The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth, way back on post #56 on this thread you mentioned the detached portion of apron may have already been cut vertically, along with the other garments... I took it that you were spectulating

I was indeed, Jon. That said, a number of her outer garments had been cut through - whether or not vertically is not explicitly stated, as far as I recall, although it's a reasonable assumption. Given that, it's not inconceivable that her apron might have copped a slice in the process and ended up at least part-way cut.

[Sam Flynn]

well perhaps we should have a poll on the two pics i posted see how many can identify the piece which was cut with a knife.

I don't think that would be necessary, Trevor. Your assertion was that the torn and cut aprons in those photographs appeared "almost identical to the naked eye" - which they clearly don't, at least not to my eyes.

[perrymason]

I don't think that would be necessary, Trevor. Your assertion was that the torn and cut aprons in those photographs appeared "almost identical to the naked eye" - which they clearly don't, at least not to my eyes.

Which means youve succesfully completed your annual eye exam Mr Smith, we wont be needing that monocle just yet.

Cheers my friend.

[Trevor Marriott]

wel u seem to profess to know it all about not only medical issues now u r an expert in cuts and tears I merley suggested posters should put it to the test as i said in a previous post looks can be deceiving and Ins Collard could have been mistaken in seeing what he interpted to be a cut when in fact it was a tear.

In this day and age if it were an issue both pieces would be tested forensically would not go on someone opinion.

To be honest i get sick of posters saying on here so and said it in 1888 so it must be correct. There are many discrepanices in what has been accepted as fact up until now. So why must we accpet it as gospel when new suggestions and evidence is put forward which now suggests that the original facts etc may not be as accurate as first though and should not be totally relied upon as being correct

[perrymason]

Trevor,

I agree... test the opinions, but since events and actions cant be re-created accurately, we have to carry a greater burden of proof that the contemporaries did in order to change ingrained thinking. They just offered opinions, not evidence.

Thats why the threads are circular for the most part..or havent you noticed?

Cheers Trevor

[Trevor Marriott]

I would say some of the posters who post on here are very anti new evidence. All they seem to want to do is find fault in the new. Yet they never come forward in contesting the old theories and facts.

Look at all the grief Phillip Hutchinson took recently.

i am sure 90% of the casebook readers do look at the new stuff presented on here in an unbiased way and either acccept it or reject it. The other 10% are wearing tinted glasses with blinkers attached

[Stewart P Evans]

Evidence

I would say some of the posters who post on here are very anti new evidence. All they seem to want to do is find fault in the new. Yet they never come forward in contesting the old theories and facts.
Look at all the grief Phillip Hutchinson took recently.
i am sure 90% of the casebook readers do look at the new stuff presented on here in an unbiased way and either acccept it or reject it. The other 10% are wearing tinted glasses with blinkers attached

But Trevor you are not presenting new evidence, you are presenting your own speculation which is a totally different thing. As an ex-police officer you should know that.

There is no point in showing photographs such as you have. Such a comparison is totally invalid unless you were using an actual piece of Eddowes's own apron (the correct material) - and that is not possible. Suffice to say we may expect Inspector Collard to know the difference between cut material and torn material. Give him some credit.

It is wrong of you to compare debate over your speculation to the debate over Philip's photograph. The photograph has intrinsic value because of what it shows and is an old image.

If you came up with some genuine new evidence I should be the first to congratulate you. In the meantime why not come over and see me for a reality check?

[Trevor Marriott]

What i have sought to do is present new evidence which now casts a doubt about some of the accepted theories.

As to the term evidence i disagree with you if we were having a criminal trial and the prosecution were seeking to rely on the accpeted facts etc. I as a defence advocate would be producing the new evidence in an attempt to show the unreliablity of the original evidence.

I have to say that my daily work as a defence advocate is spent trying to find weak links and inconsistencies with modern day police investigations and evidence. As far as the Ripper case is concerned i have highlighted initially in writing what i believe to be issues that may not be correct.. I have now gone one step further in producing photos etc in support of my concerns.

I accept we dont have the original apron piece so therfore people have readily accepted what has been written. However I can only try to re create the accepted facts which i feel i have done in a fair an un biased way.

As far as the cutting/tearing is concerned put it to the test because I am sure if 100 people looked at the two pics there would be differing answers as to which is cut and which is torn.





The

[Monty]

Monty,

I liked the explanation for why cutting or slitting was part of the removal process, because it was said to have shown both techniques. The ripping part would be rather loud in an empty echo chamber square, perhaps he started then cut for speed and noise. Pearce's window looked right onto the murder scene, and we know he was there in bed by his statement. The nightwatchman is in place with an open door. And two cops pass through there about 3-4 times an hour each. The allowed noise by the killer is I believe an indication that this event required on the spot thinking, and unavoidable actions. Which means he likely didnt have a hanky by planning ahead, like he should have after Annie. So he has another solution I think.....and I may have an idea about that. Leather Gloves, the kind up past the wrist. So why doesnt he use them this time to carry his lot away?....for one, he has more viscera to carry this time, and 2, they had "shite" on them, and he didnt want to keep handling that mess. So he folds the gloves in on themselves, puts them in his pockets, and makes a quick carryall....risking the noise.

Best regards Monty, all.

Michael,

Morris had only just opened the door before Watkins came calling. This means in all probability that the killer had already left the scene before the door was open.

As for Pearce, he wasnt woken till at 2am, a considerable period after the body was found. This meant that he slept through Morris's whilsting and the activity that occured after the discovery.

Monty

[Monty]

Hi Gareth, way back on post #56 on this thread you mentioned the detached portion of apron may have already been cut vertically, along with the other garments... I took it that you were spectulating, but on another thread somebody also mentioned that, I think, her clothes were cut vertically so then also her apron(?).
Do you happen to know where this line of reason came from?

Can I assume you have Stewart & Keith's 'Sourcebook'?, on their page 203 (hdbk), we have the list of Eddowes possessions.
Eddowes wore three skirts, a petticoat and a bodice.
The bodice had a 5" long cut near the bottom.
Her chintz skirt has a 6 1/2" long cut extending from the waistband. Both her outer skirts had a cut 10 1/2" long, again from the waistband.
None of these garments were cut vertically in half.

In fact, the testimony of Watkins has her clothes "up above her waist". The cuts in the skirts then are consistent with the upper extent of her abdominal wound, from the waist upwards to her ribcage. Her skirts were essentially upside-down. The killer lifted her clother over her upper torso and proceded to cut her lower exposed abdomen from the pubes to her ribs. The upper extent of this cut then also sliced into the waistband of her skirts because they were essentially upside-down over her chest.

All this being the case, are you aware how this idea that her clothes were cut in half vertically to access her abdomen?
I'm suspicious that this error is now being transferred to the apron, when in actual fact neither garments were cut vertically from the hem, it was from the waistband. Which has no bearing on the outer apron.

Hey Wickerman,

This aspect has always confused me.

The picture of Eddowes in situ clearly shows her abdomen exposed and her clothes open, whereas witness description tells a differing story.

I will say I feel the apron was cut because it got in the way, just a view.

Trevor, take up Stewarts offer, you will learn a hell of a lot.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

stewart
i would love to come over message me your number and will make arrangements.

but it might be you thats in for a reality check ! lol

Trevor

[Stewart P Evans]

stewart
i would love to come over message me your number and will make arrangements

Trevor, will do, it would be great to see you again. I have to say that I enjoyed your talk at Norwich.

[Mike Covell]

I would say some of the posters who post on here are very anti new evidence. All they seem to want to do is find fault in the new. Yet they never come forward in contesting the old theories and facts.

Look at all the grief Phillip Hutchinson took recently.

i am sure 90% of the casebook readers do look at the new stuff presented on here in an unbiased way and either acccept it or reject it. The other 10% are wearing tinted glasses with blinkers attached

I seem to recall that you were one of the posters giving Philip grief over his presenting of new evidence.

[Jane Coram]

Well,

I've read this thread through and it's been quite illuminating.

Firstly, the suggestion that there is no difference between a tear and a cut on most fabrics is completely inaccurate.

When a fabric is torn, whole unbroken strands of the threads above it will lie in rows above the tear, from one end of the piece to the other. (This can be clearly seen in one of Mr Marriott's photographs)

When a piece is cut, the threads in the rows above will always be in shorter lenths as the knife rarely cuts in a totally straight line. That can also be clearly seen in the top photo of the two posted up.

Under a magnifying glass there is also a distinct difference between the ends of the fibres, the torn being very ragged and the cut ones being cleanly cut across. On most occasions this is clearly visible to the naked eye.

The pictures placed here are not valid as proof anyway, because there are so many unknown factors involved.

As has already been pointed out we don't know what type of cloth the apron was made of, cotton and linen cut and tear very differently.

Secondly, we don't know how sharp the knife was that was used in Mr Marriott's experiment. It may have been (and probably was) totally different to the one Jack used.

Thirdly, we don't know how taut the cloth was being held. If a piece of material is held loosely, the cut will be totally different to the way it would be if it were pulled taut.

Fourthly to suggest that an expert at the time couldn't tell a cut from a tear is ludicrous.

The apron piece was cut off not torn.

As Stewart pointed out, Kate would certainly not have been allowed a knife in the police cell, although she would almost certainly have been allowed some of the pieces of rag, if not all of them. The police generally only removed objects that would present a danger when a person was put into the cell at that time.

She would have had no need to cut a valuable (to her) apron, when she had many more pieces to choose from. Not only that, but the list of her items show that she only had a table knife in her possessions, and that would not cut through a piece of apron cloth, especially not through a patch in the cloth. Whoever cut through Kate's apron, they were using a sharp knife.

Just as an additional thought, had Kate used the piece of apron as a sanitary towel in the police cell, how would Mr Marriott suggest she held it in place?
She wasn't wearing drawers, and the usual and in fact only method in those days of keeping a towel in place was to either make holes in either end of the cloth and thread tape through it, or have pieces with loops stitched on so that the string could be put through. The apron piece had neither loops nor holes, so how did she keep it in place?

The suggestion that the organs were wrapped in the piece of apron is a valid one, and the markings on them not inconsistent with it. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of many experts over the years, including a slaughterman of many years standing, who said that an animal could be butchered within seconds of death, with hardly any blood getting onto the butcher, and the doctor that Perry Mason mentioned, who gave a great deal of very helpful medical opinion whilst he was here.

To suggest that the organs were taken at a later date for medical purposes, I think has been clearly shown to be a non starter.......as Sam pointed out, what were Kate's intestines doing draped over her shoulder, unless someone wanted them out of the way in order to get to something else inside the body cavity. And how many mortuary attendants were involved in this organ retrieval scheme? A pretty big conspiracy for a commodity that could be gained free of charge by any medical man at the time.

However, there is one alternative, which no-one seems to have brought up.
Surely if Jack intended to take organs from a victim, he would have gone prepared and taken a piece of suitable cloth with him to wrap them in?

This would mean that he took the piece of apron to wipe his hands on, which is consistent with all the evidence and still had the organs tucked neatly in his pocket for the entire duration of his journey to wherever he was going.
He merely discarded the apron piece when the job was done.

All in all, what should have been a very straightforward subject seems to have got very out of control. (which I think that Sam also mentioned)

Jack kills Kate, opens the poor woman up and mutilates her, wraps the organs in a piece of material (could have been the apron piece or another bit) trots off and wipes his hands when he gets the chance and drops the apron piece in the doorway. The corner on the apron piece may have got wet as it dangled into a pool of blood.

That's what the police thought at the time and there is no reason to think any differently today.

That's all folks. Very interesting thread anyway with some good points being brought up.

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

I don't post often, so I'm entitled to a long post. Lol.

[perrymason]

Hi Jane,

You go ahead and write as long as you want, you always provide clear level thinking. However, you said that no-one mentioned him bringing a hanky, by learning from or repeating his experiences with Annie....and I have several times. I wouldnt conclude though that that negates the apron section as a carry-all, because the apron section was far larger than any hanky, and of the two options, more suited for a carry-all. He also could have handled it, and wiped on it, which addressses the smearing, spots and more concentrated staining.

Heres the sequence....(just about the apron)...he is about to extract the kidney, after moving the intestines, and he severs the colon. He places a section, gunking up his hands, between Kates arm and body. He wipes a bit on the apron, and before going in for the kidney, decides to cut and tear a piece of the apron that he wiped his hands, or gloved hands, on....and then extracts the kidney on it, not near the center due to haste, he folds up the sides by the corners, knots it on top, and peels his gloves off if wearing any, and wipes his hands with his own hanky while he leaves. The "package" would look like some butchers meat, particularly at that hour, so he could carry it openly.

He places his own hanky, maybe with gloves, into his pocket, goes somewhere to rid himself of the organs, perhaps dropping them in spirits, then leaves to go home, after finishing cleaning his hands and dropping the apron in an alley.

In my scenario, he could have killed Kate, had a bolt hole just East of Goulston, dropped off the organs, and headed back West when he drops it, not on his way home initially to the East, as is the common theorizing on it.

Not neccesarily my take on things, but I believe it works within the known framework.

Cheers Jane, all the best.