The Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Carol,
The theory you're expressing is an old one, generated by Trevor Marriott.
It doesn't make much sense though to imagine that Eddowes would have destroyed her one and only apron to use a piece of it as a menstrual pad when she possessed tons of clean, recently unused menstrual rags in her pockets. Apart from this, it appears that the piece of apron was not simply drenched in blood, as if used as a menstrual pad, but also drenched in fecal matter and body liquids consistent with the extraction of her kidney, postmortem.
There are several threads about this question in the Eddowes sub-forum, where the best informed specialists in Victorian clothing and accessories, Jane Coram and Archaic, discuss this.

The apron "piece" I use the term "piece" first it was not "half an apron as has been decsribed on here." Dr Bond desribed it as being "spotted" with blood with traces of facecal matter and wet.

Now the consultant gynecolgist used in the tests stated that blood spotting is consitent with the menstruation in some women. It was wet and having
regard it wasnt found outside I would suggest that it might been wet from urine and had traces of faecal matter on it all are consitent with the "piece" being between a woman legs especially a drunken street woman.

The other tests carried out by the gynecolgist "clearly" show that the organs were not carried away in this apron "piece"

The attched image was taken followeing the removal of a uterus from a living donor who was having a hysterctomy. The uterus was wrapped up for 15 mins. and the the phot taken. If the organs had been transported in the "piece" this is the way it would have been found and so describe.

The second image show how a cloth would look when bloodstained hands were wiped on it.

There is still a serious doubt about whether Eddowes was in fact actullay wearing any form, or part of an apron

[Monty]

This despite witness testimony, both on file and given at inquest, stating Eddowes was wearing an apron.

Monty

[mariab]

Now the consultant gynecolgist used in the tests stated that blood spotting is consitent with the menstruation in some women. It was wet and having regard it wasnt found outside I would suggest that it might been wet from urine and had traces of faecal matter on it all are consitent with the "piece" being between a woman legs especially a drunken street woman.

This would have been possible if Eddowes were sick and unable to control her bodily functions, but we have no evidence that she was THAT sick (from while she was in jail etc.). Not even Chapman was that sick. And at any rate, if Eddowes were having a problem, she would have used her other rags, which were multiple, handy, and unused. It makes more sense that the blood, urine, fecal matter etc. came postmortem.

The other tests carried out by the gynecolgist "clearly" show that the organs weere not carried away in this apron "piece"

I can't see how these tests could have been conducted in an accurate fashion unless there were freshly extracted organs included, which I really hope there weren't. ;-)

[Trevor Marriott]

This despite witness testimony, both on file and given at inquest, stating Eddowes was wearing an apron.

Monty

I did say serious doubt but

There have been varying descriptions of the apron piece that she was supposedly wearing and has been described in the following ways in various reports.
1. “Piece of old white apron” (Jack the Ripper A-Z)

2. “Piece of old white apron with repair” ( Casebook lists this under possessions and not clothing worn.)

3. “Piece of White apron (As described by Inspector Collard who listed her clothes and possessions at the mortuary when the body was stripped shortly after 3am on arrival at the mortuary)

In his inquest testimony he states "I produce a portion of the apron which the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress."

None of the above suggests to me that Eddowes was actually wearing an apron.

Piece is open to interpratation

[Monty]

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;195310]I did say serious doubt but

There have been varying descriptions of the apron piece that she was supposedly wearing and has been described in the following ways in various reports.
1. “Piece of old white apron” (Jack the Ripper A-Z)

2. “Piece of old white apron with repair” ( Casebook lists this under possessions and not clothing worn.)

3. “Piece of White apron (As described by Inspector Collard who listed her clothes and possessions at the mortuary when the body was stripped shortly after 3am on arrival at the mortuary)

In his inquest testimony he states "I produce a portion of the apron which the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress."

None of the above suggests to me that Eddowes was actually wearing an apron.

Piece is open to interpratation[/QUOTE]

PCs Robinson and Hutt stated Eddowes was wearing an apron and to the best of their belief, it was the one produced at inquest.

Collard and Brown stated that the apron was upon and attached to her body.

The apron appears in Browns drawing of the body in situ.

All this was made at inquest.

There is little doubt at all Eddowes was wearing an apron at the time of her murder.

Monty

[mariab]

Pertaining to the pics posted by Trevor Marriott, something's telling me that the hasty removal of organs by a serial killer in a dark alley between 2 police beats would result in more blood trace/fluids trace vs. the careful uterus removal by a doctor performed on a living donor in a sterilized environment during a hysterectomy. The same about blood trace on a cloth used by a surgeon to whipe their hands than by a killer, as the surgeon would have been much more “economical“ in their movements and careful in their handling of organs while performing surgery. In Eddowes' case, the Ripper extracted the kidney from the wrong direction (from the front vs. from behind) which most plausibly resulted in a real mess of body fluids, and the piece of apron would have been affected accordingly. Not to mention all the other injuries/indignities done to her, which would generate additional postmortem bodily fluids all around the scene.

There is no doubt that Eddowes was wearing an apron at the time of her murder, as the apron appears in Brown's drawing of the body in situ.

[Trevor Marriott]

This would have been possible if Eddowes were sick and unable to control her bodily functions, but we have no evidence that she was THAT sick (from while she was in jail etc.). Not even Chapman was that sick. And at any rate, if Eddowes were having a problem, she would have used her other rags, which were multiple, handy, and unused. It makes more sense that the blood, urine, fecal matter etc. came postmortem.


I can't see how these tests could have been conducted in an accurate fashion unless there were freshly extracted organs included, which I really hope there weren't. ;-)

Fresh as a daisy out of the abdomen into the cloth just as the killer is suposed to have done !

[mariab]

Fresh as a daisy out of the abdomen into the cloth just as the killer is suposed to have done!

Yep, I got that (pics turned up late in your post, so I initially missed them), but the extraction by a doctor vs. an unskilled killer would have been different – resulting in more blood trace in Eddowes' case than it the pics you posted. Which still I'm not quite clear what they are supposed to prove, since we don't have the original piece of apron. Unless you intended them simply as illustrations.

[Trevor Marriott]

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;195310]I did say serious doubt but

There have been varying descriptions of the apron piece that she was supposedly wearing and has been described in the following ways in various reports.
1. “Piece of old white apron” (Jack the Ripper A-Z)

2. “Piece of old white apron with repair” ( Casebook lists this under possessions and not clothing worn.)

3. “Piece of White apron (As described by Inspector Collard who listed her clothes and possessions at the mortuary when the body was stripped shortly after 3am on arrival at the mortuary)

In his inquest testimony he states "I produce a portion of the apron which the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress."

None of the above suggests to me that Eddowes was actually wearing an apron.

Piece is open to interpratation

PCs Robinson and Hutt stated Eddowes was wearing an apron and to the best of their belief, it was the one produced at inquest.

Collard and Brown stated that the apron was upon and attached to her body.

The apron appears in Browns drawing of the body in situ.

All this was made at inquest.

There is little doubt at all Eddowes was wearing an apron at the time of her murder.

Monty
[/QUOTE]

The issue here is whether the killer cut the "piece" or whether the apron piece had either been cut or torn by her for whatever purpose, and more to the point how it got to Goulston Street and who took it there !

The sketch of Dr Brown does not show an apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Yep, I got that (pics turned up late in your post, so I initially missed them), but the extraction by a doctor vs. an unskilled killer would have been different – resulting in more blood trace in Eddowes' case than it the pics you posted. Which still I'm not quite clear what they are supposed to prove, since we don't have the original piece of apron. Unless you intended them simply as illustrations.

Was the killer unskilled ?

Blood trace, dont be ridiculous the blood loss would be the same wether it was taken out by the butcher the baker or the candlestick maker. The amount of blood running through the uterus and the kidney would be the same.

The test proves that if you wrapped a kidney and a uterus in a cloth it would be heavily bloodstained and the staining would be central to the clothand not how the apron piece found in Goulton St has been described. Dont forget the cloth in the pic only had a uterus in it double the blood staining if you were to include a kidney as well.

[mariab]

dont be ridiculous the blood loss would be the same wether it was taken out by the butcher the baker or the candlestick maker. The amount of blood running through the uterus would be the same.

Not at all. Blood trace and body fluids trace would vary considerably if a surgeon carefully put their hands inside and extracted an organ, vs. the Ripper pushing his knife and hands inside, from the wrong side (from in front vs. from behind), looking around for the kidney, then cutting her eyelids and nose, then extracting her intestines and wrapping them around her neck. Plus, we're talking uterus vs. kidney here, and I'm willing to bet that a kidney is much harder to extract without creating a mess when one's not a doctor or a butcher.

The test proves that if you wrapped a kidney and a uterus in a cloth it would be heavily bloodstained and the staining would be central to the clothand not how the apron piece found in Goulton St has been described.

I wouldn't characterize your pics as heavily bloodstained. They are minimally bloodstained and speak of a sterilized and careful environment, which is totally the opposite from the Eddowes scene. In other words, you've had a clever idea with the test in question, but I'm afraid that the environments are a bit different.
But I agree that the staining would have been central to the cloth if the piece of apron was used to transport organs. Personally I happen to believe that the Ripper brought his own stuff to wrap and transport the organs and that he might have taken the apron piece either as a souvenir or already planning to discard it to toy with the police.

[niko]

Hi everyone, what I understand Dr Brown said at Eddowes inquest (found on casebook) " I fitted the portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the string's to the body " I can't find where he say's the piece was "wet", but further on in the inquest, consable Alfred Long who was the policeman who found the piece of apron said "one corner of which was wet with blood", like I've mentioned before, one thing is stained with blood and another is wet with blood, if it was wet with blood I supose there had been some heavy bleeding going on.

One thing I don't understand I thought the "of recent origin bloodspots" were on the piece of apron remaining on Eddowes body, "I must of been mistaken". All the best, Agur.

niko

[Steven Russell]

But PC Long did say the apron piece was "covered in blood", Trevor.

I watched "The German Suspect" again today and must say I understand better your thoughts about the organs being removed later.

But the stuff about the apron is meaningless.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Tom_Wescott]

And I'm concerned that fixed views like your's are exclusive and inhibiting. So there is why i continue to argue, debate, question and review. I find your thinking sterile and going nowhere, but to build a house of cards, assumption based on inference. I find the views of writers like AP, refreshing ebcause they make you look again. Closed minds BAD, open minds GOOD, in my book.

AP Based his whole ‘Kidney killed Stride’ theory around the absurd idea that Kidney ran into Leman Street police station BEFORE STRIDE WAS IDENTIFIED and lectured them on their ability to find the killer. Naturally, if this had happened, Kidney would have been a prime suspect, but his trip to the station was on Oct. 1st, after they’d already had him view the body. This is where the ‘Kidney killed Stride’ nonsense came from, and I’ve proved it all false. I have an open mind, but I also possess the faculties to note facts from fictions, and respect for myself and others to know my facts the best I can before I publish and take people’s money. AP, God bless him, always had a disdain for the facts. Theories based on shoddy research BAD, facts GOOD.

Tom, I'm terribly sorry, but I hadn't realised this site had become your personal fief.

Don’t worry about it, it usually takes people a while to figure that out.

In that case, he's not much of a planner.

Let's see what he supposedly does:

a) Kills and mutiliates.
b) Takes the time to cut off a piece of cloth.
c) Wraps organs in cloth and legs it.
d) Stops in the street to take the organs out of his pocket, clean his knife, clean his hands, and return the organs to his pocket.

Not exactly. The Ripper had no need to either wipe his hands on the apron nor wrap the tiny organs in it, although he may have done the latter for convenience sake. And he didn’t stop in the street. You forget that 45 minutes or so passed between the murder and his dropping the apron off in Goulston Street, so he went somewhere relatively nearby where he deposited the organs and knife, cleaned up, probably changed clothes, and left again with the apron piece and a piece of chalk, then just waiting for a clear coast to write his wit. This is what the evidence says. In order to fit the idea that you have outlined, you have to accuse PC Long of lying, which is not something the evidence compels me to do. If your argument requires Long to have been lying or mistaken, you’ve lost the debate right there. You’re dealing with a very organized killer here, not one who depended on mere luck to murder all these women in the open and not get caught. The Ripper is unique for a reason.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Trevor,

I'm curious what you make of the 'Z' like wound on Eddowes stomach, discussed in Martin Fido's book (and probably A-Z) and visible in some pics.

To all,

Also, the apron was only saturated in blood in one corner, this probably the 'corner' that fitted to the upper part of the apron, and could have become bloody from the intestines or whatnot from the crime scene. We shouldn't assume the Ripper cut the apron off last. He may have done this prior to lifting her skirts to mutilate her, and the apron portion could have become saturated from contact with the ever growing puddle of blood on her left side and between her legs, better explaining the presence of the fecal matter on the apron.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott