The Apron

[Hunter]

I give up.
Beam me up Scotty.

[Supe]

Cris,

I give up.
Beam me up Scotty

I quite agree.

Of course, the Mitre Square apron part was matched to that in Goulston Street by the fact that it was riven across a patch and yet no mention that there was nor bottom hem and, in fact, a substantial part was missing and cut into 12 sanitary napkin substitutes. The whole idea is laughable.

Don.

[Monty]

Cris,

I give up.
Beam me up Scotty

I quite agree.

Of course, the Mitre Square apron part was matched to that in Goulston Street by the fact that it was riven across a patch and yet no mention that there was nor bottom hem and, in fact, a substantial part was missing and cut into 12 sanitary napkin substitutes. The whole idea is laughable.

Don.

Laughable wouldn't be at the top of my descriptive list of words.

Another amendment to one of the ,countrys leading Ripper experts'. It was Long who found the apron, not Watkins as Trevor states.

And there was a not of items removed. Not exstensive granted, but it is mentioned.

This is basic stuff.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Cris,

I give up.
Beam me up Scotty

I quite agree.

Of course, the Mitre Square apron part was matched to that in Goulston Street by the fact that it was riven across a patch and yet no mention that there was nor bottom hem and, in fact, a substantial part was missing and cut into 12 sanitary napkin substitutes. The whole idea is laughable.

Don.

No more laughable than the suggestion that the killer after subjecting her to a ferocious attack, calmy stops the attack and performs precise surgical removal of the organs, then performs a precise move to cut a perfect piece off of the apron taking it away with him and then for no obvious reason deposits it a third of a mile away.

I have seen pics of victorian womens apron posted on here which beleive has confused people. There were two types of aprons worn the full length and the smaller one pic attcahed. This is the type of apron which is likley to have strimgs attcahed.

[Trevor Marriott]

Laughable wouldn't be at the top of my descriptive list of words.

Another amendment to one of the ,countrys leading Ripper experts'. It was Long who found the apron, not Watkins as Trevor states.

And there was a not of items removed. Not exstensive granted, but it is mentioned.

This is basic stuff.

Monty

We all make mistakes just glad i dont put my foot in it as many times as you

[Fleetwood Mac]

I was picturing this last night.

It seems this was a big piece of apron.

How does he carry this thing around?

Presumably it's quite bulky when folded or wrapped - does he run down the street with this thing slung over his shoulder? Does he attach it to himself somehow? Will it fit neatly into his pocket or will he have to carry it?

Also, why doesn't he use one of Eddowes' pieces of cloth. Judging by Inspector Collard's statement her pockets were rifled. Surely it would have been more expedient to take what was already available?

Oh, and Tom, on reflection I agree. For Long to see the apron at 2.55 it must have been visible from the street; if he says it wasn't visible from the street at 2.20 then you're absolutely correct in that must be assumed it wasn't there.

[Garza]

Trevor, why would she cut up half the apron and then wear the other half? Wouldn't it make more sense to cut up the whole apron? The apron is pretty much ruined.

And precise removal of the organs? I don't think that is the case with Eddowes, in fact he made a bit of a horlix of it all.

Edit: Moreover, once the apron became an important part of the investigation, wouldn't the logical course of action be to ask the policemen at the station were Eddowes was held, the state of her apron at the time she left the police station, especially if it was found cut into 13 pieces as you say?

Nowhere anywhere, did anyone say or write at the time that her apron was cut up into pieces. Why in ripperology must some people pull stuff from thin air with absolutely no basis of evidence whatsoever?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, why would she cut up half the apron and then wear the other half? Wouldn't it make more sense to cut up the whole apron? The apron is pretty much ruined.

And precise removal of the organs? I don't think that is the case with Eddowes, in fact he made a bit of a horlix of it all.

Edit: Moreover, once the apron became an important part of the investigation, wouldn't the logical course of action be to ask the policemen at the station were Eddowes was held, the state of her apron at the time she left the police station, especially if it was found cut into 13 pieces as you say?

Nowhere anywhere, did anyone say or write at the time that her apron was cut up into pieces. Why in ripperology must some people pull stuff from thin air with absolutely no basis of evidence whatsoever?

I am merely looking at alternative scenarios to that which has been readily accepted for over 123 years. Because no matter how you look at it that as i have said before does not come up to close scrutiny.

So I wil ask again why would Edowwes have 12 pieces of rag and where did she get them from to have been able to cut them up in the first place, and of course they were apron coloured white

[Malcolm X]

Fair comment, Hunter, I'm struggling to counter that with anything sensible.

It does beg a related question: why didn't Jack take some of this cloth to wipe the knife or wrap the organs? Seems it was common knowledge that women walked round with this stuff on their belonging. Particularly as it seems her pockets were rifled.

he ripped off part of the apron instead, because this will match like a Jigsaw, to the apron remaining on her body, but a piece of cloth from her pocket can belong to anyone....even if it is covered in blood, from a severe nosebleed etc

with the apron piece no.....there is no mistake

[Jon Guy]

So I wil ask again why would Edowwes have 12 pieces of rag

Possibly, because she did some hawking.

and where did she get them from to have been able to cut them up in the first place

From someone who supplied bits and bobs to hawkers.

[Fleetwood Mac]

he ripped off part of the apron instead, because this will match like a Jigsaw, to the apron remaining on her body, but a piece of cloth from her pocket can belong to anyone....even if it is covered in blood, from a severe nosebleed etc

with the apron piece no.....there is no mistake

So, basically it comes back to wanting to claim credit for his work.

Except he didn't claim credit for his work through a piece of apron.

Apron or no apron, it was assumed this was the work of the Whitechapel Murderer, it didn't need an apron in the street to make the point.

Unless, of course, you're coming back to the writing, which is just a garbled piece of scrawl that everyone is still arguing about what it means, and whether or not it has anything to do with the murder. As said, considering it doesn't mention the murder then the theory needs some mental acrobatics to arrive at your conclusion.

Interestingly though, if it is assumed that the apron was dropped between 2.20 and 2.55 then it suggests he was within the reach of the police search, in hiding, before dropping the apron; or it was someone who could be confident he would not be stopped and searched.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Mac.

"Interestingly though, if it is assumed that the apron was dropped between 2.20 and 2.55 then it suggests he was within the reach of the police search, in hiding, before dropping the apron; or it was someone who could be confident he would not be stopped and searched."

Bingo!

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Mac.

"Interestingly though, if it is assumed that the apron was dropped between 2.20 and 2.55 then it suggests he was within the reach of the police search, in hiding, before dropping the apron; or it was someone who could be confident he would not be stopped and searched."

Bingo!

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I was trying to work out last night the level of police numbers involved in this search.

I think Inspector Collard said something like he directed police in all directions of Spitalfields, but then there weren't many at the scene, and there's no reference to drafting in police officers from the station. I think he adds something like several men were stopped and searched.

I had assumed that the area would have been crawling with police, but was it?

Any ideas?

Has anyone tried to work out just how many police were involved in this search?

It appears that only Detective Halse (once) and PC Long (twice) passed through Goulston Street, which would suggest that actually Jack could quite easily have evaded the police's grasp in that area.

But, then why wait til between 2.20 and 2.55?

If the police search was limited, as witness testimony suggests, and Jack dropped the apron between 2.20 and 2.55, then that suggests Jack was in a place where he simply couldn't raise his head above the parapet until the police had done their thing (what? 30 minutes to 45 minutes from 2.05?); and in the context of a limited police search, it would seem that it is a decent shout that he was in hiding very, very close to Mitre Square.

[Monty]

We all make mistakes just glad i dont put my foot in it as many times as you

Do you reckon Trev?

Yet another mistake.

Monty

[Phil H]

I believe that ALL styles of apron would have had "strings".

Even a large apron with a bib (no doubt with a halter round the neck, would have had strings at the waist to tie behind).

I don't think that the style of apron often worn during the war (1939-45) which was like a coat and wrapped round to tie or fasten in front (much favoured by "char ladies" in my youth) had yet been invented.

Apron strings were such a feature that they did, of course, become part of a familiar saying, about men "not having cut their apron strings".

Phil