The Apron Again

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.

[Carol]

[QUOTE=Monty;199034]

Its true, yes, Eddowes may not have needed to go at that time however there were public conveniences in the area. This isn't addressed.

Hi Monty,

I can remember absolutely awful, filthy, revolting, smelly toilets 'for public use'. I can imagine that the public conveniences in those days, especially in such poor areas of London, were just the same. I have, myself, in the past (and my female friends and relatives) been unable to use them. Perhaps Eddowes felt the same. I think I would have looked for a 'quiet place' to go to the toilet if I had been her.

Also, if I had been a woman then, looking for customers at that time of the night, the last place I would have willingly entered was a public toilet. The murderer might well have been waiting in there for his next victim to come along.

What do you think?

Carol

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

But why would he carry it with him all the way to Goulston Street.

Serial killers remove some items and take them home as trophies perhaps our killer was a vagrant sleeping out at night and Goulston Street archway was his home.

If the killer discarded it there how did he know it was going to be found and furthermore if it were found how did he know someone would conncet it to the murder. It didnt have organs it in it, it had very little blood on it, and it was screwed up. None of that makes sense with your theory.

[Rubyretro]

if it were found how did he know someone would conncet it to the murder

.
He might have left it next to the graffito as a hint...

The apron bit might have gone unoticed, but the graffito was going to draw attention...

[Carol]

Trevor,
You can not tear through hems and waistbands without some sharp object to get started.

Trevor, what did Eddowes possess that she could CUT with?

Hi everyone,

Eddowes and her partner had been in Kent (near Maidstone) hop-picking. They had just arrived back in London. While hopping the 'hoppers' had to look after themselves - cook their own food, etc. There would have been sharp knives around to borrow.

What if Eddowes had cut her apron in Kent. If her apron was one of the 'usual' kind of aprons that working-class women wore at that time, then it could well have wrapped completely around her body. If she cut her apron from bottom to top as far as the waistband and cut under the waistband to the edge of the apron itself, then she would have enough apron left, together with a long piece of 'string' with which to be able to wear the rest of the apron as an apron in its own right. The apron would have been big enough to act as an apron and it would have two 'strings' as usual.

Any woman who has had heavy periods, and periods that got even heavier during the menopause (as I did) would know that a 'small piece' of underwear would not suffice. I think it possible that she cut off the piece of apron while in Kent for a very heavy flow while there. She might have had terrible pain and very large bloodclotting as well (as I did) during the menopause and she would have been incapable of work and would have had great difficulty in getting out of bed. This might have been why she and her partner hadn't been able to earn much. (I can hear some of you saying they spent it all down the local pub!).

Some of you are also thinking - 'In that case then she wouldn't have been using the apron piece when she was murdered as she wouldn't have got her period again so soon'. She could have done - I sometimes only had two weeks between periods during the menopause.

I have read that the apron string was still attached to the piece that was found in Goulstone Street and I have also read no reference to the string at all. So it seems 50/50 to me.

So this is my three-pennorth to the discussion. The above ramblings are just thoughts that I'd like to share with you all. I'd also like to apologise for having to tell you of my 'experience' but it is the reason for my thinking this way.

Carol

[lynn cates]

hubba

Hello Simon. Be still my heart. Now I must finally admit that I've been wrong all along about Kate soliciting in Mitre sq. Who could resist one wearing such charming apparel? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

Indeed. A true belle de nuit.

Especially as her clothes appear to have been to the dry cleaners following her month-long hop-picking excursion in Kent and thirty-five mile walk from Maidstone to London.

Regards,

Simon

PS. At the Mile End Casual Ward her clothes would have been baked before being returned to her.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But why would he carry it with him all the way to Goulston Street.

Agreed.

If the apron is for knife/hand use, then instinctively you'd do it at the scene in order to leave all elements of the murder scene behind you/distance yourself.

If the apron is used to carry the organs, then why stop, take the organs out of your pocket, thrown away the apron and then put the organs in your pocket?

[lynn cates]

casual ward

Hello Simon. Good point. Sometimes we forget that a casual ward took a very dim view of homeless people. It was vaguely intended to be punitive. Hence the puzzlement at inquest when John claimed Kate got an early release without hard labour.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

uses

Hello Mac.

"If the apron is used to carry the organs, then why stop, take the organs out of your pocket, thrown away the apron and then put the organs in your pocket?"

Right. I can live with 2 or 3 different views about the apron piece--but not for organ transportation.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

.
He might have left it next to the graffito as a hint...

The apron bit might have gone unoticed, but the graffito was going to draw attention...

Well the graffiti has absoloutely no meaning and no reference to any murder past or present at that time