The Bloody Piece of Apron Redux

[Jane Coram]

Hi Dave,

I'm still shuddering at the thought of having moss in my knickers.

We do get around to some odd subjects on this board don't we?

Much love

Janie

xxxxx

[Dark Ali]

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.xxxxx

I remember being told how my mother and aunts had to sew their own pads from scrap material in the 1940's and 50's Janie.

[Errata]

Oooookay.

First of all. the average vagina is three and a half inches long, not six which is also how we know you guys are lying all the time about size.

secondly, during menstruation a woman loses 50ml of blood. less than 2 ounces. a little more than a tablespoon a day. So we're not talking about a lot here. There's no trail being left.

And not to be appalling, but she is wearing a black jacket and dark skirts. not to mention all kinds of pockets and spare cloth. She would have cleaned up with one of those before ripping clothing.

And lastly, do we even know what kind of apron she was wearing? Domestics had aprons that were from right below the clavicle to ankle. bakers and cooks fron clavicle to knee, midwives often sported what looked like a surgical gown but with the sleeves cut off, and tradeswomen often had waist to knee aprons, not using them for protection but for extar storage. Not to mention that when the bib portion of an apron goes, it was typically mended to a waist apron.

So half a domestics apron is probably bigger than a pillow case, but half a merchants apron can be about the size of a handkerchief.

[protohistorian]

So if I understand you Errata and others, a one foot square cloth or greater rag made from a valueable possession for this purpose is so very unlikely as to be laughable? This in should in no way be considered a valid interpretation of reality based on the evidence and common sense? Dave

[Jane Coram]

Hi Dave,

Well, we're talking about Kate here, so let's look at it solely from her perspective.

She and John are so desperately poor that they had to pawn John's new boots to get money for food and necessities, that very day. She had stitched a new patch onto the old apron, which must mean that she didn't have the money to buy herself a new one. She was so poor she had green hopping string to tie up her boots.

We know what Kate had more than enough rags and bits in her pocket to make herself a make-shift sanitary pad, even if she had to improvise a bit. Why on earth would she want to tear her apron up? If she had nothing else on her to use, I still would say that she didn't do it, simply because the apron wasn't torn, it was cut cleanly (which some additional tearing to help it along), which couldn't have been done with a butter knife.

Even if the rags were very small pieces, she would have used them as a make-shift tampon, so the size of the rags has nothing to do with it either. Whatever size they were, they were usable.

As Errata said, Kate's clothes were so dark that it's far more likely she would have just let nature take its course if she hadn't had the rags in her pocket. On top of which we don't even know if she was still menstruating anyway!

So I would say that taking everything into consideration it is totally out of the question that she used her apron as a make-shift sanitary pad. And it's not often you'll get me to state something as baldly as that!

Much love

Janie

xxxxx

[protohistorian]

Thank You Jane. I do ask to be mean. It is hard enough to make sense of these cases without expending energy running down an alley constructed on unprovable,outside, possibilities. I understand the evidence is very ambiguous in many cases and that sound interpretation is the best friend a ripperologist has. It needs to be clear here on the boards for future students to see because in just the 2 yrs I have been looking at these cases this very issue has been put down and resurrected a half a dozen times. It needs to be clearly understood that the resurgence of this issue is not based on the merit of resolving interpretation, but on the postulator reasserting the same idea, as if he does not except the previous proof or that the whole of Casebook is on some vendetta to belittle him. If we want to move forward, this behavior has to be pointed out and corrected. We all make mistakes. I make so many it makes my head hurt sometimes. I try and admit when I do. I try and correct what I am doing wrong or thinking wrongly. I do not continually reassert the same idea, adding more personal vitriol and accusations of those who disagree rather than addressing the issue with evidence. I agree Jane, the issue is as dead as dead can be! Dave

[Errata]

perhaps in the future the boys that choose to speculate on the menstruating habits of the victims should leave the speculation to thems that do the menstruating. Not that it is a completely ineffable subject for the masculine mind, but the things a Victorian woman has to do is sort of the advanced calculus of menstruation, and most guys can barely count. Start slow, work your way up is my advice.

I think the pure scientific method approach to a case like this is worthless. No one can assume nothing. Well, you can, but then you have a 4th grade science project, where you only ask questions you know you find the answers to. I can do experiments to prove that gravity works, but I already know gravity works. So what an utter waste of time. Experiments to prove the universe collapsing power of magnetars? Now that's a challenge.

People unwilling to stipulate that people act like an average human until proven otherwise are either pathologically obstreperous, or unable to stipulate such a thing because it would render their own beliefs moot.

Like the guy next door who thinks that Jesus saying so much as an "ow" while being nailed to the cross is impossible. Never mind that it clearly hurt enough for him to start yelling "Father why you forsaken me?". Which if your dad is the Lord Almighty all knowing all powerful, means its gotta hurt pretty bad. Yeah that was random.

[c.d.]

It's nice that we are all adults here and therefore can openly discuss a subject like....uh....well, you know.

c.d.

[Hunter]

Those are good points, Dave and considering that this now should be enough, I will not post further evidence I found to substantiate that. We'll let it ride for now. Even without written evidence the ladies here have contributed the common sense and experience that only they posess on subjects like this.

But, someone has asked about the size of the piece of apron that was found. Many imagine that it was a small piece but actually it seemed to be about half of the apron itself... maybe more. Dr. Brown mentioned the piece that was left with Catherine Eddowes as being a corner with the string attached. Though much of Henry Smith's depictions in his book have been questionable, he was at Mitre Square and did acompany the body to the mortuary. He stated that the apron was cut in half. There is a report from DC Halse that is supposed to say the same.

The excerpts from both can be found in this dissertation for those who are interested:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

The most sensible members on these boards are the ones that don't have members.

[jason_c]

I think we have lost Trevor.

[DrHopper]

It's nice that we are all adults here and therefore can openly discuss a subject like....uh....well, you know.

c.d.

I'm still giggling at the word 'vagina'...

No, in all seriousness, this is/was and interesting thread, and one that does indeed have relevance. Thanks to all posters.

hehehe, vagina... heehehehe

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I think it's still worth discussing the size of the apron/ and or piece. Errata brought up some good points. We don't actually know what size it was, although we do have a lot of contemporary photographs which seem to show that it was probably a long apron that went down to well below the knees, but without a bib. Common sense would seem to dictate it needed to be that length to keep most of the skirt clean. It would appear from the photos that the ones used day-to-day were bibless, those being reserved for cooks, nurses and nannies etc.,.

I'm on the wrong machine, I'll switch over and post a few up for comparison.
I'd like to see what Hunter's got though . . . and I so should have thought that sentence through before I typed it.

See you in a minute.

Much love

Janie

xxxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

Right, here are some photos of everyday aprons worn by the average woman in the area at the time. They all seem to be very similar. I'm going to look through and see if I can find any other kinds being worn by the average doss house, poor working class woman, just to make sure that it's a fair cross section. Other people might have some that I've not come across anyway.

The first one of the woman on the wall, always reminds me of Kate, I don't know why. That apron seems quite a short one in comparison to the others.

The second one is a doss house kitchen, but those aprons do seem to be very typical of the ones worn. If I had to guess I'd go for that sort. The last on seems to show a fill length apron being worn by the girl on the right. I don't think she would wear a skirt that colour.

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[Jane Coram]

Here are some more.

The one in the middle looks more like a bit of old sacking, but the length is similar to the others.


xxxxx

[Errata]

Domestics used a "Bridey" apron, which had a bib. It's sort of the typical Irish housemaid apron. And while I think it unlikely that Eddowes worked as a uniformed domestic, that doesn't mean she didn't have access to one of those aprons.

And the only reason that's even remotely relevant is that "Half" could mean the top or bottom half of such an apron. And if it's the bottom half then we are looking at a swatch of cloth the size of a Turkish bath towel.

And the the only reason even that would be relevant is that a PC could be excused for overlooking a piece of cloth the size of a washcloth or even smaller, but unless he didn't actually pass that building, there is no way hes going to miss a big effing bloodstained towel.

So he says it wasn't there, but if its small it could have been. But if he says it wasnt there and its yards big, then either he skipped a patrol or it really wasn't there.