The Bloody Piece of Apron Redux

[Errata]

My theory on when the apron strings were cut has to do with two conflicting statements. The first being the coroner's notes saying something like "the corner with strings attached" implying that only one corner had strings. The second being the statement at the inquest that the apron was still attached by strings to the body. And it certainly seems that both cannot be true.

Unless to good doc made the comparison after the clothes were removed. I've worked at renaissance festivals for 15 years. I usually have to cut the drawstrings on my skirts after it rains. Now I'm also not minded towards the thrifty saving of lacing... but can you imagine trying to pick apart maybe 10 different bloodstained knots to try and free a corpse of clothing? I would be willing to swear that they cut those cords. Not cut the garments, but the drawstrings? Yeah.

And if they were going to cut the apron off and try to preserve the cloth for evidence, they could cut it two ways. One would be at the knot, but thats in the back, the clothing is clearly all torqued about, and if a person is open from diaphragm to knee, the last thing you are going to do it either flip them on their stomach or sit them up to get at a knot. Nor do you particularly want to fish out the apron and try to turn it around so the knot is in the front. If they cut the ties flush with the body of the apron, then the apron as evidence is preserved, and you dont have to flip anything or anyone around. Less... spillage. Plus such a careful cut is unlikely to be mistaken for a knife slash.

If this were the case, when he writes that he was looking at the corner with strings attached, he meant laid out on a table after it had been removed from the body. One corner's strings would have been cut to remove it from the body, and the strings would still be attached to the other side. Which would make his word choice correct. But it also means that the description of the apron being attached to the body by it's strings would also be correct.

that's my theory anyway.

[Archaic]

Living History

Hello DrHopper, C.D., Dave, Errata, Janie, Cris and all. Thanks for your comments -and Errata, I have to say, some of your straight-talking posts really cracked me up!
(I'm sure the other ladies know which ones I mean. )

Yes, Cris, it is a great history lesson as well as a murder mystery. Like yourself, I've always been interested learning the little details of everyday life as it was lived by those who came before us. In fact, that's why I chose the name 'Archaic'. Those details are often so taken for granted that contemporary accounts don't bother to mention them, much less explain them in terms we can understand. Because the ordinary details of costume, etiquette, hygiene, technology, etc., gradually change over time, it can be easy to forget that we tend to view yesterday's reality through today's cultural paradigm- and that might not give us the 20/20 hindsight we think it does!

Of course this collective "forgetting" of the past details of common life is perfectly natural. It still goes on all the time but is greatly accelerated in our day by the rapid changes in technology. This thread made me remember an incident where I was watching t.v. with my nephew. He was about five. He had the remote in his hand, and during a commercial I remarked, "You know, honey, when I was your age we didn't have remotes." He stared at me in wide-eyed amazement, then replied "But how did you change the channel??" I fell off the sofa laughing. Tonight it occurred to me that our great-grandparents might respond in a similar way if they saw us puzzling over items so ubiquitous and "obvious" as an apron, apron-strings, and a stack of rags. But that's ok... I think that learning the obscure details is a large part of what makes history so much fun.

Errata, you're right that Kate was wearing multiple layers of clothing. Zippers and even hook-and-eyelet fasteners were still in the future, so she would have had many buttons and draw-strings, probably all twisted around and drenched in blood. I don't think it likely that she had particularly "fitted" skirts. The waist may have fit, but the rest would have been fairly loose to make it easier to move, walk, bend, etc. Rich ladies could wear their skirts tightly fitted because they didn't need to be able to walk and move. In the Victorian era a poor woman's skirts frequently had simple drawstrings at the waist- and the drawstring may very well have been actual cord or string rather than a ribbon, because it would have been hidden on the inside of the skirt's waistband. Sometimes skirts had a few upper buttons, but sometimes the buttons were there on the waistband so a 'shirt-waist' (long-sleeved fitted top) could be fastened to the top of the skirt, preventing an unsightly and improper gap.

I definitely don't think Kate wore a bib-type apron. There was no mention of one and they were much more commonly worn by household servants at their place of employment. In 1888 a bib-front fabric apron would have been been significantly more expensive than an ordinary waist-high apron because to make one required more fabric, a more careful fitting of the garment to the wearer, and more individual sewing-labor. I looked through some Victorian catalogs, and the first one-piece bib-front apron of any kind that I could find was in 1897. It wasn't a "maid's" style apron at all; it was a very utilitarian early water-proof bib-apron made of oil-cloth and was sold with the baby's nursery items. (It's more the kind that women in the 20's-50's wore while while doing housework, the type that Dave described. I can post a picture if someone wants to see it.)
The complete absence of any bib-front "Bridey"-style aprons in the 1890's catalogs suggests to me that they weren't mass-produced until later, which again indicates that they were not a cheap or common retail article in 1888 and would have been prohibitively expensive for a poor woman.

Jane and Cris, I agree with what you say about the apron's ties providing the tension needed for the killer to rapidly slash a portion of the apron off. If he grabbed and pulled one section of the apron against the resistance of the waist-ties, the fabric would have shredded under the sharp edge of his knife. If he slashed in one stroke from the bottom up- either vertically or diagonally - the skirt would have held taut until severed.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Errata]

Jane

And I was always under the impression that her skirts had been lifted, and that's why the apron was only blood spattered as opposed to blood soaked.

I kind of always picturing the face cuts first, then the abdomen. And since he was hitting 3 layers of buttons and the cut was going poorly, by the time he hit the waistband he probably thought "oh forget this". Pushed the skirts up, pushed the waistband up as high as he could and did the pelvic stuff. Since when most people push up layers of skirts the inner layer sort of rolls up to be the outer layer, the outermost layer becomes protected.

And the scene drawings always looked like there was a lot of stuff pushed up to breasts.

by the way, does anyone know if this picture is legit? I've never seen it before.

http://jack-the-ripper-time.blogspot.com/2009/09/jack-ripper-hunting-ground_20.html

In theory it's Eddowes in 1883. Pardon the posting of another site, I just wasnt sure how else to do it.

[Hunter]

No, Jane... I was thinking that myself, which is why I believe it was cut vertically and after he was done, he simply cut the other corner where that string was attached and took that portion. Kate had a lot of clothes on, as women of the vagrant class did. Everything she had was with her.

When reconstructing the items that Collard noted, we can see that he cut and tore the front of the garments instead of just trying to lift them. An apron string around the waist would certainly be an impediment. Foster's drawing shows this vividly.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

Two quick things. I've been given a lead as to what Kate's apron might have been like and I'm following it up. If I can I'll do a drawing from it of what it might have looked like. It's on the cover of a book, but she's sort of hitching it up a bit by the looks of it, so it's hard to tell how long it is exactly. I'll just get back to the source and clarify it. It does seem as if it was the one that Hunter just mentioned that tied around the waist, but I can't quite make out how long it was from the image.

The other thought I had, which might be complete madness, is this:

I've always had it in my head that her killer cut the apron after he'd performed the mutilations as an after thought, but is that necessarily correct?
The apron pockets were tied tight around her waist, but we can see from the postmortem shots that the wound went right up her torso to her breast bone.
He could not have performed that cut without cutting through the waistband of the apron and the pockets. I can't help but think he'd already cut through the apron vertically, as a matter of expediency and just whipped a chunk off at the end.

It would explain why there was not as much blood on the remaining part of the apron as there should have been.

Okay, if that's a daft thought, you can throw bricks at me.

I'll get back about the sketch.

Much love

Janie

xxxxx

[Hunter]

Just to add one more thing in considering Errata's last post... Dr. Brown and Inspector Collard were present when the body was undressed. This was standard procedure given the problem Phillips had with what happened to Annie Chapman at that shed they called a morgue. Collard made inventory of all of Kate's clothing and posessions at that time. They would not have allowed the attendants to cut anything because Brown needed to reconstruct what the killer did. Indeed, if you read Collard's report, the cuts are noted in the inventory of each item. Unlike Chapman's case, careful procedure was followed at Golden Lane.

I have no way of proving this, but I believe Kates apron was a simple one that tied aroud the waist, with no bib...that in reference to Brown mentioning the one corner with the string attached... the other corner being cut by the killer to extract the piece he took.

[protohistorian]

Jane, are you going to make a nice graphic for this discussion so the visually inclined can follow along? Dave

[Errata]

Hunter:

Totally makes sense. I am one of those people who is sort of keenly attuned to the subconscious use of language. THE corner with the string attached. As opposed to A corner with a string attached. I have found that people usually say what they mean. Which isn't necessarily true in the grand spectrum of things. And if there is a dichotomy between the two, circumstance always fills in the holes.

At the time i made the previous post, I assumed the dichotomy was between the two accounts. That either one was true and one was false, or that something changed between two accounts. But since clearly the apron could not have been cut horizontally at the scene, and then vertically at the morgue, I assumed that either the Coroner was using weird language (this is the kind of thing you see in non native speakers) or the apron was not in fact attached to the body.

But circumstance wins out again, because I just totally realized what it had to be. Eddowes was wearing as many as 10 drawstrings around her waist. Which were soaked in blood. There is no way, even if they wanted to, that the morgue attendants would be undoing all those knots. Even if they didn't cut her clothes completely off, they had to cut the drawstrings. And since the apron had visible boundaries, and they wouldn't want to saw through more canvas or linen than they had to, they probably made the cut right at the join of apron and string on one side. Which means that when the Coroner examined that apron, only one corner would have strings attached. So he would have said what he saw. THE corner with the strings attached. But he was not saying that the other corner was missing. So both statements could be true, because the Coroner's description was incidental to the Rippers cut.

If that made any sense at all.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Hunter,

That sounds as if it makes a lot of sense to me. You're quite right about the tension. There was a discussion on another board some years ago, about how the apron might have been cut, and someone did some experiments, and made exactly that point - that the apron was cut, but it was aided by pulling against the fabric as well to give it some resistance. They posted up sections of cut and torn fabric to show the difference in the edges. It convinced me.


Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Hunter]

Ecellent posts, girls. Knowing your background, Archaic, I was hoping you would see this thread and reply.

Jane, Errata, Archaic... Outstanding!

A good lesson here. This is not just a murder mystery but a history lesson as well. An understanding of the life and culture of the people involved is paramount in even considering the case itself.This is where many theories meet their Waterloo. It is as interwoven in the story as the hem of that apron.

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

What the good doctor was talking about here was the apron piece found with Kate's body (the part with the string) and attempting to verify that the piece left with Dr. Phillips was a part of the whole. He used the term 'corner' because that's simply where the string was attached.

He was first answering to the effect of whether the blood on one could be matched with the other and he honestly stated that - although it was blood on both - and obviously the piece found on Kate contained her blood, he could not medically verify that the blood on the piece found in Goulston Street was the same... but the two pieces matched perfectly when placed together... the patch, and its connection being the clincher.

The patch seemed to be removed in its entirity, but the stitching was still noticable on the other side and would not have been part of the way the apron was first assembled.

I'm of the opinion that the killer cut the apron vertically, allowing the tension of the 'strings' to work against the hand holding the loose end to enable the knife to make a swift cut. ( Try cutting any fabric with a knife without it being held taunt at some point)...Then he just cut the string attachment to the part he was holding right where it joined the apron on that side and made off with it... both strings, along with the bow knot still being around the body. With her clothes pushed up and cut- and the rest of the mess - this was not likely noticed until the body arrived at the morgue to be undressed. They were making notes of the mutilations at the scene.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

Great post Archaic. I think the point you make about it being another layer of insulation in cold weather is a really good one, and another reason that Kate would have been loathe to destroy it. It was the beginning of October and with winter coming she'd need all the layers she could get! That really was a wealth of information though, well done you.

Hi Errata,

Another great post, and I'm still thinking about it. I'll have to go over the reports again to refresh my memory, but as you say, it does sound like a very strange description of the apron remnant. There must be an explanation, perhaps we can all fathom it out between us.

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[protohistorian]

am a dumbass, I know it. But I remember seeing aprons where the loop that would go around the neck was actually two strings that were fastened when the upper part of the apron (the chest) was to be used. Otherwise they would be untied and the apron would sort of fold itself in half with the top hanging down from the waist inside out. I sure hope this makes sense to some one besides me! I do not know if this helps or hurts. Dave

[protohistorian]

Holy Ripper in a rowboat, you guys are going to piece this thing together! Hell yes a thread born in doom rises to contribute! Very Well done EVERYONE! Dave

[DrHopper]

Excellent post Archaic, thanks

Great post too Errata. I have always thought that when it is referred to as 'half the apron', it just means a significant chunk, rather than literally 50% - a turn of phrase. Allied to this, when the Coroner states the corner of the apron, I think this is meant to be more literal - he means a bottom corner of the apron, cut when Eddowes was on the ground.
This, at least to my mind, makes a bit more sense - Jack grabs a portion of the apron, cuts, and flees.
Though how the corner, even the upper corner, would have an apron string attached, whilst the remaining apron portion is still attached, via apron strings to Eddowes, is a mystery. Perhaps we are dealing with an apron with 2 sets of strings?

[Errata]

this is what bugs me. Take this statement by the coroner:

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

It's sort of a really imprecise statement. "The corner of the apron with a string attached" Did the other corners not have a string attached? technically two of the four corners wouldnt, but then why say corner as opposed to half? The top half on an apron has strings. The bottom doesn't. Saying "corner" divides it into quarters, and saying " particularly... with the string attached" implies that the other corners didn't have strings, and one of those corners should. On the other hand, that makes sense if he took say, the right half of the apron as opposed to the bottom half.

But if he took the right half of the apron,how can the apron still be attached to the body by the strings?

And then, if the piece of new material is a patch, that evidently extended over the piece of apron that remains, then thats problematic. If the fabric is cut, the patch would be cut. And would not remain whole like statement sort of implies. The remaining half of the patch likely would not have remained on the apron, but it wouldnt go with the traveling half. If the apron was ripped, the patch could remain whole on the traveling half. but seams would have to be cut, and that also implies that it was torn horizontally, along what would be the weft. Meaning taking the bottom half.

It would have killed them to be a little more specific?