The Apron

[lynn cates]

2 points

Hello Caz.

"we are still left with this sizeable bit of bloody cloth that was discovered at a considerable distance from the crime scene"

Yes, quite considerable. It seems to me that wiping ones hands to eliminate blood/faecal material would be a normal, desirable thing to do. Apron piece? Why not? But it seems natural to wipe them whilst fleeing the scene, then discarding the apron piece when finished. That should place the bloody piece only a few feet from the body.

"People do such things for a reason"

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi All,

Interesting debate, even if the various arguments have been thrashed out for over a decade here with no sign of any progress or possible resolution.

What can the killer's known actions tell us about his mindset at any one moment in time that night?

He must have known he had very limited time with Eddowes, once he had killed her, yet we know what he managed to achieve during that time, and he would not have wasted a moment on anything he didn't need or want to do, before making good his escape with the bits and pieces that would have tied him like apron strings to the murder and put a rope round his neck, had he been stopped and searched between Mitre and Goulston.

Of course he also had the menacing knife on him, that would have proved invaluable if confronted while carrying the organs and the wholly incriminating piece of cloth. But he'd have needed his wits about him for a while longer if he was to get clean away with everything - which we can assume he did.

I believe this was a very determined man, doing things very few mortals would ever dream of doing, or dare to do, in highly risky circumstances. I simply don't believe that he fannied about doing anything that was surplus to his own, highly individual requirements and desires.

But there's the rub, because we are still left with this sizeable bit of bloody cloth that was discovered at a considerable distance from the crime scene, in the entrance to a spanking new residential building, where someone had seen fit to leave a nice little legible, but ambiguous message for the inhabitants or passers-by.

People do such things for a reason, but when their actions make no clear sense, even to those who were there at the scene or knew their own neighbourhood inside out (like Abberline for one), and a thousand and one different interpretations are offered over the next 120+ years, it just shows how impossible it is to fathom the motives of such people for their behaviour. Without an obvious or rational motive for any of the killer's known actions that night, how can any of us be remotely sure what his behaviour could or could not have included?

We do know that Bundy had his own double event, and maybe there is something we can learn from his known behaviour on that and other occasions - assuming Bundy's mind was quite likely to have worked more like the Mitre Square killer's than ours.

Why do we want or expect the 'simplest' solutions every time from such a complex mind acting out its most murderous fantasies?

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

Victorian dress

Hello Malcolm. Below is another site--if a proliferation of Victorian dress might prove helpful.

Cheers.
LC

http://www.recollections.biz/

[Malcolm X]

Why not one vertical cut -- through the body of the apron, then a quick slice through where the string attached?

That way the piece is free, but there is no fuss or muss about the knot in the back?

the string is just a thin long piece of cloth that's sewn onto the apron all the way around, other photos looked like this too, it's a bit odd that he hasn't rolled the body to cut through the knot, maybe his knife is so sharp that he doesn't need to worry

many of the bows at the back were much larger and fancier too, i'd better stop now because i'm getting all hot and bothered for some reason!

[Carol]

Why not one vertical cut -- through the body of the apron, then a quick slice through where the string attached?

That way the piece is free, but there is no fuss or muss about the knot in the back?

Hi curious!
I thought of this, too, but then I read yesterday that both pieces of cloth had a string attached.
Carol

[Carol]

For example: the remaining piece of the apron was attached to 'the strings'. Do we know what is meant by 'strings'. I've been trying to determine this without success. Is it the strings around the waist or the strings around the neck?

Hi Fleetwood!

Thanks for your reply.

As far as I can find out from my own books here at home, the working class woman in England at that time would wear a very large apron that hung from the waist, nearly to the bottom of her skirt, and which wrapped itself around her nearly to meet in the middle of her back. It was tied by what was then known as 'strings' (what we would now call 'ties') which was really one long piece of narrow cloth, folded in half lengthways and sewn on to the apron itself at the waist and with a long piece left on either side to 'tie' the garment around the body. In England there is a saying about young men who are 'still tied to their mothers' apron strings'.

The other apron to which you refer with a piece of cloth (a bib) attached to the waist apron and which hung around the neck, did not normally have separate 'strings' attached to the bib. This just had one continuous string attached that went over the head. The string and the bib could even have been made out of just the one piece of material. This would have been the sort of apron that a housemaid would have worn and was a daintier garment. She would have put this on over her 'best' maid's dress later on in the day when she had finished her polishing, etc. duties. Earlier in the day she would have worn a dress that she kept for 'rougher' work - by this time in the late Victorian period made up in a material that had a little print on it. Waitresses also would have used the 'prettier' apron, as indeed, barmaids, etc.

Carol

[curious]

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT INDEED, if he cut open the apron to gain access to her body, it is only one vertical cut that's needed.

but if he needs to remove a piece, he has to cut two vertical lines, a foot apart,...... or one vertical line and undo the strings at the back, i think the apron was still tied together at the back, he therefore needs 2 vertical cuts to remove a piece...the strings at the back were probably a double bow and it's a bit awkward to roll over dead weight to do so.

Why not one vertical cut -- through the body of the apron, then a quick slice through where the string attached?

That way the piece is free, but there is no fuss or muss about the knot in the back?

[Malcolm X]

I suppose the point I'm making Carol, is that he had two options: untie or cut the apron. In the event he does one, he doesn't need to do the other.

Having that, this 'cutting of the apron for convenience' is an idea of mine that could do with some meat on the bones.

For example: the remaining piece of the apron was attached to 'the strings'. Do we know what is meant by 'strings'. I've been trying to determine this without success. Is it the strings around the waist or the strings around the neck?

Regardless, we know he needs access. We know he's ripping clothes apart. Would be impossible to rip apart an apron tied at the waist unless cut from the front.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT INDEED, if he cut open the apron to gain access to her body, it is only one vertical cut that's needed.

but if he needs to remove a piece, he has to cut two vertical lines, a foot apart,...... or one vertical line and undo the strings at the back, i think the apron was still tied together at the back, he therefore needs 2 vertical cuts to remove a piece...the strings at the back were probably a double bow and it's a bit awkward to roll over dead weight to do so.

conclusion :- the apron piece was cut off not because of problems with access, but because he wanted it for a reason.
he could quite easily have used her dress to wipe his hands/ knife, this piece of apron also looks too big to put a kidney in.

he was not disturbed, (thus he quickly cut off part of her apron and legged it), which is what i originally thought, he did this before he started mutilating, he might indeed still have been disturbed but not due to this, but for me, it looks like he had finished doing his thing and was long gone.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi everyone!

If the apron was tied at the back and was difficult to untie, thus making the killer decide to slit it at the front and then take one piece away with him, how come each 'string' was still individually attached to it's apron piece? Why were the two strings suddenly 'untied'? How did that happen?

Perhaps Eddowes had untied her apron, cut it herself, and used one half for a really thick piece of good absorbing cloth to 'mop' up a heavy flow of menstrual blood. The other piece was still reasonably clean for using as a menstrual 'rag' and was tucked away on her body along with the other smaller rags and everything else she carried around with her. After all, the second piece of apron wasn't noticed until the body was in the mortuary (I think I've remembered correctly here). (I think Trevor and Norway Phil will have some comments on this!).

Looking forward to your views, everyone - and corrections!

Carol

I suppose the point I'm making Carol, is that he had two options: untie or cut the apron. In the event he does one, he doesn't need to do the other.

Having that, this 'cutting of the apron for convenience' is an idea of mine that could do with some meat on the bones.

For example: the remaining piece of the apron was attached to 'the strings'. Do we know what is meant by 'strings'. I've been trying to determine this without success. Is it the strings around the waist or the strings around the neck?

Regardless, we know he needs access. We know he's ripping clothes apart. Would be impossible to rip apart an apron tied at the waist unless cut from the front.

[Carol]

Hi everyone!

If the apron was tied at the back and was difficult to untie, thus making the killer decide to slit it at the front and then take one piece away with him, how come each 'string' was still individually attached to it's apron piece? Why were the two strings suddenly 'untied'? How did that happen?

Perhaps Eddowes had untied her apron, cut it herself, and used one half for a really thick piece of good absorbing cloth to 'mop' up a heavy flow of menstrual blood. The other piece was still reasonably clean for using as a menstrual 'rag' and was tucked away on her body along with the other smaller rags and everything else she carried around with her. After all, the second piece of apron wasn't noticed until the body was in the mortuary (I think I've remembered correctly here). (I think Trevor and Norway Phil will have some comments on this!).

Looking forward to your views, everyone - and corrections!

Carol

[GregBaron]

Carrying evidence...

Still think the chances of Bundy being stopped in his car were slim.

Actually, I believe Bundy was arrested twice in his car, both after his escape from prison. He was apparently a bad driver.

He was pulled over in Florida for erratic driving and was found with "burglary" tools.

On another occasion he could have been caught with a head or a hand in his trunk. Again, boldness is a hallmark of the disorder.

Head in the trunk, kidney in the pocket - what's the difference among friends...


Greg

[lynn cates]

email

Hello Maria. Sure!

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

not quite, with regards to Bundy, the police were already searching for his Volkswagen Beetle ( cream/ yellow colour ?), plus they also had a rough description of him too.

Still think the chances of Bundy being stopped in his car were slim.

There's a much better chance the poet laureate would have been stopped.

[Fleetwood Mac]

might be a problem if he tips his hat.

Secret compartment in the top of the hat.

Failing that, I reckon I could talk my way out of it......

"I'm just making my way home from a dinner party with the Countess of Wessex, Sir William Gull, Prince Eddie, known as Jack The Ripper to his intimate friends, and Princess Mary of Tech. I must have picked up the wrong hat on my way out".

or

"It's a pig's bladder. I'm taking it home for my son and his mates to play football".

or

"What's it to you? Mind your own."

[curious]

Wasn't it one kidney?

Maybe under his hat.

The police wouldn't search there.

might be a problem if he tips his hat.