The Apron

[Carol]

Thanks to you, Monty, I've come up with something in the course of researching aprons. You point out that the policemen all describe Eddowes as wearing an apron. So I wondered if they might have mistaken one of her pockets for an apron and went and looked up pockets to see how big they would have been etc. Very interesting. No, it's unlikely that they would have mistaken a pocket for an apron. Chances are it wouldn't have been big enough. The way pockets worked was this: a woman had a pair of pockets on a string that would be tied around her waist and accessible to her via slits in the side of her skirt. Eddowes was wearing a bunch of skirts but it's probable that she wore her pockets over the under-skirts so that she reached them via the top skirt. These free-standing pockets were universally worn by women for centuries and the fashion only seemed to die out at the end of the 19th Century when manufacturers started to sew pockets into female garments. Men always had pockets sewn into the seams of their jackets and trousers.

Now what does this mean? Well, for a start, if the Ripper is looking for something to carry away his souvenirs, he didn't have to go to the trouble of pulling down Eddowes's skirts to cut at the apron--which she would have worn on top of her skirt by all police accounts, and so would be under all the other skirts that had been pulled up in the course of the attack. He'd still have to pull skirts around to get at the pocket-string, but it would have been much easier and way more efficient just to cut the string, shove his tidbits in the pocket and run. He's got a ready-made portmaneau. He can toss out the stuff she's carrying in there or he can keep it for kicks. It's just as throw-away-able as the piece of apron, so if he wishes to use it to implicate the Jews he can. And he would know to look for a pair of pockets. Every adult woman had them and used them to keep their stuff in and they always came in pairs.

So now I'm even less of a believer in the 'he cut it off to carry away her internal organs' theory.

Hello Chava,
Very interesting post of yours. More food for thought!
Carol

[Carol]

Carol,

I will readily accept the theory was arrived at by you independently, but regardless it was quite demolished by Jane Coram writing "A Cat's Lick or Two" for Casebook Examiner Number 7 (April 2011).

Don.

Hello Don,

Thanks for your post. I would really like to read Jane Coram's 'A Cat's Lick or Two'. How do I get to it?

Contrary to some posters' opinions of me I only want the truth and any theory I arrive at is, after all, only a theory and liable to change or to being discarded according to any new 'evidence'.

Carol

[lynn cates]

compare and contrast

Hello Malcolm. That was Sir Charles' opinion as well.

Wynne Baxter thought both Kate and Liz very different from Polly and Annie. He also noted the wide disparity between Kate and Liz themselves.

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

Hello Malcolm. Cool and calm after his recent episode? Are you suggesting a sociopathic hired assassin?

Well, at least we agree about leaving Polly and Annie behind.

Cheers.
LC

no i'm saying he was calm because the graffiti was small and neatly written, written slowly and carefully....also, would Eddowes have gone with JTR if he was still in a frustrated/ angry mood, because lets face it, Stride was killed much earlier on.

[Carol]

Carol,

If you do not wish to enter into an argument then why use such imflammatory words and sentences?

Unlike the genteel Chris T, I do not stand down from such provocation.

Believe me, your theory holds no worry for me. Its groundless, improbable and ill conceived.

What is it with you newbies that you think your new theory wasn't touted 10 years ago.

Monty

Monty,

I think you're sweet, too.

Carol

[lynn cates]

assassin

Hello Malcolm. Cool and calm after his recent episode? Are you suggesting a sociopathic hired assassin?

Well, at least we agree about leaving Polly and Annie behind.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

JTR killed STRIDE, EDDOWES AND KELLY.

But he was able to provide an alibi for Nichols and Chapman?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

Hello (again) Richard.

"I must stick to my initial opinion that the killer hurried away from the scene frantically attempting to rid himself of his vile work"

Alright. This helps me even more, as the more frantic, the sooner done and hence the closer the drop of the apron piece.

Cheers.
LC

no it's exactly the opposite, in my humble opinion ....... he's cool and calm, he walks into Ghoulston st and thinks ``right, where shall i leave this apron and the graffiti``, the police have missed him by about a minute.

[Malcolm X]

i dont see what is so hard to understand as:-

1... he needed the cloth for the graffiti, plus it's useful for wiping his hands on/ knife blade

2.... isn't it very odd that Stride was killed in a Jewish location and a highly controversial place too.

3.... no pieces of clothing were ripped off at the other murder scenes

so we have Stride's murder location and Eddowes apron, right beside anti- semetic graffiti, is this pure coincidence?.... is it hell.

the apron is slightly further away from the graffiti than it should be, and it's out in the open, yes it has to be so that it's seen..... the police see the Apron and then notice the graffiti...... SIMPLE !

we have a highly contraversial message right beside Eddowes apron and this is simply too suspicious for me, the graffiti is left there because it's a shielded and dry location, away from the elements, so that it wont get semi washed off before the police notice it.

sorry, but to me this is all very obvious, JTR killed STRIDE, EDDOWES AND KELLY.

[lynn cates]

frantic

Hello (again) Richard.

"I must stick to my initial opinion that the killer hurried away from the scene frantically attempting to rid himself of his vile work"

Alright. This helps me even more, as the more frantic, the sooner done and hence the closer the drop of the apron piece.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

compare

Hello Richard. As you wish. can't say i blame you.

But if eliminating a trail of blood were of the utmost importance, and given your wish to compare Kate with Polly and Annie (as also, MJK), then why no torn cloth in those cases?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

residue

Hello Steven. Quite right. Of course, the ground beef leaves a sticky, slimy residue not unlike . . . well, you get the idea.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hello Steve.
Faecal matter, naturally is a important point, and you correct, so I must stick to my initial opinion that the killer hurried away from the scene frantically attempting to rid himself of his vile work, and the garment was thrown with no prior knowledge of the writing, which has haunted us Ripper folk for years.
Regards Richard,

[richardnunweek]

Hi Lynn,
Ill take a ''rain -check'' on that one, I understand your point though..
How about we forget the cleaning of hands theory, and stick to the not leaving a trail of blood.
In all the previous no blood trail was evident, even leaving Millers court apparently no clues.
I would suggest that the killer was careful to eliminate any possible clue that might enhance his capture, therefore covering as much ground as possible before throwing the garment.
Regards Richard.

[Steven Russell]

Don't forget the faecal matter, Richard. This is important as it could take longer to clean off than blood.

Best wishes,
Steve.