The Apron

[Carol]

I strongly suspect that the graffito was there before the cloth was dropped.

I definitely think so. I think it was written by a young boy
who lived in the building. He was a Jew and was just old enough to realise (and understand) what most of the rest of the world thought about his people. He wrote it in defiance.

The killer had seen this writing earlier in the day and thought he could use it. He took the piece of apron with menstrual blood on it with the one intent of leaving it as close as possible to the writing. The apron had already been cut by Eddowes herself for use as a menstrual 'rag' for an unusually heavy flow of blood. The other half of the apron was tucked away on her body with all the other items. The smaller pieces of 'rag' were just that - too small to be of any use to mop up a lot of blood. Eddowes was of the age to have started the menopause and it is very common to have very heavy flows of blood one month and then only a small amount of blood the next, not to mention periods being missed. I think it possible that her period came when she wasn't expecting it - hence the use of the apron. By all accounts she was a clean woman who was as particular as she could be bearing in mind her circumstances. If I had been in her situation I would also have cut up my apron for use as a 'rag' if the blood flow was particularly heavy - blood gets everywhere and the possibilities for cleaning clothes were very poor. Blood is also very difficult to remove from clothing if it has been allowed to dry.

The fact that she had so many odds and ends on herself was just her carrying all her belongings with her. Anything left behind at a common lodging house would have been stolen. (Stride asked her friend at the lodging house to take care of a piece of green velvet for her before she went out that night).

(If Birmingham Phil reads this then he will be confirmed in his suspicions that I am definitely not an 'historical method' enthusiast. You were right, Phil!).

I know the above is pure conjecture but it is based entirely on what we know.

Carol

[Chava]

Carol, I agree. Eddowes carried everything she had in the world on her back or in her pockets. And she was certainly old enough to be in menopause or peri-menopause, either of which would have led to very heavy and horridly unexpected periods. It's certainly possible that what he took away was not a piece of cloth he had cut from her apron, but a piece of cloth she herself had cut from the old apron she carried with her to use as a makeshift pad. They used rags anyway in those days so what she was doing was normal. My only problem with that idea is that, if she was using it that way, the cloth would be folded in multiple layers to catch the blood and the blood would be blotched through in roughly the same place on each layer. I remember my mother describing how they folded rags to use as pads and it was done in a particular way to be most effective.

By the way, we'll never know this, but I wonder which other victims were 'on the rag' as it used to be called when they were killed. Maybe that was a trigger...?

[Celesta]

Carol, . My only problem with that idea is that, if she was using it that way, the cloth would be folded in multiple layers to catch the blood and the blood would be blotched through in roughly the same place on each layer. I remember my mother describing how they folded rags to use as pads and it was done in a particular way to be most effective.

I think so, too, Chava. I wish there was a photo of that darn piece of cloth.

I hope you're well. Haven't seen you in awhile.

[ChrisGeorge]

The apron had already been cut by Eddowes herself for use as a menstrual 'rag' for an unusually heavy flow of blood. The other half of the apron was tucked away on her body with all the other items.

Hi Carol

It sounds as if you have been persuaded by Trevor's argument that the piece of rag had been cut by the victim to use as a menstrual rag. But neither Lawende nor anyone else remarked that the woman looked odd because she was only wearing part of an apron, so I think the theory is unlikely.

Chris

[Carol]

Carol, My only problem with that idea is that, if she was using it that way, the cloth would be folded in multiple layers to catch the blood and the blood would be blotched through in roughly the same place on each layer. I remember my mother describing how they folded rags to use as pads and it was done in a particular way to be most effective.

Hi Chava!

Thank you for your thoughts and for pointing out the above. Something that needs looking into (at least for me!).

I know you are 'anonymous' (I've just checked your personal details) but would it be giving too much away if you told me what country you are from?

Thanks.

Carol

[Chava]

Hi Celesta! I'm fine. Just that sometimes work gets in the way of Ripperology...

Carol, I'm originally from the North of England although I lived in London for quite a while. Now I'm in Toronto. I do go back to the UK a lot. Two or three times a year.

As for the apron, I posted about this yesterday. Apart from the policeman in Bishopsgate there are no eye-witness sightings of Eddowes wearing the apron, and given what she had on at the time I'm pretty sure she wasn't. I think it's entirely likely the cop saw her calico pocket and assumed it was an apron, and then when shown the apron said 'that's it!'. The other victims were not wearing aprons when they were killed, and there would be no reason for Eddowes to do so either. Then as now you wore an apron when you were actually doing some kind of work that might spoil your clothing. Unless you were a skivvy or a cook and so wore an apron all day every day. Eddowes was out on the razzle. She didn't need an apron for that, and if she wanted to pick up customers, an apron would have given a disturbingly domestic impression...

[Carol]

Hi Carol

It sounds as if you have been persuaded by Trevor's argument that the piece of rag had been cut by the victim to use as a menstrual rag. But neither Lawende nor anyone else remarked that the woman looked odd because she was only wearing part of an apron, so I think the theory is unlikely.

Chris

Hi Chris,

I haven't actually read anything that Trevor has written (except for his recent posts). My thoughts are my own - not all of us on Casebook are sheep and we can think independently, thank you. In fact, I take offence at what you have written.

If you had read my post correctly you would have seen that I suggested the other part of her apron was carried on her body together with all her other belongings.

Through this post I would like to say to all the bullies out there who think that we 'Johnny Come Latelies' are illogical and only present ideas that 'so-called experts' find beneath them to think about - don't think that you can make us leave Casebook just to youselves to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other on how wonderful you are.

Having got that off my chest, and no doubt getting banned into the bargain,
I remain, as always

Carol

[Carol]

I think so, too, Chava. I wish there was a photo of that darn piece of cloth.

Hi Celesta,
Me too!
Carol

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris,

I haven't actually read anything that Trevor has written (except for his recent posts). My thoughts are my own - not all of us on Casebook are sheep and we can think independently, thank you. In fact, I take offence at what you have written.

If you had read my post correctly you would have seen that I suggested the other part of her apron was carried on her body together with all her other belongings.

Through this post I would like to say to all the bullies out there who think that we 'Johnny Come Latelies' are illogical and only present ideas that 'so-called experts' find beneath them to think about - don't think that you can make us leave Casebook just to youselves to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other on how wonderful you are.

Having got that off my chest, and no doubt getting banned into the bargain,
I remain, as always

Carol

Sorry to offend you, Carol, or to be perceived to be "bullying" you. I think most who know me in this forum will attest that I don't do that. I am only interested in the truth, just as you are.

Best regards

Chris

[Monty]

Carol,

I'm afraid you have chosen the wrong Guy to label as a 'Bully'.

Christopher T George is nothing less than a Gentlemen. One of the first to welcome me to the boards over 10 years ago.

Whilst he may disagree he hardly ever engages in heated debate and always knows where that line is, being respectful to boot.

You are more than welcome to your views, and express them at will. Just don't start mouthing off at our locals, especially a local who has paid his dues, conducted his research and who is a published author.

Chris deserved better than that.

Monty

[Monty]

Hi Celesta! I'm fine. Just that sometimes work gets in the way of Ripperology...

Carol, I'm originally from the North of England although I lived in London for quite a while. Now I'm in Toronto. I do go back to the UK a lot. Two or three times a year.

As for the apron, I posted about this yesterday. Apart from the policeman in Bishopsgate there are no eye-witness sightings of Eddowes wearing the apron, and given what she had on at the time I'm pretty sure she wasn't. I think it's entirely likely the cop saw her calico pocket and assumed it was an apron, and then when shown the apron said 'that's it!'. The other victims were not wearing aprons when they were killed, and there would be no reason for Eddowes to do so either. Then as now you wore an apron when you were actually doing some kind of work that might spoil your clothing. Unless you were a skivvy or a cook and so wore an apron all day every day. Eddowes was out on the razzle. She didn't need an apron for that, and if she wanted to pick up customers, an apron would have given a disturbingly domestic impression...

Robinson, Hutt and Byfield stated she wore an apron. Eddowes was found with an apron attached to her by strings.

She carried all about her.

Monty

[lynn cates]

pussycat

Hello Chris.

"I think most who know me in this forum will attest that I don't do that. I am only interested in the truth, just as you are."

Well, that was always my perception of you. Never a cross (Lechmere?) word. (heh-heh) Always a pussycat.

Cheers.
LC

[Celesta]

Hi Celesta,
Me too!
Carol

It would certainly settle some issues, wouldn't it? Having a photo, I mean.

[Wickerman]

If the graffito was written by the killer, he could have been just expressing his frustrations on the night, i.e., as if to say, "I tried to mutilate the woman by the side of the Jewish socialist club but the Jews interrupted me. So you see what they made me do -- kill this second woman behind the synagogue!"

Chris

Absolutely Chris, but in fewer words, howzabout..

"..and then there were two, because of the Jew!"

That would cover it...


Regards, Jon S.

[Celesta]

Hi Carol

It sounds as if you have been persuaded by Trevor's argument that the piece of rag had been cut by the victim to use as a menstrual rag. But neither Lawende nor anyone else remarked that the woman looked odd because she was only wearing part of an apron, so I think the theory is unlikely.

Chris

It just seems that a cut apron would be noteworthy, would seem unusual and stick in a witness' mind.