The Bloody Piece of Apron Redux

[Jane Coram]

Hi Maria,

Well I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to what they would have done back then, because I suppose it would depend on how desperate they were. As you say though, back in the LVP in some back alley, I would hardly imagine that it came into the equation really. The only thing that might have put them off is that if their customer had been drinking beer (and I suspect that most of them would have been), having sex while they were on a period would almost certainly give them a very nice dose of thrush - which presumably they wouldn't welcome that much.

There is actually one very good reason they might have preferred to do it while they were on a period though.

Prostitutes at least as far back at the mid Victorian period (that's the earliest record I've found which is 1852) knew about the safest times of the month to have sex. They would have probably just passed the advice around between one another over the ages. Even in the 1950s, when they had condoms, some prozzies would try to avoid the few middle days of the month if they could, and knew they were safer either side of a period, just in case the condom came off or split.

For those who might not know what the safe periods are, it's roughly five days before a period and about three days after. The few middle days of the month are the most dodgy. Of course that's not fool-proof by any means, but it's safer than any other time. If they were regular, then they could use that to try and gauge when they were less likely to get pregnant.

Other methods were a small piece of sponge inserted high into the vagina, quick withdrawal before ejaculation, anal and oral sex. Up market prostitutes generally used sheaths.

And this has got to be the weirdest thread ever on Casebook.

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[mariab]

Looks like everyone else has covered it very well, but one bit got missed.
Quote Maria:
“Also, let's not forget that there was no sanitary article smeared with menstrual blood found with the body.“

The reports are tantalizingly vague about the 12 rags found in Kate's pocket, which is very unhelpful. The reports say that the rags were spotted with blood, but it doesn't say what sort of blood it was. It just says 'some slightly bloodstained.'
The trouble is that it could be the remnants of menstrual blood that Kate just hadn't washed out, or it could have been blood spotting from the murder itself. The report says that one blue striped ticking pocket, was blood stained. I might have missed something, but if those 12 pieces of rag were in that bloodstained pocket, then they could have got bloodied that way.

Hi Jane, completely agree with you here, plus I'm not surprised that the reports about the 12 rags found in her pockets are vague.

Either way, the rags were there and if she was menstruating she would have used them and not her apron, so you're quite right, it does make Trevor's theory untenable.

Precisely. Although I can imagine someone claiming that allegedly the killer took the sanitary rag with him and that's why it's missing, which is a complete joke.
What I've also been thinking about, I doubt it that Victorian “unfortunates“ stopped solliciting during menstruation. I bet that they went on, especially when in need for money. In the poor lighted Victorian streets, I bet the johns didn't notice but afterwards.

[Nurse Sarah]

If I had 12 rags in my pockets, it would be due to one b*tch of a cold

A very intelligent and thought provoking thread though which I am enjoying, thanks everyone.

[Errata]

The piece of white between the right thigh and the coat. Could that be the apron?

[Errata]

How much blood would have escaped from the wound as he was cutting, if he cut through the fabric at the same time? I'm hoping someone with a bit of medical knowledge my be able to answer that one. You might have the answer anyway Errata!

Well, this sort of depends on a lot of factors. First of all, the neck and face wounds. I'm not sure how much exsanguination there was with the throat cut. If she was alive when it happened, then she would lose quite a bit more blood than if she were dead. If she were standing she would lose more blood than lying down, which lowers the blood pressure. It also depends on how deeply he was cutting. The skin and underlying tissues do not bleed as much as say, the intestines. Cutting through clothing means he has less control over the knife. One would expect that the extra force required to punch through clothing would cause him to cut deeper. On the other hand, it is possible that after the initial stab to start the cut, he made little sewing-machine-sawing type motions, which would allow greater control.

But personally, I think the surgery model is most likely. In surgery, blood doesn't soak everything in sight. The blood pressure isn't sufficient to create some sort of exploding mess. Instead, the blood pools in the body cavity, which I imagine is why you always see surgeons calling for suction, and not fresh towels. Anything that dips into the body cavity would become soaked, but anything lying next the incision or possibly even taut across it it would likely only have blood where the bloody knife rubbed against it.

Collard's statement said that the brown linsey dress bodice had a clean cut on the bottom left hand side which ran 5 inches from right to left, not downward.
Does this have any bearings on how and why her clothes were cut that particular way?

*blink* Well, I guess my first question would be, do we know what order she was wearing her clothing in? And I guess after that I would say that I don't know of any wounds on the left, and a bodice doesn't twist around like a skirt does, and that cut wouldn't alter the bodice structurally... I got nothing off hand. That requires a think.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Maria,

Looks like everyone else has covered it very well, but one bit got missed.

Also, let's not forget that there was no sanitary article smeared with menstrual blood found with the body . . .

The reports are tantalizingly vague about the 12 rags found in Kate's pocket, which is very unhelpful. The reports say that the rags were spotted with blood, but it doesn't say what sort of blood it was. It just says 'some slightly bloodstained.'

The trouble is that it could be the remnants of menstrual blood that Kate just hadn't washed out, or it could have been blood spotting from the murder itself. The report says that one blue striped ticking pocket, was blood stained. I might have missed something, but if those 12 pieces of rag were in that bloodstained pocket, then they could have got bloodied that way.

Either way, the rags were there and if she was menstruating she would have used them and not her apron, so you're quite right, it does make Trevor's theory untenable.

Much love

Janie

xxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi Errata,

I was wondering myself if Kate's killer might have cut directly through the clothes to cause the main wound. You're quite right that the lower left part of the wound is a total mess, as you ably put it 'a train wreck'. The idea that his knife bounced off of the buttons and various obstacles, thus causing the wound does seem a very good one. I always thought that about Polly's wounds. I've often wondered if the multiple wounds on her lower abdomen were caused because his knife kept hitting the reinforced struts of her stays. He couldn't get a good wound started, but eventually found a way.

My question in this regard is:

How much blood would have escaped from the wound as he was cutting, if he cut through the fabric at the same time? I'm hoping someone with a bit of medical knowledge my be able to answer that one. You might have the answer anyway Errata!

There is one other thought in connection with that and again, I haven't got a clue what the answer could be:

Collard's statement said that the brown linsey dress bodice had a clean cut on the bottom left hand side which ran 5 inches from right to left, not downward.
Does this have any bearings on how and why her clothes were cut that particular way?

I'm trying to tie it in with your comments Errata and I think it might be important, but can't work out how. It doesn't mention any blood around the cut though, so I think it must have been done without cutting through the skin underneath, and after he'd cut the skirts, because otherwise there would have been traces of blood around the cut on the bodice. I'm totally baffled by that one.

I do agree that whatever way he made those cuts to the skirts, he must have cut through her apron as well. I can't see that it would be possible to do anything else.

I've quoted the next bit of your post, but it's a very plausible idea in my opinion.

Or, let's say he didn't cut through the skirts. Lets say he cut them to push them up out of the way. The way skirts push up is weird, likely they would have been scrunched up as high as they go, and then flipped over to expose the waistbands. That would essentially fold the apron up in the other skirts.

I think you're right, that if he'd cut the waistband first and then thrown it up, the apron would have been hidden underneath the skirts and petticoats - lying next to the brown linsey bodice.

When he decides he wants a piece of apron, likely because white(ish) is the easiest to see, he reaches in the wads of skirts and pulls out the apron. We don't know how the garment was twisted when it was cut. The gash from the bounce could be vertical, horizontal, diagonal.

I think that has to be the case logically speaking. We know he did cut a bit off the apron, so at some point he must have reached up and pulled it from underneath her skirts.

My personal theory is that he extracts the apron, cuts off the bottom half, and leaves the rest of the apron. Which I is why I think (if foggy memory serves) that it would be described as outside the clothing. All the skirts were bunched up, but the apron was pulled out. pulling down, his hand is pulling up, and he cuts under his hand. As the fabric parts, the tension of his hand is also going to rip the new cut, making a faster job of it.

Well, that sounds like a pretty good theory to me! It will be interesting to see what others think. Ultimately common sense should be able to narrow down what could or could not have happened and the order it happened in. I'm sure there are some people wondering why it's important, but I always think that it's the small details that often provide the most information.

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi All,

I'm not going off topic here really, because I think it's relevant to the discussion, but I just wanted to pick up on something that Hunter said:

I agree about the respect due to the victim's wholeheartedly Hunter. I regard them almost as women I know, in fact I'd go further than that and say I regard them as friends, albeit ones I've never met. I don't really feel the urgent need to find their killer, because I honestly think that it might be impossible at this distance in time, but if he was finally uncovered I would be very pleased.

My real interest is in fathoming out why the killer did what he did to them; what might have caused that kind of insanity (and I do personally class it as insanity) back in the LVP. In one sense I differentiate between the victims when they were alive and their bodies after death. I suppose that a lot of people do the same thing through necessity, like doctors, pathologists etc.,. I don't think I could discuss this subject at all if I didn't form a detachment and discuss the victims' bodies as if they were no longer the victims, but a separate entity, still remembering to do it with respect.

That doesn't stop me remembering them when they were alive though and respecting them as women who had immeasurably tough lives and who coped with it as best they could. I don't think I've ever actually said any of that before, so now it's said and I feel better for saying it.

Some very good posts there anyway. I'm going to paste the whole lot into a new post and go through them, but I think I agree with almost everything that's been written to some degree or other. I must say it does make a nice change not to see blood and teeth flying on a thread. (Mind you there have been some cracking heated debates that I wouldn't have missed for the world. )

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[mariab]

Thanks for the info, Archaic and Errata. I'll look it up at some point.

[Archaic]

Hi Maria. No problem.

This conversation reminded me of an older thread where the question of whether the killer had possibly cut himself while slashing Catherine Eddowes was discussed. Some people thought he might have cut himself and grabbed a piece of the apron to create a makeshift bandage. If I remember correctly, it then morphed into a discussion of whether he might have developed an infection in the cut, and if that's why he lay low for all of October.

If you're interested, you can probably find the threads in question by going back a good year or more in the Catherine Eddowes forum.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Errata]

, what I meant is expressed more clearly in my post #81 –which, for the most part, just quotes Hunter stating things correctly). ;-)

I think Hunter is correct, but to throw out another albeit less likely option:

The material that colors feces brown is bilirubin (or bile. or heme. its a chemical breakdown thing) This is a byproduct of the liver, which got cut up pretty badly in Eddowes. And since both liver and kidneys are up under the ribcage, clearly the Ripper was cutting blind. It is entirely possible that the entire thoracic cavity got contaminated with bile, which would mean that when he extracted the kidney, it too would be drenched in liver byproducts. Which when mixed with blood would look exactly like feces (since that's essentially the color component. bile and dead red blood cells).

Like I said, I think Hunter is correct, but if you want a way to indicate the kidney was in fact in the apron, then this is a possibility. Not likely, but it could have happened.

[mariab]

I agree with you, Seattle and Portland are two very cool cities, and our mountains are a recreational paradise! And no, I don't mind you asking me personal questions, but I'd prefer it to be in a pm so we keep the thread on track...thanks.

Apologies again for briefly highjacking this thread. (Which is a very bad habit of mine, I'm afraid, but I'm working on it.)

I re-read your 2 posts, and I think that what you are asking is whether the biological waste material on the apron could have been matched to the victim, Catherine Eddowes?

Yes, I know that in the Victorian era it was not yet possible to match biological materials to a body. I apologize for not having expressed myself clearly (also due to the late hour in Europe and to being just back from a night out), what I meant is expressed more clearly in my post #81 –which, for the most part, just quotes Hunter stating things correctly). ;-)

[Archaic]

Hi Archaic.
Apologies for my silly comment below, obviously only urine and not feces comes through the kidneys! What I meant is fecal material and waste that might have come out when he tried to get to her kidney from in front.
(I have to confess I'm not very well-informed about the internal organs. I'm better with muscles/bones.)
Also, if it doesn't sound too much like taking liberties to say this, I hear that you're in the American Northwest. I love Portland and Seattle, and I've had some of the best times of my life riding Mount Hood at Windell's.

Hi Maria.

I agree with you, Seattle and Portland are two very cool cities, and our mountains are a recreational paradise! And no, I don't mind you asking me personal questions, but I'd prefer it to be in a pm so we keep the thread on track...thanks.

I re-read your 2 posts, and I think that what you are asking is whether the biological waste material on the apron could have been matched to the victim, Catherine Eddowes?

As I understand it, the waste was just a smear on the cloth, and the police in 1888 had no way to trace its origin back to a particular human being. When present in sufficient quantity it was possible to identify certain bodily substances as being from a human being rather than from an animal (for instance, blood) but that's as far as science could go at that time.

Best regards,
Archaic

[mariab]

Catherine Eddowes' killer cut through the colon during his mutilation. There was two feet of it lying at Kate's left side as shown in Foster's diagram. As large as the colon is, fecal matter went everywhere and is what precluded that a murderer that usually didn't get much contamination on him was now faced with, literally, a mess on his hands... thus the apron and what he did with it when it was time to bolt.

Completely agree with you (and with the evidence) here, Hunter. Apologies for not having expressed it more clearly in my previous post.

[Hunter]

Ladies, I'm breathless... this is the best discussion I've seen here in a long while and all of you are the reason for it. This is a classic example of how a rational discussion should take place and I, for one, am grateful for your insight and input.

Just a little note about the feces found on the apron... Catherine Eddowes' killer (please excuse me for using the whole name instead of C4, but I think they all deserve that much respect) cut through the colon during his mutilation. There was two feet of it lying at Kate's left side as shown in Foster's diagram. As large as the colon is, fecal matter went everywhere and is what precluded that a murderer that usually didn't get much contamination on him was now faced with, literally, a mess on his hands... thus the apron and what he did with it when it was time to bolt.