The Apron Again

[lynn cates]

explanation

Hello John. That's true. But perhaps you doubled back?

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Well she had a white-handled table knife with her for a start. And if you're wondering how sharp it could be, I'd like to reference the following from John Richardson's evidence at the Annie Chapman inquest:

"Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long."

Hi, Chava,
Thanks for your reply, and I had completely forgotten about John Richardson.

And Lynn, thanks for pointing out that Richardson admitted that he had later had to borrow someone else's knife to actually get the job done.

When I looked through all Eddowes' known possessions, I recognized that the table knife was the only implement that seemed to have any promise for Kate being able to cut her own apron.

However, table knives that I know have rounded tips and are not sharp, so there was no way Eddowes could have used one to either cut the material, or stab through the material to get a start to tear it.

As someone who has torn material since childhood (we used old sheets for dust rags) I know you have to get past the hem or selvage/ selvedge (British English) in order to tear the fabric. A rounded edge table knife does not have that capability. And let's not even think how a table knife would react on a patch, which is what I understand to have been cut cleanly through, leaving the edges that could be matched. I think that would be unusual even with a sharp knife. Scissors would be the ideal implement, but . . . no evidence anywhere of a pair of scissors.

When I persisted with the question of Kate's ability to cut her own apron, I hoped one of two things would happen:

1. Someone on the boards who is an expert on the LVP could tell me that what was known as a "table knife" in 1888 could actually be used for that purpose -- or NOT. I don't know about Victorian-era tableware and wasn't able to find information about it online.

Leather is such a different material from fabric, with one being stiff and the other flimsy, they would react differently to what I know as a table or butter knife. Why don't we all just go experiment with material and a table knife and see for ourselves?

Anyway, I had hoped to learn about Victorian table knives and see if there was any possibility Kate could have cut her own apron.

2. OR, I had hoped that Trevor would admit that he had focused so much on the stains on the material and concocted this entire theory without ever considering whether or not Kate had any means with which to cut her own apron.

This is what I have come to suspect.

However, I don't see Trevor ever acknowledging any weakness . . .

Of course, even if Eddowes had the means, there is the timing and so many other problems with his theory.

But I think I'm done with it. Because of the cutting issue, I don't think the theory can even get out of the gate for consideration.

Chava, Lynn, I apologize for not addressing this sooner. I have too many projects going on right now and had neglected them this weekend on this apron thing.

And Chava, like you, I have actually wondered if Jack might have lived in the Wentworth buildings and dropped the apron piece, or if he had gone in the front, and perhaps out the back on his way to where ever because there were so many police about on the streets.

So many interesting possibilities and never enough time.

Again, thanks for your reply and reminding us of Richardson.

And if someone with great knife knowledge wants to chime in, that would be great. I'm eager to learn.

[lynn cates]

thought experiment

Hello Velma.

"I had actually wondered if Jack might have lived in the Wentworth buildings."

Here is an interesting thought experiment that involves such a hypothesis.

1. Get a map of the Tower Hamlets area, including, of course, Aldgate and St. Georges-in-the-East.

2. Place an 'X' (or other marker) at the Wentworth buildings.

3. Now place another marker at the place of your favourite Liz sighting--many would choose the pub identified by Gardner and Best.

4. Now place yet a third marker by the IWMEC.

5. Allow the "brush off" thesis to be correct and let Liz's companion head north towards Commercial rd.

6. Next, assume the Schwartz story true, and BS man heading south where he confronts Liz.

7. Let BS man kill Liz and head towards Aldgate. Place another marker there.

8. Now have this same chap meet Kate and go with her through Church Passage into Mitre sq. where he does her to death.

9. Next, let him escape through St. James and go to a safe place for half an hour or so.

10. Let him re-emerge and head towards home, apron piece in tow.

11. Let him drop the piece at Goulston and chalk the graffito.

12. Let him enter his room and gloat over jobs well done.

13. Finally connect all the markers and give approximate times for each event, along with distances traversed.

What do you discover? See why I am not a fan of the traditional story line?

Cheers.
LC

[Steve S]

Hi, Chava,
Thanks for your reply, and I had completely forgotten about John Richardson.

And Lynn, thanks for pointing out that Richardson admitted that he had later had to borrow someone else's knife to actually get the job done.

When I looked through all Eddowes' known possessions, I recognized that the table knife was the only implement that seemed to have any promise for Kate being able to cut her own apron.

However, table knives that I know have rounded tips and are not sharp, so there was no way Eddowes could have used one to either cut the material, or stab through the material to get a start to tear it.

As someone who has torn material since childhood (we used old sheets for dust rags) I know you have to get past the hem or selvage/ selvedge (British English) in order to tear the fabric. A rounded edge table knife does not have that capability. And let's not even think how a table knife would react on a patch, which is what I understand to have been cut cleanly through, leaving the edges that could be matched. I think that would be unusual even with a sharp knife. Scissors would be the ideal implement, but . . . no evidence anywhere of a pair of scissors.

When I persisted with the question of Kate's ability to cut her own apron, I hoped one of two things would happen:

1. Someone on the boards who is an expert on the LVP could tell me that what was known as a "table knife" in 1888 could actually be used for that purpose -- or NOT. I don't know about Victorian-era tableware and wasn't able to find information about it online.

Leather is such a different material from fabric, with one being stiff and the other flimsy, they would react differently to what I know as a table or butter knife. Why don't we all just go experiment with material and a table knife and see for ourselves?

Anyway, I had hoped to learn about Victorian table knives and see if there was any possibility Kate could have cut her own apron.

2. OR, I had hoped that Trevor would admit that he had focused so much on the stains on the material and concocted this entire theory without ever considering whether or not Kate had any means with which to cut her own apron.

This is what I have come to suspect.

However, I don't see Trevor ever acknowledging any weakness . . .

Of course, even if Eddowes had the means, there is the timing and so many other problems with his theory.

But I think I'm done with it. Because of the cutting issue, I don't think the theory can even get out of the gate for consideration.

Chava, Lynn, I apologize for not addressing this sooner. I have too many projects going on right now and had neglected them this weekend on this apron thing.

And Chava, like you, I have actually wondered if Jack might have lived in the Wentworth buildings and dropped the apron piece, or if he had gone in the front, and perhaps out the back on his way to where ever because there were so many police about on the streets.

So many interesting possibilities and never enough time.

Again, thanks for your reply and reminding us of Richardson.

And if someone with great knife knowledge wants to chime in, that would be great. I'm eager to learn.

As a bit of a knife person...While a table knife would indeed be round-ended and not up to the job......It was very common for knives to be ground-down for other purposes.....so while still identifiable as a table knife,it may have had a point...We've got a couple that were my Gran's!
Steve

[Rubyretro]

Why don't we all just go experiment with material and a table knife and see for ourselves?

It's pointless for us to experiment ourselves because we don't have all the elements.
For example, Catherine Eddowes most probably didn't have a brand spanking new apron, and she might well have got it from a pawn shop. it might have been very worn and the fibres very soft. For example denim is very tough
material, but when it has been washed and worn many times then you can easily rip it by hand, let alone a knife.
[QUOTE]

Of course, even if Eddowes had the means, there is the timing and so many other problems with his theory.

Forgive me for not reading back over the whole thread before replying but if the theory is still that she might have used a bit of her apron to 'wipe herself on' , then I do think that it is laughable. She seriously needed money and I can't see her destroying a good apron (even a worn one !). She was wearing no underwear, a long skirt and it was dark -I think that the logical thing would be to clean herself up with water from a fountain ! -not fabric.

As to 'menstrual blood'...she was in her mid 40s, under nourished, and an alcoholic -I seriously wonder if she still had 'periods'.

I don't think the theory can even get out of the gate for consideration.

I agree with that !

[GregBaron]

Deteriorating condition...

As to 'menstrual blood'...she was in her mid 40s, under nourished, and an alcoholic -I seriously wonder if she still had 'periods'.

Good point Ruby. Eddowes was probably in the condition of many 70 year old women today, even worse....

This also comes into play with Lynn's Peeing Thesis (LPT).........there's no way of knowing how the system of a woman in this condition with Bright's disease etc. functioned. There's probably great variability in such things...

Curious' point about a clean cut apron and Eddowes ability and motive for enacting said scenario is well placed. I think it difficult to seriously consider than someone other than the murderer sliced the apron....


Greg

[Abby Normal]

Eddowes cut her own apron?

Perhaps she cut her own throat and mutilated herself also.

Good lord

[Steve S]

Just a thought..It's possible the apron already had a tear in it...So when the clothing was grabbed and thrown back,it ripped and came away.........?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn,

It seems you've somewhat created your own scenario, stamped it 'the traditional story line' and then disagreed with it. I can't think of one author who has put forth that particular time line.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

As to 'menstrual blood'...she was in her mid 40s, under nourished, and an alcoholic -I seriously wonder if she still had 'periods'.

She was carrying (recently unused) menstrual rags inside of one of her pockets, which speaks for the fact that she indeed still had periods.

Eddowes cut her own apron?
Perhaps she cut her own throat and mutilated herself also.
Good lord

Good one! LOL.

[lynn cates]

majority

Hello Tom. I thought each of the Arabic numerals represented the preponderant view? (Of course, not a majority have him living on Goulston st.)

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn. I'm referring to your post #273. The traditional view most certainly does not have the killer hanging back or seeking security between Kate's kill and the leaving of the apron. That's me talking. The traditional view has dopey PC Long lying about how thorough he was doing his job.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

majority report

Hello Tom. Thanks for that.

I believe that there was a view that the killer was in a door way, wiping his hands, between his killing Kate and depositing the apron piece.

Nice to know that's NOT a majority report.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

satori

Hello (again) Tom. Ah, so Long was supposed to have missed the piece first time round?

Got it.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

No, Lynn. The traditional view is that he simply didn't make his rounds proper, looking into the entrance ways and so forth. Then when called to task, he denied this, proclaiming he did his job but the apron wasn't there. My perspective, given no evidence to the contrary, is that he WOULD have in fact noticed the apron and/or graffiti had it been there. The lapse of time is inconvenient to the many prevalent theories which would rule out or potentially rule out the Ripper having had a bolthole - Druitt, Koz, broke local guy, so the way around it is to conclude Long lied and the apron was dropped right after the murder. Likewise, the graffiti appears to be inconvenient to most researchers, because it suggests something else was at play in the killer's mind besides 'lust murder', which is what the Ripper murders are generally supposed to be. Therefore, the traditional view now has the graffiti unrelated and PC Long lying. I agree that when working up a case for a suspect, it's necessary to step back and review the evidence in the fresh light supplied by research into that person, but when real case evidence and police testimony must continually be dismissed, then either the suspect doesn't fit or the writer is doing a bad job of trying to make him fit.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott