The Apron

[lynn cates]

experiment

Hello Richard.

"If only we knew?"

Indeed. But are you suggesting that he cut the apron and carried the piece several blocks before commencing the hand wiping procedure? It seems that such behaviour would have invited possible discovery of bloodied hands. If he commenced at once, at least that eventuality (being caught with bloodied hands) would have been disposed of.

Here is an actual experiment that can be done. Given that you eat ground beef, take a pound or so and place it in a dish. Spread an old cloth on the ground nearby. Immerse both hands in the beef until both hands are properly covered with the bloody, slimy residue. Have a friend nearby keeping track of both time and distance. Kneel down. (Commence timing device.) Cut piece from cloth. Stand. Begin walking hurriedly (not running) away from the cloth and dish. Begin wiping your hands so that they feel relatively clean. (In my case, being right handed, I would grasp the cloth in the right hand and wipe the left palm first. Then rotate the left hand and wipe back. Next, I would transfer the cloth to the left hand and repeat steps one and two. Finally, I would wipe between the fingers of both hands and feel my hands. If nearly clean and dry, I would discard the cloth.

Should you choose to do this, I would be delighted to see the results in terms of both time and distance.

Should you choose not to go through with this admittedly disgusting experiment, I would fully understand!

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hello Lynn.
As you have suggested why would it be necessary to cover that distance, carrying a apron to wipe his hands. why not throw it sooner?
Alas we cannot know exactly what was the killers state of mind at that moment, his first priority would be to make haste his escape from the scene of murder, making sure as previous that no trail of blood followed his route, ie Kate's apron, he would be hastily making good his escape, and more then likely only disregarded that garment when he found a safe place to wipe his hands, and was confident that he was not in any immediate danger, of being apprehended.
If only we knew?
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

forensics

Hello Richard. I think you make a good case for the GSG, but I am wondering about the distance of the recovered apron piece with respect to Mitre sq?

If you recall the old Tate/La Bianca murders, you perhaps remember that Bugliosi needed to locate the clothing worn by Watson and the girls. He had some of his men get in a car and drive away from the Polanski residence at Cielo dr and retrace the stated getaway route. Whilst driving they were to remove their clothes (according to what was done as per witness [Kasabian?] testimony) and put on fresh ones. Then the car pulled over at the first convenient wide spot and the team searched down the slope. There lay the discarded clothing.

My point is that, if the apron piece were cut and utilised as a wipe for the hands, the operation would have ended much sooner and, again given that the killer did not hold onto it for sentimental reasons, it should have been discarded at that point--where the hand wiping ended.

How far? A reasonable assumption would indicate that the cloth should be dumped no later than exiting Mitre sq or thereabouts.

Cheers.
LC

[ChrisGeorge]

Possibly, Bridewell.

In the event he was found with the organs, he would surely have been asked to account for his whereabouts, which would have been problematic.

I imagine this is a scenario Jack would have wanted to avoid.

In my mind there are two problems with the apron:

1) Dr Brown believed it looked like someone had wiped their hands or knife; PC Long believed the apron was an indication of a murder having taken place inside the dwellings. I think these two beliefs are inconsistent in terms of the amount of blood on the apron.

2) How on earth did PC Long arrive at the conclusion that a murder may have taken place inside? At the time of his finding, this was just a piece of rag not connected to CE.

Hello Fleetwood Mac

If I was a police officer on patrol and I came across an article of clothing that had blood on it, I would tend to think that the person who had been wearing that piece of clothing had been involved in an assault or some type of accident that took place at that location. I would therefore investigate the vicinity in which I found the bloodied clothing. I should think this would have been pro forma conduct for a beat copper of the day.

Best regards

Chris George

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
My opinion is that far to much as been made of the writing being a bearing on the aprons positioning .
The obvious solution is the killer being much bloodied , cut of a piece of apron to wipe his stinking hands, he continued to do this during his flight disregarding it near the famous wording.. without any prior knowledge of its existence .
Throughout the east end at the period, and ever since slogan have been written on walls/doors, and I find it inconclusive.
For instance, if one spots a used condom on the ground , it does not mean that any sexual act took place at that spot,it could have happened anywhere, even if on a wall close by. a chalked message said 'Ryan really fancies Sue'.
The apron could have landed near a even more positive message that must have been dotted around the area like 'Jack was here', even that would not be conclusive that the killer wrote it.
Regards Richard.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood

"If he's going to take the organs into his home, then why not the apron? Both are incriminating."

Is that necessarily the case? Forensic science was, at best, rudimentary at the time. When blood was examined, the best they could ever come up with was that the blood was that of a human or a pig (see William Waddell's clothing after the Jane Beetmoor murder). Once he reaches home, all he has is (disgusting thought, I know) a piece of kidney, which he could pass off as that of a pig. If he turn's up with a blood-stained piece of a murdered woman's apron it might, as eventually of course it was, be linked directly back to the victim.

Possibly, Bridewell.

In the event he was found with the organs, he would surely have been asked to account for his whereabouts, which would have been problematic.

I imagine this is a scenario Jack would have wanted to avoid.

In my mind there are two problems with the apron:

1) Dr Brown believed it looked like someone had wiped their hands or knife; PC Long believed the apron was an indication of a murder having taken place inside the dwellings. I think these two beliefs are inconsistent in terms of the amount of blood on the apron.

2) How on earth did PC Long arrive at the conclusion that a murder may have taken place inside? At the time of his finding, this was just a piece of rag not connected to CE.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Then as now you wore an apron when you were actually doing some kind of work that might spoil your clothing.

Not quite, Chava.

Working class women wore aprons to keep warm in those days (as well as to protect clothing from dirt etc).

[Chava]

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.

[Supe]

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.

[Monty]

Monty,

I don't intend to get into an argument with you, although I have to say that I think all this is to do with Trevor Marriott's theory about the apron piece being used as a menstrual 'rag'. It was Chris's 'assumption' that I had been persuaded by him that really put my back up. I THOUGHT OF THIS MYSELF AND HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT TREVOR HAS PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN ABOUT.

What is it about this theory that seems to make most of you 'locals' so worried? Is it because you can see the sense in it but don't want to admit it?

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

[Steven Russell]

Hello, Bridewell.
Fair comment about the blood but doctors would have been able to distinguish between a human kidney and that of a pig. For example there was never any doubt that the Lusk kidney was human.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Bridewell]

Fleetwood

"If he's going to take the organs into his home, then why not the apron? Both are incriminating."

Is that necessarily the case? Forensic science was, at best, rudimentary at the time. When blood was examined, the best they could ever come up with was that the blood was that of a human or a pig (see William Waddell's clothing after the Jane Beetmoor murder). Once he reaches home, all he has is (disgusting thought, I know) a piece of kidney, which he could pass off as that of a pig. If he turn's up with a blood-stained piece of a murdered woman's apron it might, as eventually of course it was, be linked directly back to the victim.

[Carol]

Carol I think the folding of the rages was pretty universal everywhere in the first world until someone came up with the bright idea of machine-made disposable pads. Which was, apparently, around the time of the killings. It makes sense to fold the rags because that way the blood doesn't seep as much and clots are caught ahead of doing too much damage. Factory-made pads were too expensive for most women so they didn't really come into use until much later. Women who had some kind of home would remove the cloths when they were saturated and dump them into cold water. Many women used the chamber pot to dump used rags in. Actually that wouldn't have been a bad idea as the urine would have helped bleach out the cloths and remove the blood stains.

Now I'm guessing that this is far too much information for the gentlemen on the board so I'm going to stop now!

Hello Chava,

I have a bound volume of issues of 'Home Chat' from 1896 and there are advertisements there for 'Hartmann's Hygienic Towelettes - Invaluable for Ladies Travelling and Home use. Supplied at the actual cost of washing'. Which seems to imply that the better-off women's 'rags' would have been sent out to a laundry to be cleaned! Some time ago Archaic was posting about when these first came onto the market. I can't remember the exact year, but, as you say, about the time of the murders.

Interesting that many women put them in the chamber pot. Very good idea, really!

Carol

[caz]

Strange Birds - of a feather

Some fine posts here people. I concur with the thoughts of both Lechmere and Caz. We cannot understand the mind or motivations of a psychopath. They are almost like another species. Hopefully, there are no psychopaths on these boards, but if there are, maybe they can help us out.

I’m not sure we can learn from Bundy’s double event? He collected two “specimens”, tied them up and did with them what he would. He also had the luxury of indoor shelter. I believe since the ground was so fertile that day, hundreds of available victims, he just thought I can’t pass this up, it’s too easy. Not unlike a hunter in a field of deer. These poor young women were merely objects to him. Again, the mind is unfathomable.

I’m not sure how this might relate to the Berner St.- Mitre Square DE. Perhaps others have some ideas?

As for the simplest solution, I think Lynn Cates stated a while back that the Ockham’s razor thing is a myth! Have we really been duped all these years?

Greg

Hi Greg,

We seem to be thinking of two separate double events during Bundy's reign of terror. There was one where his first victim managed to survive an abduction attempt and this made him so worked up and frustrated that he went off and found himself a second within about an hour, and this one wasn't so fortunate.

Two double events in recent years in Croydon were similarly the result of two frustrated repeat offenders who failed to get sufficient jollies from their first and took it out in spectacularly brutal fashion on their second, within a very short time and distance. It didn't take much to attribute these double assaults to the one offender in each case, even though there were far fewer similarities than we see between the fatal attacks on Stride and Eddowes.

I wonder how we would react to a Stride/Eddowes event if it were to happen tonight. How many of us would seriously presume the murders to be totally unrelated? Offenders like this, whether or not they carry off trophies, or bits of apron for purposes unknown, or leave clues by accident or design, have never been and never will be two a penny.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chava]

Carol I think the folding of the rages was pretty universal everywhere in the first world until someone came up with the bright idea of machine-made disposable pads. Which was, apparently, around the time of the killings. It makes sense to fold the rags because that way the blood doesn't seep as much and clots are caught ahead of doing too much damage. Factory-made pads were too expensive for most women so they didn't really come into use until much later. Women who had some kind of home would remove the cloths when they were saturated and dump them into cold water. Many women used the chamber pot to dump used rags in. Actually that wouldn't have been a bad idea as the urine would have helped bleach out the cloths and remove the blood stains.

Now I'm guessing that this is far too much information for the gentlemen on the board so I'm going to stop now!