The Bloody Piece of Apron Redux

[Trevor Marriott]

12 rags bespotted with blood.

Monty

And your point is ?

Given the ferocity of the attack I bet there wasn much else that didnt have traces or spots of blood on it.

But of course if she was wearing the apron one would have expected it all to be heavily bloodstained right from the start as the apron would have been front and centre to her abdomen and given the extent of the mutilations and the blood there would have been about. I would have expected the Goulston St piece to be heavily bloodstained as well which is wasnt except when shown in the Definitve Documentary.

[Monty]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;163497]And your point is ?

Given the ferocity of the attack I bet there wasn much else that didnt have traces or spots of blood on it.[QUOTE]


What do you suppose those rags were for Trevor?

Thats my point.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Monty;163499][QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;163497]And your point is ?

Given the ferocity of the attack I bet there wasn much else that didnt have traces or spots of blood on it.

What do you suppose those rags were for Trevor?

Thats my point.

Monty

I have no idea private enterprise perhaps

[Errata]

How big a piece of cloth are we talking about here? I'm not nearly as well versed in the Ghoulston Street shenanigans as I am other areas. I have always seen it described as a scrap of cloth, or a rag. Which isn't that big really. But the discussion here has mentioned "Half" which could be big, but half of an unknown quantity is an unknown quantity. Did the scrap survive that we have the dimensions of the cloth? Do we know it's general shape?

[protohistorian]

Errata, I do not believe we have exact numbers. We can do some elemental math however. The human body can be divided into 8 equal segments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_proportions

Catherine was 60 inches tall which means each unit 7.5 inches long. Therefore nipples to mid thigh is 4 x 7.5 or 30 inches in length. She is not described as malformed so her width would be something on the order of 18 inches. Half of which is 9 inches by whatever length you choose. Dave

[protohistorian]

I should also point out the average vaginal canal is on the order of 6 inches, so if she were to just roll the piece up it would be 50% longer than required for the task! Dave

[Addy]

Personally I don't believe the piece of apron was used for sanitary purposes, however as a woman I can tell you that the length or width of the vaginal canal has nothing to do with how much you need to prevent "leakage" during menstruation. It is how much blood you lose that matters.

As for that, I agree that Kate was probably menopausal or had a short menstruation. Usually malnourished people tend to have reduced menstruation. And I guess that would go for most Whitechapel prostitutes at the time.

Furthermore I agree that the murder and mutilations account for all the blood found at the scene and on all rags etc found with Kate or taken away and dumped elsewhere.

Greetings,

Addy

[c.d.]

I should also point out the average vaginal canal is on the order of 6 inches, so if she were to just roll the piece up it would be 50% longer than required for the task! Dave

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

c.d.

[Chava]

The way cloth was used in those days as sanitary napkins was to get a large piece of cloth and fold it and refold it over and over to make a very sizeable wad that was then pinned to underdrawers. You needed the many folds of cloth to contain the leakage. A menopausal woman is likely to have much heavier periods than before as there is often no ovulation cycle to regulate the lining of the womb. (It's this coming away from the body that starts the bleeding.)

That having been said, it seems the killer himself cut the cloth from the apron. It's not likely to have been done by a woman with 12 cloths already in her possession and those cloths merely 'spotted' with blood. I somehow don't see Eddowes as being particularly prissy about such things...

[The Good Michael]

Dave, what can you tell me about the canals of Venice? Are they 50% longer than they need to be? I thinking falling in them would be as unsanitary as those bits of cloth... maybe worse.

Mike

[Monty]

I have no idea private enterprise perhaps

Youve no idea? You really do set em up....

.....however I'll resist. Ok, an education.

The first sanitary towels came on to the market in the UK during the year of, wait for it, 1888 by Southalls and latterly in 1900 by Hartmanns (see below for adverts). However these were purely for the affluent and aimed at female tourists/travellers.

Prior to 1888 (and sometime after) women mainly used strips of material, rags. In the more rural areas these rags were stuffed with moss. Some women pinned these rags to their drawers, some stuffed them inside themselves.

Now taking on board the fact Eddowes has 12 pieces of white rag, some bloodstained, indicates what Trevor?

Maybe you should do a little research before making such ill informed attempts at theorising.

Monty

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

Just to carry on from Chava -- of course none of the victims were wearing drawers of any kind. In these instances, the rags were rolled into wads as Chava described and they either had loops stitched on the end and a tape thread through to keep it tied around the waist, or holes were made through the rags for the tape.

They were rinsed out after use (hopefully very soon after!) and then saved for the next month. (All doss houses had some sort of laundry facilities, albeit very basic ones, like a sink and a bar of carbolic soap. ) Rags were not easy to come by for people like Kate, but aprons were far more valued, so no way would she have torn up an apron when she had so many rags on her person.

Needless to say, wearing this sort of contraption without drawers to hold them in place was a fairly horrific state of affairs, best not contemplated. Lol.
The pieces needed to be very long and rolled over a lot; almost like the things sumo wrestlers wear (obviously not quite that voluminous, but that sort of thing). Anyone who remembers the old Dr Whites pads, will remember they were enormous - a good foot long and four inches wide. Not much fun to wear.

Without grossing anyone out, this was the same method female members of my family used right back to the LVP and right into the 1960s, when they couldn't afford Dr Whites or ran out. Looking at the price of the pads in the advert, they were horrendously expensive when they first come out, and I suspect that not many women could afford them.

Even if we consider the various possibilities of what might Kate might have done to cut her apron that night none of them are viable.

A. She could not have cut the apron with a butter knife, especially through the seams of a nearly sewn in patch, it's physically impossible. She could not even have used her teeth to start it and tear it, the seams would have precluded that.

B. If she had wanted to use part of the apron, she would have just torn out the newly replaced patch, which she could have possibly done and replaced easily later. She wouldn't have cut straight through the middle of it.

C. Even if she had been desperate enough to use the apron, she would have left it whole, and used the strings as tapes to keep it on, there would have been no need to cut it.

It's a good job you blokes have got us women around to give you all the inside gen.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[protohistorian]

There is no doubt about that Jane. To all the female Casebookers, Thanks for keeping me straight! Dave

[Jane Coram]

Monty,

I'm not going to ask how you know all that!!

Much love

Janie

xxxxx

[protohistorian]

Some body who follows the boards all the time ( Jane I am looking in your direction) should keep a log of interesting threads so we can have a most interesting thread of the year award. I nominate this one! Dave