Who cut Eddowes Apron?

[Supe]

Michael,

By "border" do you mean hem? Try ripping across a hem. And like Monty I would like to know where it said the apron was both ripped and cut.

Don.

[Michael W Richards]

Where is it referred to as ripped Michael?

If it was ripped then the repair would have ended on one half or the other.

A cut would have split the repair in twain. As you state, the pieces were matched with the repair. Indicating it was cut.

Monty

I recall at least one press account that stated the section was both cut and ripped...Ill have more time this weekend to source it again,...but that need'nt impact the repaired section they later used to match the pieces. That part could well have been cut with the knife, and when the border of the apron was reached, depending on the angle of the blade, he may have found it more expedient to rip that border free, which is a strip of fabric sewn around the garment perimeter as a finishing element, that would includes the ties used to secure it, or strings. Some tied around the neck, some at the neck and waist, some just at the waist... and the neck loop in those cases was a feature of the pattern, not the sewing.

Ill look for the cut/tear quote source and get back to you Monty.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Monty]

Where is it referred to as ripped Michael?

If it was ripped then the repair would have ended on one half or the other.

A cut would have split the repair in twain. As you state, the pieces were matched with the repair. Indicating it was cut.

Monty

[Bridewell]

[QUOTE=Ally;229588]

"" A Juror: Do you search persons who are brought in for drunkenness? -
No, but we take from them anything that might be dangerous. I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief. "

Whether or not these items were taken from her is not stated, so I guess it depends how you interpret the context. I was actually thinking of the 12 pieces of cloth when I alluded to items which could be linked to form a ligature. As the officer specifically says that persons brought in for drunkenness are not searched, I'm left wondering why the 'things round the deceased's neck' were loosened if not to take them from her. This reads like a partial search to me.

They stated that they loosened what was around her neck, which would have been her kerchief but they did not take it. And that item would also have sufficed in an emergency of the sort described.

With respect, it doesn't say that they didn't take it.

I am not sure where your quote is from, I did look but could not find it. Could you provide a link?

I took it from The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

I don't agree that a handkerchief would have been regarded as dangerous. At least not back then, it was seen as an essential bit of wear and as integral as bloomers in a way. If they would take her handkerchief because she could hang herself, why not her apron or her bloomers too? I mean especially the apron. If they will take ANYTHING even that as insignificant as a handkerchief, why would they leave her apron with those handy hanging strings?

I think I referred to the cloths being taken as potential ligatures. The purpose would be not only to prevent hanging, but also use as a ligature to attack a member of staff. As I mentioned earlier, I would have taken the apron. Although it says that prisoners arrested for drunkenness were not searched, that doesn't necessarily mean that she wasn't required to produce her personal possessions for inspection - a bare minimum requirement I would have thought. Perhaps I'm being anachronistic though.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Harry,

Its stated a repair on the apron was cut through.

Monty

The repair was what was used to match the pieces together because the 2 pieces had corresponding remnants from that repair, or those repairs, but the apron section was said to have been both cut and ripped free.

I believe thats how it ended up with some of the string attached...the string, or tie, and the border of the cloth would be longs strips and be separately sewn onto the apron, if someone tears the apron across it would eventually encounter the border running perpendicular to the apron fabric. The border would then rip free and with it anything that was a part of that individual piece would come also.

Hence, its probable the fabric was ripped at that border trim and it tore part of the border free, with one of the 2 string pieces used to tie it.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Barnaby]

I voted for the Killer because I think that almost all reasonable people would conclude that this scenario is most plausible. That it was discarded not immediately but rather in Goulston street could be explained by any number of factors, most likely that it simply wasn't a priority while he was initially fleeing. Or that he was using it to transport an organ. Or less likely, that he wanted to leave a message, and chalking something by a corpse is a good way to get caught.

Having said this, I think it remains a possibility that a police official might be responsible. One reason might be that it was an attempt by the Metropolitan police to retain some jurisdiction over the case. Or, given that by now the murders were high-profile, perhaps a rogue cop took a souvenir then thought better of it. Less likely, perhaps the cop was an antisemite or otherwise had an axe to grind with someone living in Goulston Street.

I'm speculating wildly, but all of these seem to me more likely than Eddowes cutting the apron herself.

[Monty]

Harry,

Its stated a repair on the apron was cut through.

Monty

[harry]

While I am of the opinion the killer took the apron piece from the scene of the crime,can it be taken for granted that he cut it. Was it in fact cut?,or was it ripped?Could a ripped part have been among her possessions.Who first e xplained it as being cut,and how did that person come to that conclusion?I ask this because of it being explained one time, that a ripped piece of cloth will show a difference from a cut piece.Don't think this needs four readings to make sense.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Bridewell;229579]

Hi Ally,

Whilst I too think Trevor's theory most improbable, I don't find the inquest reports to be as described. Apologies if I've missed something but the following is from The Times of Friday 12th October 1888, reporting Pc Hutt's evidence of the previous day (my emphasis):

In answer to a question by a juryman: "Prisoners were not searched who were brought into the station drunk. Handkerchiefs or anything with which they could injure themselves would be taken from them."

Daily Telegraph (Casebook Inquest reports):

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_eddowes.html

"" A Juror: Do you search persons who are brought in for drunkenness? -
No, but we take from them anything that might be dangerous. I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief. "

They stated that they loosened what was around her neck, which would have been her kerchief but they did not take it. And that item would also have sufficed in an emergency of the sort described. I am not sure where your quote is from, I did look but could not find it. Could you provide a link?

Editing to add: I have found the times report. I am going to have to go with the one used officially by Casebook. The times seems to be a more generic summary whereas the other appears to give more word for word testimony. So I suppose it's a matter of which is more accurate. In my opinion, the individualized quotes from the individualized people in that one seem to be a more likely representation of what was said as it appears to be more exact. That is of course, just my opinion! It appears the question was asked in regard to identifying the clothing the "deceased" was wearing in order to identify her, so he was mentioning the items he had seen to identify her. I did try to look up other reports on the inquest without luck to see if there were more that could be compared for accuracy, but was not successful.

I don't agree that a handkerchief would have been regarded as dangerous. At least not back then, it was seen as an essential bit of wear and as integral as bloomers in a way. If they would take her handkerchief because she could hang herself, why not her apron or her bloomers too? I mean especially the apron. If they will take ANYTHING even that as insignificant as a handkerchief, why would they leave her apron with those handy hanging strings?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

I would think that Kate would be unlikely to use the apron section that was found herself for sanitation, if thats a correct read on the premise, the section had a string attached, like the section remaining on Kate, and to secure it around her neck or at her waist would require both ends of the string. Unless she made a makeshift repair to have the apron hang on her some other way, which I would have though would be evident on the piece remaining on her.

Then you also have the strange coincidence of a message seemingly related to the nights crimes in some fashion just above the section discarded.

Cheers,

Mike R

[Bridewell]

Her Property

Trevor decided without looking at the facts that the killer hadn't discarded this apron. In his book, he doesn't even push the "caught in the jail cell theory". He gives primary to saying Eddowes probably used it as a rag to wipe herself after going to the toilet in g-street or as a sanitary device in general. Recognizing the sheer stupidity of that when it was pointed out she had 12 rags on her person at the time, he changed it to her being caught in the jail cell without her rags, again apparently never having read the inquest that stated she wasn't stripped of her possessions while in jail.

Hi Ally,

Whilst I too think Trevor's theory most improbable, I don't find the inquest reports to be as described. Apologies if I've missed something but the following is from The Times of Friday 12th October 1888, reporting Pc Hutt's evidence of the previous day (my emphasis):

In answer to a question by a juryman: "Prisoners were not searched who were brought into the station drunk. Handkerchiefs or anything with which they could injure themselves would be taken from them."

Items which might be used to cause harm to themselves or others are taken from prisoners on arrest. In the modern era it is written into the Codes of Practice under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Certainly, that would apply to the handkerchiefs (because they could be tied together to form a ligature). Were I still employed as a Custody Sergeant I would take the apron also - and for the same reason.
Of course, if you seized the apron, you would surely notice if a sizeable portion of it had already been cut away, but that's a different argument.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jon Guy]

I said: "Trevor argued", which suggests there were/are alternative views.

You said: "Trevor argued it could not have been used to carry organs", which seems to be ruling out this view, which isn`t very open minded.

Of course, if you flip your line of argument on its head here, then Trevor may be nearer the mark, whatever alternative reason you have; which, really, was my point.

Are you saying that Chapman herself may have used her scarf for something and thrown it away ? Of course, I have entertained this idea, but it`s more likely (isn`t it?) that the killer took the scarf, especially as the scarf was around her neck and we know the killer paid particular to that area of the body.

[Admin]

Posters are asked to remain on-topic. Thank you.

[PaulB]

Just a small question - where did the idea come from that the apron was used to carry away organs?

[Ally]

This whole thing started with the 'lunatic fringe' baiting. Personally, I'd prefer to call them doubtful, while acknowleding that I may be wrong in labelling Trevor's theory as such.

I would call them doubtful if they were capable of advancing a reasoned argument for their case. However, as has been shown here, whenever an attempt to argue is made, they either pull a monkeyshine performance or bluster and bluff and say nothing.

If someone disagrees with the whole of the world, but they can put forth a reasoned debate on the subject, then they are merely a doubter and a questioner. When you see the kind of crap that they pull to avoid answering the simplest of questions, up to and including willfully misrepresenting what someone said and requesting that person face "severe consequences" then it is rightly called the lunatic fringe, in my opinion.

And I disagree that they are being "baited". They are being challenged and wholly failing to meet that challenge, at every possible level.