The Apron Again

[caz]

You can believe that Eddowes had a delicate little apron like the French maids in a Benny Hill show, Trev, but all the evidence points to it being a practical, no-nonsense bit of kit for her; an extra layer to cover and protect the front of her skirts from waist down. I seriously doubt that the tiny Eddowes would have needed, or wasted, half of it on the purposes you have firmly set in your mind. The remaining half would have been little use as an apron after that, but still a vast amount of cloth to use up in one 'go', so to speak.

The night was unusual enough already, Trev, as even you would surely admit. But we do know that serial killers have since taken personal items from their victims, for their own strange reasons, some found later discarded, some never found. So it's not as if I'm dreaming up anything particularly unusual for this killer to have done. What you are dreaming up for Eddowes, however, goes beyond unusual and enters the realm of the plain silly. And all for what? Because your theory does not allow for her killer to have walked down Goulston St, perhaps?

Love,

Caz
X

PS Thanks, Simon. I rest my case.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's a replication of Eddowes' clothing made by Claudia Aliffe for the 2007 Ripper Conference.



Picture courtesy of Ripperologist.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would I want to take things to the extreme, Trev? That's your job and you do it very well. But it's hardly extreme to suggest that Eddowes could have acquired the apron that way. It's only extreme to conclude that her killer had bugger all to do with the fact that it ended up ripped and bloody and in two more or less equal pieces, one on her body and one a few streets away. Had her missing kidney been found with the latter, we'd have had a double double double event. But naturally you could still have taken things to the extreme and theorised that Eddowes had stolen a pig's kidney for her supper, but dropped it as she was wiping her arse or front bottom with this vast amount of recently acquired cloth.

Love,

Caz
X

I think you need to go back on the valium you are losing contol again

No eveidnce to show their was a vast amount of apron for start.

We do not know the size of the original apron and as has been said before if it were just a small one then even half would not be a big piece I think people have got carried away with the suggestion that she was wearing a full length apron thats of course is she was at all.

[caz]

If you want to take thingt to the extreme you dont know that the apron with the repair was in fact hers in the first place how do you know that it had not been discarded by another as being worn out etc and Eddowes had picked it up on her travels days before and had been using it.

Why would I want to take things to the extreme, Trev? That's your job and you do it very well. But it's hardly extreme to suggest that Eddowes could have acquired the apron that way. It's only extreme to conclude that her killer had bugger all to do with the fact that it ended up ripped and bloody and in two more or less equal pieces, one on her body and one a few streets away. Had her missing kidney been found with the latter, we'd have had a double double double event. But naturally you could still have taken things to the extreme and theorised that Eddowes had stolen a pig's kidney for her supper, but dropped it as she was wiping her arse or front bottom with this vast amount of recently acquired cloth.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

She did have both options, C4. She also had the option to take off all her clothes and dance naked in the street. But you missed my very next words when I said she chose to keep the apron on her person. In short, we AGREED that she would not have chosen to throw it away!

I don't understand the rest of your post, maybe you are confusing me with someone else. It's not my 'theory' that the killer left the apron ripped and bloody after leaving Eddowes likewise. It's pretty much a physical certainty - and we have few enough of those as it is. But I don't feel personally 'threatened' by anyone who wants to theorise for the next ten years, with no visible support, that Eddowes left her own apron ripped and bloody shortly before the killer coincidentally did the same for her. In any case, dear old Trev couldn't threaten the skin off a rice pudding, so he's got no chance with a thick-skinned old bird like me. And I don't imagine the old-timers here see me as lacking in confidence.

Love,

Caz
X

Thick skinned old bird hmmmmmmmmmmm had a few of those in my time.

I never utter threats I am far to much of a gentleman for that. Other ways of proving ones points.

[caz]

Hello Caz,

Could have sworn you wrote "she had two options - take it off and chuck it or wear it" or words to that effect....

Sorry you feel threatened by other theories than your own, but isnīt discussion the whole point on the boards?, However I think we should keep things civil. When you have gained a little in confidence you will find you donīt need anyone to hold your hand.

No intention of getting into a cat-fight about this, however much the boys would like it, so will say no more on this subject.

Yours,
C4

She did have both options, C4. She also had the option to take off all her clothes and dance naked in the street. But you missed my very next words when I said she chose to keep the apron on her person. In short, we AGREED that she would not have chosen to throw it away!

I don't understand the rest of your post, maybe you are confusing me with someone else. It's not my 'theory' that the killer left the apron ripped and bloody after leaving Eddowes likewise. It's pretty much a physical certainty - and we have few enough of those as it is. But I don't feel personally 'threatened' by anyone who wants to theorise for the next ten years, with no visible support, that Eddowes left her own apron ripped and bloody shortly before the killer coincidentally did the same for her. In any case, dear old Trev couldn't threaten the skin off a rice pudding, so he's got no chance with a thick-skinned old bird like me. And I don't imagine the old-timers here see me as lacking in confidence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Now I'm curious. Where did I say otherwise?

Eddowes valued that apron enough to repair the damned thing, so I can't see her ripping it for any purpose under the sun. Maybe she ripped her own kidney out too.

Without any evidence to the contrary, everything points to her wearing it right up until her killer ripped half of it from her dead body and left it in Goulston Street for reasons best known to himself.

Thanks John B and Monty for the thumbs up. Sometimes I think I'm going slightly mad when I read threads like this one. There was no fog when these women were killed, but it's getting hard to penetrate the thick layers of it being introduced by the latest crop of theorists.

Love,

Caz
X

If you want to take thingt to the extreme you dont know that the apron with the repair was in fact hers in the first place how do you know that it had not been discarded by another as being worn out etc and Eddowes had picked it up on her travels days before and had been using it.

[curious4]

Morning, C4,
Good point that even IF Eddowes had used the apron in the manner in which it has been suggested she did, she would never have thrown it away. You're right, she would have folded it up and stuffed it in a pocket somewhere to be washed and re-used. And she would have been doing that for decades, so that even though she might be drunk, it would have been habit and second-nature to save her rags.

But, why or when would she have taken it off? According to George Hutt she was wearing it when she left the jail. Now, re-read his testimony. If there had been a big hunk of her apron missing, do you think he would not have mentioned it? He seemed to mention every little detail and word. Half a missing apron would have been mentioned.

When she left the jail, she had less than an hour to live, so . . .

And speaking of detail:

After catching up on the thread, I notice that it seems there are some folks who believe that Eddowes had sharpened her "white handle table knife" even to putting a point on it so that she could have started the cut in her own apron.

We know such knives can be sharpened. Steve has personal knowledge from his grandmother's kitchen. It makes sense -- it can be done, other people have sharpened their table knives, but had it been done to the knife in Eddowes's possession?

For me at least, the answer is in the details of the listing of her possessions.

Would someone who noted:
[LIST]Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread (even the color of thread mentioned with the repair)

1. Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned at the feet with white cotton (again, note description even to color of thread used for darning)

Man's white vest, matching buttons down front. (Note the matching buttons)

1. 1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
2. 1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
3. 1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings

Not mention a sharp tip?

Now, had the list just said:
pair of men's boots with laces;
brown stockings
white vest
white cotton handkerchief

etc.

I think we could be justified in thinking Eddowes had honed her knife into something other than the regular, straight-from-the-maker, knife. You could have sharpened it, put a sharp end on it, etc., except for the detail with which her possessions are listed.

To me, the proof is in the details of the listing.

In Eddowes possession was one simple white handle table knife, regular, without alteration. Which she likely used with her teaspoon for eating.

This has been a good thread, causing me to look closely at something I had not focused on before. Thanks, everyone.

curious

Hello Curious,

I think we would all do well to keep our knives sharpened lol but agree that Kateīs would hardly have cut her apron. I havenīt decided whether Kate took hers off or was wearing it - just that the possibility that she took it off was there. It could be that if it was very dirty she took it off in order to look her best. I do think that her preoccupation with the time when she left jail might indicate that she was planning to meet someone.

Best wishes,
C4

P.S. Sorry, should have made it clear that Jack would have been the one to cut a piece off, thus turning the other bit into "a piece of apron".

[curious4]

Now I'm curious. Where did I say otherwise?

Eddowes valued that apron enough to repair the damned thing, so I can't see her ripping it for any purpose under the sun. Maybe she ripped her own kidney out too.

Without any evidence to the contrary, everything points to her wearing it right up until her killer ripped half of it from her dead body and left it in Goulston Street for reasons best known to himself.

Thanks John B and Monty for the thumbs up. Sometimes I think I'm going slightly mad when I read threads like this one. There was no fog when these women were killed, but it's getting hard to penetrate the thick layers of it being introduced by the latest crop of theorists.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

Could have sworn you wrote "she had two options - take it off and chuck it or wear it" or words to that effect....

Sorry you feel threatened by other theories than your own, but isnīt discussion the whole point on the boards?, However I think we should keep things civil. When you have gained a little in confidence you will find you donīt need anyone to hold your hand.

No intention of getting into a cat-fight about this, however much the boys would like it, so will say no more on this subject.

Yours,
C4

[caz]

Whether or not she was wearing the apron is only relevent to the original question on this thread - why so little blood on it? Perhaps Jack did cut it off first, but it is possible that she took it off herself and put it in one of her "pockets".

Incidentally, you were right about the hopping - they were near Maidstone, in Kent and it was a particularly bad year for hopping.

Best wishes,
C4

Why would she take off the apron and put it in a pocket (assuming it wasn't far too bulky)? Where is the evidence for this and what is the thinking behind it? I was referring to the weather being bad that summer, and now it was the very end of September and she was out on the streets in the middle of the night. The apron would have given her a useful extra layer for warmth. So why on God's earth would she have chosen this night to sacrifice it for a one-off bit of personal cleansing, when she had wipes a-plenty stashed under her skirts?

We already have a sensible explanation for the ripped and bloody apron, so if it ain't broke we don't need to fix it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caz,

Sorry, but nobody as desperately poor as Kate would throw ANYTHING away.

Now I'm curious. Where did I say otherwise?

Eddowes valued that apron enough to repair the damned thing, so I can't see her ripping it for any purpose under the sun. Maybe she ripped her own kidney out too.

Without any evidence to the contrary, everything points to her wearing it right up until her killer ripped half of it from her dead body and left it in Goulston Street for reasons best known to himself.

Thanks John B and Monty for the thumbs up. Sometimes I think I'm going slightly mad when I read threads like this one. There was no fog when these women were killed, but it's getting hard to penetrate the thick layers of it being introduced by the latest crop of theorists.

Love,

Caz
X

[curious]

but it is possible that she took it off herself and put it in one of her "pockets".

C4

Morning, C4,
Good point that even IF Eddowes had used the apron in the manner in which it has been suggested she did, she would never have thrown it away. You're right, she would have folded it up and stuffed it in a pocket somewhere to be washed and re-used. And she would have been doing that for decades, so that even though she might be drunk, it would have been habit and second-nature to save her rags.

But, why or when would she have taken it off? According to George Hutt she was wearing it when she left the jail. Now, re-read his testimony. If there had been a big hunk of her apron missing, do you think he would not have mentioned it? He seemed to mention every little detail and word. Half a missing apron would have been mentioned.

When she left the jail, she had less than an hour to live, so . . .

And speaking of detail:

After catching up on the thread, I notice that it seems there are some folks who believe that Eddowes had sharpened her "white handle table knife" even to putting a point on it so that she could have started the cut in her own apron.

We know such knives can be sharpened. Steve has personal knowledge from his grandmother's kitchen. It makes sense -- it can be done, other people have sharpened their table knives, but had it been done to the knife in Eddowes's possession?

For me at least, the answer is in the details of the listing of her possessions.

Would someone who noted:
[LIST]Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread (even the color of thread mentioned with the repair)

1. Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned at the feet with white cotton (again, note description even to color of thread used for darning)

Man's white vest, matching buttons down front. (Note the matching buttons)

1. 1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
2. 1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
3. 1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings

Not mention a sharp tip?

Now, had the list just said:
pair of men's boots with laces;
brown stockings
white vest
white cotton handkerchief

etc.

I think we could be justified in thinking Eddowes had honed her knife into something other than the regular, straight-from-the-maker, knife. You could have sharpened it, put a sharp end on it, etc., except for the detail with which her possessions are listed.

To me, the proof is in the details of the listing.

In Eddowes possession was one simple white handle table knife, regular, without alteration. Which she likely used with her teaspoon for eating.

This has been a good thread, causing me to look closely at something I had not focused on before. Thanks, everyone.

curious

[curious4]

The apron

Hello Caz,

Sorry, but nobody as desperately poor as Kate would throw ANYTHING away.
Even rags had value, if only to replace the twelve pieces of rag she was carrying.

Whether or not she was wearing the apron is only relevent to the original question on this thread - why so little blood on it? Perhaps Jack did cut it off first, but it is possible that she took it off herself and put it in one of her "pockets".

Incidentally, you were right about the hopping - they were near Maidstone, in Kent and it was a particularly bad year for hopping.

Best wishes,
C4

[curious4]

They say dont knock it till you try it

Can i borrow yours then ?

Sorry Trevor, donated it to Help the Aged just a few weeks ago. Such a shame!

C4

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

Nice to see you quoting me beneath your signature.

Do you want to pay the royalties monthly or annually?

[ATTACH]13114[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I thought peddling myth was free, the fantasists do it daily.
My bad.

Didn't realise you are that hard up, not so much money in conspiracy theories anymore? Not like the good ol days huh? With Knight, Stowell etc.

Sure, anything to help you out.

Monty