The Bloody Piece of Apron Redux

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[Jane Coram]

Monty,

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

Much love

Janie

xxxxx

[protohistorian]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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...

[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.

[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

[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

[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