The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[LadyG]

ah yes, well remaints of that could have likewise gotten on his face during the flurry of surgery, no? Perhaps all the more reason to salvage something to wipe it off during his exit. Then again he might be inclined to coprofilia (sp?)-- not to be confused with 'cop-a-feel-ya'. A scatological interest would have made the scrap more of a romantic momento than 'doo-rag'. Like everything, just guesswork.

[caz]

Funnily enough, LadyG, I suggested something similar not too long ago. Anyone who could relish the thought of fondling - perhaps even eating - human offal is surely right down there (or up there, depending on one's point of view) with those who fancy getting s*** faced on a Saturday night in more ways than one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chava]

Lady G, we can't assume it was a part of the dress that was taken. Contemporary photos show that many women wore white aprons over their clothes. In fact from the descriptions given, I believe it was a protective apron that he used rather than a remnant of skirt.

[hill806]

I havent had chance to read all posts from all 22 pages, and I know this is a much older thread but I always had the belief that Jack the ripper, while working on Eddow's in pitch black darkness accidentally had cut his own hand. He then had to think quick and so decided to cut off some of Eddows apron to bandage his wound. He couldn't be having blood trails for the police to follow plus if it was severe enough he would have needed to do something to stop the bleeding. The faeces on the apron then would have come from the rippers hands as they were inside Eddows. He made his way to Goulston street and then discarded for apron, most likely to prevent a wife, relative, friend or landlord seeing it. IF, I say IF, the killer wasn't medically trained would he have then been forced to seek medical attention at the London infirmary? Also the time between this murder and kelly's was had the longest time gap of any of the known murders; so maybe he had to wait during this period of time for some kind of healing before going out again? Anyway this is just a theory I have often wondered about for some time. Also if the killer had of seeked attention at the London Infirmary, would there have been any medical records of it? Would be interesting if a medical record of a man coming in for treatment for a laceration wound around the time of this eddows murder came to light, even more so if it was a known suspect. Anyway this is just an idea I thought id share.

[hill806]

Just reminded myself that I already had suggested this idea about 6 years ago. Id completely forgot due to not being on here for all that time. It was suggested that the apron was too big for just a cut to a hand, which to be fare, I cant argue with. The things im not sure about are "why leave the apron in Goulston street if it was being used to carry the organs?" His hands and knife he could have easily wiped on her apron without cutting it off and taking it with him. He also never cut off anything from his other victims that we know of. To me it seems to make more sense that the ripper always carried his own form of organ concealment, his own rag of clothing say. So why cut the apron off? Maybe it was not his hand he cut, but his leg, thus needing a larger amount of rag. It does seem hard to imagine him cutting his leg though, a hand I can understand, but a leg, hmm. Upon checking my older post from years ago I was told that Mitre square was not pitch black, and that there was sufficient light. I always thought that it was meant to be really dark and that when PC Edward Watkins first entered the Square he may have actually disturbed the ripper unknowingly and was still there.

[hill806]

Upon checking older threads that I had posted in I was also reminded with another of my older posts where I had shared Trevor Marriots email regarding a certain theory. This was completely wrong and awful of me to do, and even though it was 6 years ago I want to to apologize to Trevor for doing this. I have a LOT of respect for Trevor Marriot actually, he always brings something interesting to the table as well as also wielding a huge amount of enthusiasm that I find appealing. I remember reading something where he was trying to get some police doccuments/reports on the case released and that he has tried several times to do so. I just remember thinking how much effort he was putting into it to finally get the answers we all want. Anyway if you end up reading this Trevor, please accept my whole hearted apology.

[Wickerman]

I moved this debate to a more appropriate thread, and I noticed the last poster was giving Trevor a pat on the back.
Give you a bit of a lift, ol' boy!

Insp Collard states " I produce a portion of apron she was apparently wearing" Now his list of her clothing makes no mention of her actually wearing and apron,......

The list makes no mention of her wearing the boots either, is that because they too were only among her possessions?

......which would have been visible when the body was stripped and listed as being part of her clothes. It could not have been missed if she had been wearing it

It wasn't missed, it was around her neck with the red neckerchief, which is also listed.
The size of it looked to Collard more like a large handkerchief than the remains of an apron, but then he didn't know she had been wearing an apron at that time. So, he described the misshapen piece of cloth as best he could.

Words attributed to Collard in the Official Court Record are:
"I produce a portion of the apron which Deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress..."

It was "found outside her dress". Not, said to have been found. Collard made the list, he found the remnant outside her dress, where it should be if it was an apron, or the remains of one.

[Wickerman]

Unless there is something identifiable about an apron, how can you tell one from the other?

Maybe there was something identifiable about it, a particular stain, a pattern, a mended patch, something that jolted his memory. You prefer to dismiss it under the pretext that "all aprons are the same", but actually they are not.

......the identification made by that officer is ridiculous,

Unless we know why he recognised it no-one can say his identification was ridiculous, but you once again are jumping to conclusions.

.......and if it was as big as you suggest there would have been cuts and tears in it in line with the cuts seen on the rest of the clothing and it would have been bloodied the mortuary piece was neither.

You have yet to establish any of these cuts were done before the apron was removed.
The killer did not stab her to death so there are no exterior wounds through her clothing into her body.

[DJA]

Reckon the throat was cut first creating a blood flow.

The apron piece was cut off and placed on the left side of Eddowes to receive the kidney. The corner soaked up blood.

Clothes were cut and torn away.

The descending colon in front of the kidney was the source of faecal matter. It may have been placed on the small intestines before it's final resting place on the left side.

Jack knew exactly what he was doing and was able to operate by touch due to vast experience as a pathologist and lecturer.

After storing the organs in ethanol,the apron was used as a red herring to draw suspicion away from Mitre Square and 6 Mitre Street.

[Trevor Marriott]

The killer did not stab her to death so there are no exterior wounds through her clothing into her body.

Well the description of the cuts to her clothing tell us she was stabbed several times through her outer clothing and the knife drawn down and across

Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I moved this debate to a more appropriate thread, and I noticed the last poster was giving Trevor a pat on the back.
Give you a bit of a lift, ol' boy!

I dont need any lifts !

The list makes no mention of her wearing the boots either, is that because they too were only among her possessions?

It wasn't missed, it was around her neck with the red neckerchief, which is also listed.
The size of it looked to Collard more like a large handkerchief than the remains of an apron, but then he didn't know she had been wearing an apron at that time. So, he described the misshapen piece of cloth as best he could.

You are making it up again where does Collard say anything of the sort re its size ? and why didnt he know she jad been wearing an apron if the remains were around her neck as you suggest ?

Words attributed to Collard in the Official Court Record are:
"I produce a portion of the apron which Deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress..."

yes apparently wearing that means there was doubt !

It was "found outside her dress". Not, said to have been found. Collard made the list, he found the remnant outside her dress, where it should be if it was an apron, or the remains of one.

But you said it was around her neck, thats not outside her dress is it ?

You have been making great play about the sketch, take another look, the sketch shows the wound to her throat no where does it show anything around her neck, or remotely near her neck. If it had been around her neck they would have to have removed it before taking off other items of her clothing, and would have noticed it an listed it in the appropriate place

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Well the description of the cuts to her clothing tell us she was stabbed several times through her outer clothing and the knife drawn down and across

Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Those are not stab wounds.
All her skirts had been lifted up, if you notice those cuts are centered around the waistband. Her abdominal wound began at the top of the breastbone (above her waist) and ran down through the waist to the lower abdomen.
This indicates he cut through her clothing after he threw them up.

I recall explaining this to you before. The skirts are still around her waist after he lifted them up, so all those cuts start several inches from the waistband and cut down through it because her skirts are upside down when the attack began.

[Trevor Marriott]

Those are not stab wounds.
All her skirts had been lifted up, if you notice those cuts are centered around the waistband. Her abdominal wound began at the top of the breastbone (above her waist) and ran down through the waist to the lower abdomen.
This indicates he cut through her clothing after he threw them up.

why would he do that if he had lifted them up to access her abdomen

I recall explaining this to you before. The skirts are still around her waist after he lifted them up, so all those cuts start several inches from the waistband and cut down through it because her skirts are upside down when the attack began.

you are not making any sense

[Joshua Rogan]

Did the chemise have similar damage?

[Wickerman]

you are not making any sense

This is what I'm talking about.

At Left - the wound to her abdomen.

Centre - the cut to the bodice.

Right - the skirt thrown upside down.



This had to be the case because her belly was exposed, so we know it was not covered by any skirts.
He managed to cut around the navel, so he could see the navel.
The skirts are only cut above the waist band because this is where he plunged the knife to begin the mutilation, into the breast.