The Apron

[mariab]

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

Yo, this already sounds better! The idea that he carried chalk on himself pre-double event has always bothered me. That he might have gone home, disposed of the organs, washed up, and fetched some chalk after having collected the piece of apron appears much more realistic. It implies that the idea about the GSG (if it was indeed written by the Ripper) generated slowly. I should have figured this out myself, but so far I've never yet timed the events on Mitre Square (vs. Berner Street).

Plus I too was thinking that the apron might have been cut “accidentally“ during his cutting Eddowes (and contaminated with her blood, body fluids etc.) BEFORE the killer collected it.

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.

What I think we're dealing with here is a killer capable of both organized behaviour AND improvising, adapting to circumstances, as the double event clearly illustrates.

[Raoul's Obsession]

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

Perhps whether she was wearing it or not may be open to some debate, but the size of it does not appear to have been small. I think an excellent description of the whole apron affair is provided in "A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour" by Jon Smyth in the dissertations section of casebook.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

The following text is taken from that dissertation:


We happen to have one account of a statement by Detective Sergeant Halse:

'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam.'

- (Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126)

Also, Sir Henry Smith, though heavily critisized for being inaccurate in some statements, was at least known to be present for this report:

'By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'.

- (Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner - pg 152)

personally, I'm convinced it was rather big - which is perhaps also why Long states that he couldn't have missed it on his first walk past.

Raoul

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Tom
The Z like wound I presume you are referring to is the mortuary photo which was taken after the post mortem when she had been stitched up.
This pic clearly shows the the killer stuck the knife into her abdomen and drew it in an upwards direction hence the jagged wound. Alternativly the same type of wound could have occurred when she could have been lying on her back.

You also have to look at the fact that if the killer was after organs then why would he have caused so much damage to the abdomen why not simply cut her throat and be done with it. You also have to look at the fact that the killer carried out a frenzied attack on Eddowes and then suddenly stops the attack and calms down sufficiently enough to remove these organs with some precision with precision you need time and time he didnt have.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Steven
As I said in an earlier post the issue with regards to the apron piece is who cut or tore it and for what purpose and who deposited it in Goulston St.

If you eliminate the possibilites that the killer did not cut or tear it to wipe his hands or carry away the organs. It doesnt leave to many other possibilities does it.

[Monty]

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

I endorse Toms post above.

Excellent and often overlooked points.

Monty

[Phil H]

This is where the ‘Kidney killed Stride’ nonsense came from, and I’ve proved it all false.

Do I detect a note of "hubris"?

Tom you have PROVED nothing, you have advanced arguments and ideas. There is a difference.

Phil

[mariab]

Phil, have you by any chance read Exonerating Michael Kidney (in Examiner #1)? Some things are provable without hybris, you know. :-) That's what science, research, and logic are about.

[Phil H]

It is not something that is CAPABLE of proof - not at this distance anyway.

Phil

[Carol]

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.

Hello Maria,
Thanks for your feedback. Thanks also for the info regarding Jane Coram's and Archaic's discussion on Victorian clothing.
Carol

[Carol]

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

Hello Trevor,

I was very interested to read your post.

'Spotting' is certainly consistent with many women's periods. Usually women who are lucky enough to have periods lasting only a couple of days. Eddowes was old enough to have started the menopause and that can cause havoc with periods. It is very common to have a very heavy, long period one month and then a very light, short period the next month, once 'the change' has begun. Also, sometimes several months can go by without having a period and that can really cause havoc with a woman's preparedness!

Maria will probably faint but I'm quite proud of myself that I've 'come up' with a theory that a Ripper author has already come up with!

Carol

[Abby Normal]

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.



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



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

Hi Tom


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.

This is exactly the scenario i had put forth before and I agree- the evidence seems to point to as the sequence of events IMHO.

I would also add that the impetus for leaving the apron/GSG was that he was seen/interupted by jews that night and was pissed off about it, but of course not knowing this would happen before he set out, did not have chalk on him.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

I was very interested to read your post.

'Spotting' is certainly consistent with many women's periods. Usually women who are lucky enough to have periods lasting only a couple of days. Eddowes was old enough to have started the menopause and that can cause havoc with periods. It is very common to have a very heavy, long period one month and then a very light, short period the next month, once 'the change' has begun. Also, sometimes several months can go by without having a period and that can really cause havoc with a woman's preparedness!

Maria will probably faint but I'm quite proud of myself that I've 'come up' with a theory that a Ripper author has already come up with!

Carol

Hi Carol
You realise now that you and I wil now have to stand alone and fight the hordes of ripperologists who do not subscribe to the same view. But stand firm in the ranks they shall not pass

It a more sesnible approach than the suggestion that the killer performed major surgery on Eddowes in almost total darkness with her abdomen ripped open and full of blood from the wounds inflicted and then took the organs away in the apron piece and then discarded it minus the organs,

[Carol]

Hi Carol
You realise now that you and I wil now have to stand alone and fight the hordes of ripperologists who do not subscribe to the same view. But stand firm in the ranks they shall not pass

It a more sesnible approach than the suggestion that the killer performed major surgery on Eddowes in almost total darkness with her abdomen ripped open and full of blood from the wounds inflicted and then took the organs away in the apron piece and then discarded it minus the organs,

Hi Trevor!
I've always been 'different' (as my mother and father would tell you if they were still in the land of the living). I'm too old to change now!
Carol

[Steven Russell]

Steven
As I said in an earlier post the issue with regards to the apron piece is who cut or tore it and for what purpose and who deposited it in Goulston St.

If you eliminate the possibilites that the killer did not cut or tear it to wipe his hands or carry away the organs. It doesnt leave to many other possibilities does it.

No , it doesn't. But why do we need to make those assumptions? By the way, I am assuming you meant the reverse of what you said i.e. "If you eliminate the possibility that the killer cut or tore it..."

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Trevor,

I think your theory is not a bad one at all; one better than most I've read in this thread.

Just one point, though:

You expect the blood to be soaked in the middle as opposed to the corner.

Wouldn't it depend upon how he wrapped the organs?

For instance, he may have placed the organs in the corner and wrapped them up like a bag of fish and chip, rather than placed them in the middle and pulled the corners together into a bundle.