get through the rest easily and was probably getting pretty fed up that she had so many layers of clothing on. He threw the layers he'd already cut up over chest, then just decided to cut straight through the other layers, right into the body. Hence the much larger amount of blood on the inside of the lower skirts around the cut, (and causing some of the damage to the lower abdomen). Then he threw the rest of the clothes up and started the cut proper.

I really do think Errata, that you were on the money there with your suggestion! Be interesting to see if others agree or not!

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[mariab]

Forgive me for intruding, but I am reasonably sure that the sponge was soaked in vinegar and used as a form of contraception, in which case it would not have been removed.

It might have been fairly used as both (contraception and menstrual protection). Vinegar for desinfenctory purposes? Ouch, this might have totally burned! And am I the only one (as an atheist) been evoked of New Testament references here? (Jesus before being crucified etc.)?