The Bloody Piece of Apron Redux

[mariab]

Hey C.D.,
wouldn't wanna miss on your jokes for nothing in the world. You da Jokeman.

[c.d.]

Hi Maria,

Glad to see that somebody FINALLY caught that joke. I couldn't resist on that one. When somebody lobs it over the middle of the plate, you just have to hit it out.

c.d.

[mariab]

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.

[Archaic]

re: Kidneys

Do we have enough descriptive information about the latter, to be able to say if the fecal matter clearly had its provenance from her injured kidneys (which would prove that it all ended up on the piece of apron when the killer wiped his hands on it) vs. Eddowes allegedly having wiped herself up after having used a piece of her apron as a sanitary pad (which I'm not buying for a minute)?

Hi Maria.

Feces don't pass through the kidneys. The kidneys are actually part of the Urinary system. Kidneys filter impurities from our blood and produce certain hormones. They do process "waste material" but it isn't feces, it's biochemical stuff like urea and it passes into the bladder.

The fecal matter on Kate's apron came from her bowel.

Best regards,
Archaic

[mariab]

Many thanks to Jane Coram and to Monty for the “technical“ information. I have a question which might gross you all out: I've been hearing that the piece of apron was not just smeared with blood, but also with fecal matter. Do we have enough descriptive information about the latter, to be able to say if the fecal matter clearly had its provenance from her injured kidneys (which would prove that it all ended up on the piece of apron when the killer wiped his hands on it) vs. Eddowes allegedly having wiped herself up after having used a piece of her apron as a sanitary pad (which I'm not buying for a minute)?
Also, let's not forget that there was no sanitary article smeared with menstrual blood found with the body, which further blows Trevor Marriott's theory out of the water.

50% longer than required for the task? Hey, I can relate to that.

I'd buy stock on that claim of yours, C.D..

[Jane Coram]

Blimey Errata,

You've given me enough for a week's thinking there!

I am seriously going to go through that really, really carefully and get back to you, but some of that I've been thinking as well, just having skim read it. That's why I was so interested in working out whether the clothes could have been up when he cut them. A lot of what you've said there would seem to depend on how much blood would have come from Kate when he made that long incision. I've sort of always thought that once the throat was cut, the actual wounds to the body didn't bleed that much, but I'm floundering, because I really know nothing about that sort of thing at all.

I'll have a good old think and do a bit of research and get back to you, but there really is some very interesting stuff there to think about, thanks for taking the trouble to put that all together and reply.

I hope some others will join in as well, and help out!

Hugs

Janie

xxx

[Errata]

Do you think that the apron was cut at the same time as the rest of the clothing, or can you see any other possibilities? If it was cut down through the middle (well somewhat on the left) right at the beginning, it does make quite a difference to what might have happened after. Any thoughts on that?

I don't know this, but looking at the wounds from the diaphragm to navel I think he might have made those cuts through the bodices. Because it's an unholy mess, and she was wearing three garments with buttons on her torso. So every time he hit a button he would either have to cut around it or pull out the knife and stab again. Which could account for the train wreck of an incision. I'm also pretty sure his knife bounced off something and that why she has that odd slash to the left that sort of goes from the right thigh down into the labia.

The coroner said that the incision was upward. Pubis to diaphragm. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you look, she has a center line incision til about the navel, makes a 90 turn to the right and the cut to the pubis stays well to the right. I would think that the center line would be where a person starts. I thought maybe it was to avoid cutting the uterus, but he should have known at that point that he wouldn't. And then why correct, if the cut was to the right on purpose? I think he started at the top, the knife bounced off a button maybe and made that thigh injury, so that when he was done cutting through the bodices, he knew the right was clear of obstacles.

All of which is to say this. If he decided to stay the course and cut through the clothing, which is an odd choice, I would say that there would be a couple of cuts to the apron. One from the thigh wound and one from the incision. Both of those would be on the right, but not so far right that it would cut through the laces. Essentially you would have an 8 inch gash down the body of the apron from the top. Which would cause it to fall off if she stood up, but it would not come free from the body. It just sort of widens the waistband. He would have to cut off his piece of apron lengthwise down one of those accidental cuts, cut the strings, pull off the piece of apron he is not taking with him, and toss it to the side. That's if the apron was not found on her. If it was found on her then I imagine it fell off when they put her in the cart, and someone would have put it on her so it went to the hospital.

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. 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. If he even decided to continue that cut. 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.

Also, here's why I think it's a horizontal cut. A: thats usually the weft, which is easier to cut. 2: The mechanics make more sense. You absolutely need tension to cut cloth. I think he bent over, fished out the apron (which he would have to do either way), stood up with the end of the apron in his hand. Her body is 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 was long.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Errrata,

That's exactly what I'm thinking at the moment.

I don't know if you've read Sam Flynn's (Gareth Williams) excellent article about Kate's injuries, but he puts forward a really first class argument that the facial mutilations were done first. I can email it to you if you haven't read it. Just pm me.

I suddenly thought after I'd posted that the fact that there were traces of blood around the cuts in the skirt might have been because there was already blood on his knife from the throat and/or face wounds.

The only other option I thought of was that it could be that after he had cut and pushed her clothing up over the abdomen that the line of the cuts would have been pretty close to the top of the opening of the wound (well the ending of it in actuality), and that perhaps they just got blood on them from that.

Do you think that the apron was cut at the same time as the rest of the clothing, or can you see any other possibilities? If it was cut down through the middle (well somewhat on the left) right at the beginning, it does make quite a difference to what might have happened after. Any thoughts on that?

I've just been to see The King's Speech. Highly recommended!

Much love

Janie

xxxx

[Errata]

I also notice that there is blood along the cuts of the skirts and petticoats, is that important? Any thoughts anyone?

Much love

Janie

xxxx

Whoops. Forgot. I am absolutely convinced that the facial mutilations came first. Evidently it was of vital importance to disfigure her, because he didn't do it to victims he had more time with. In a way, i'm not sure he could "perform" until he did.

I think he then moved to cutting the abdomen through the bodices, and the the pelvis. by the time he got to the skirts and petticoats the would be quite a bit of blood on the knife.

[Errata]

Just shows you can't trust any bugger!

I was wondering why it said it was a photo from 1883 but she was wearing clothing from 20 years previous.

As for the cutting, I guess it rather depends on why he was cutting. If he was trying to cut into her pelvis through the skirts a: thats a dumb thing to try and b: i would then imagine that the cuts would correspond to the wounds. If he was trying to push the skirts up but they were tied too tight, I would imagine he would just saw through all of the waistbands untill he had enough clearance, and then all the cuts should correspond to each other.

Given two very odd cuts on Eddowes that don't correspond to other victims, I'm betting it's a little from column a, and a little from column b

[Jane Coram]

Hi Errata,

Sorry, I missed a bit of your post before, (looks like everyone else did as well!)
The photo of Kate is bogus. As usual someone's started a thread on it somewhere and it is still here I think. The only one of the victims photos that is genuine is the one of Annie, that we already know about.

Just shows you can't trust any bugger!

Has anyone worked out how that waistband of the skirts could have been cut yet? I'm still fart arsing about here, changing my mind every five minutes. Come to think of it, I'm still trying to work out if he could have cut through the skirts etc., and not cut the apron. I'd honestly never thought about it before. I also notice that there is blood along the cuts of the skirts and petticoats, is that important? Any thoughts anyone?

Much love

Janie

xxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I think Hunter's hit the bull's eye. (Mind you with a name like that he ought to!)

Not that it needed confirming, but I'm glad I read back over it because I'd forgotten most of that. It just goes to show that you shouldn't rely on memory when researching but go back and bloodywell check!

The cuts on the front of Kate's clothing were:

Six and a half inch cuts down from the waistband, left side of front on the chintz skirt.

5 inch long cut through the bottom of the bodice on the left

The petticoat was cut by an inch and a half.

The green alpaca skirt by 10 and half inches, downward at the front.

Blue skirt 10 and a half inches.

The strings were cut through on one pocket, the corner cut off another.

That really brings a few thoughts to mind. First of all, I think it was Errata that suggested the clothes had been pulled up above the abdomen. She is quite right, but it looks as if they were too tight to do it without cutting through them. Gordon Brown states at the inquest that they were pulled up to expose the abdomen, so there's no doubt they were and you can see in Frederick Foster's drawing that they are.

I'm still trying to work out if he pushed the clothes up first, then realised they didn't go up far enough and cut them, or if he cut them first and then threw them up. The clue is in the length of the cuts, but I'm crap at working out stuff like that, so maybe someone else can work it out. Lol. I think they must have been down, because I would have thought the cuts would be longer on the top layers.

I don't think there is much doubt now what sort of apron it was, and if we look at the photo it does wrap quite a way around the waist. It varies obviously, but they all go around the side of the body to some extent.

If that's the case and Jack cut through the bodice and the skirts on the left hand side, then he must have actually cut through the body of the apron and not just the string. The cuts on the top layers of skirt were both 10 and a half inches. It would make sense that the apron was cut down by something around that amount as well, possibly an inch or so more and the cuts seem to get longer the further out they go. He may have even just kept going on the apron as Hunter suggests and cut the thing right down.

Once thing is certain, he couldn't have cut through the skirts underneath without cutting through the apron as well.

That being the case, I think there isn't much doubt that the apron was already well cut down the front when he started mutilating and he just grabbed a bit off it at the end. Does that mean that the half of the apron taken was a lengthwise strip, rather than a lump taken the bottom? It seems more likely if there was already a cut running down it. He just needed to cut the string on one side, and just tear down the rest of the piece. As Hunter says, that's why both strings were still attached.

Collard actually confirms that to some extent, when he states:

I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside the dress."

An apron is always worn outside the dress, so he must have meant something else. If the apron was cut/torn right down the middle, (whenever it was done) the two halves would have naturally flopped down on either side of the body. If he took one half, then the other half would have been laying at the side of the body 'outside' the dress. The fact that he said 'apparently' must mean that it had fallen off completely in transit to the mortuary - you can't hold an apron on with one string. (two strings still tied together at the back with a knot)

That ought to get you all head scratching for a bit. I can get on with some work now. Lol

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I'm jut going back to re-read the reports again, because I haven't read that bit for a few years, just to see what I've forgotten. Lol, but at least we seem to have narrowed down what sort of apron it was.

It does look as if it didn't have a bib, and that's actually what I'd always thought. (I must have researched it thoroughly to do my reconstruction of the scene in Church Passage). I'll check out some of the major authors on it as well and see what they say. The main problem with getting older is that your brain gets older as well, and decides it wants to go on a holiday on its own now and again.

Much love

Janie

xxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi all,

I've just had it on good authority (and it is very good authority) that the kind of apron that Kate wore was the same as the one the woman on the left of this picture is wearing.

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=7

I think that's more or less what we all thought anyway, but nice to get it confirmed.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[DrHopper]

Great work guys.

So to summarise:
Kate was wearing a fairly long (possibly ankle-length) apron, without a bib or a pocket – just a simple, plain, probably white (or more likely off-white) cloth, attached by a string around her waist.

At some stage during the evisceration process (perhaps prior to starting), and to enable the murderer to gain better access to the body, the apron is grabbed, probably from the bottom, and cut in two, vertically, in an upwards motion, the tension in the material derived from the string tied around the waste aiding in the process. This ripping is not completed to the top of the apron (i.e. it is not fully split into two, rather halfway or probably further up).

Now, it seems that After Jack has finished his work, he grabs part of the apron and slices off a fairly sizable portion (perhaps as much as half), which he then takes with him for some unknown purpose (wiping hands? clean knife? carry body parts?). The remaining part of the apron is still attached to Eddowes’ body round the waist – and it is this to which the coroner is referring.