Who cut Eddowes Apron?

[Wickerman]

Taking a quick look over all the articles which make reference to the apron being "torn", we can see that these words are those of the reporter describing the appearance of the apron.
I do not see verbatim quotes attributed to a witness at the inquest.

Echo, 11th.
To the best knowledge he believed the apron produced (dirty white, torn, and cut, and marked with blood) was worn by the deceased.

Daily Telegraph, 12th.
The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.

Daily News, 12th.
The apron was shown to the witness. It was much torn and was saturated with blood in several places.

Its the words of the reporter, so far as I can see.

Jon S.

[Supe]

Jon,

It's the words of the reporter, so far as I can see.

A very cogent observation.

Don.

[Monty]

Taking a quick look over all the articles which make reference to the apron being "torn", we can see that these words are those of the reporter describing the appearance of the apron.
I do not see verbatim quotes attributed to a witness at the inquest.

Echo, 11th.
To the best knowledge he believed the apron produced (dirty white, torn, and cut, and marked with blood) was worn by the deceased.

Daily Telegraph, 12th.
The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.

Daily News, 12th.
The apron was shown to the witness. It was much torn and was saturated with blood in several places.

Its the words of the reporter, so far as I can see.

Jon S.

Entirely my point Jon.

Monty

[harry]

I doubt very much whether today,a doctor or reporter would be a prefered adjudicator on whether material had been cut or torn.My understanding is that it takes an expert on the subject,with training,experience,scientific knowledge and equipment,to make an acurate judgement.Perhaps the witness at the time was so possessed,or was making an educated guess.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,

Are you saying it was the Echo article that you once read but could not remember?

Don.

Hi Don,

Im not certain Simons quote was the one I recall seeing before, perhaps it was one of the ones Wickerman posted. The point is moot though Don, Simon saved me the trouble of finding a quote to corroborate my statement, so Im not sure why your still beating the bush.

Wickemans quote contained 3 reports that included the word torn, none were worded in the same fashion, and Brown at the Inquest stated her upper dress was torn, leading to a likely conclusion that any garment she wore over that dress might also be ripped in the process.

Reporters words? What....now all press reports are misleading and all reporters skew data?

I personally see no issue with the assumption that the section was torn and cut, we have 3 reports it was and Browns comments to substantiate that claim.

Now,....whats the issue about that assumption? That Kate was unlikely then to have had to rip and cut something off her apron for her sanitation?

No issue, that is unlikely to begin with. Particularly with the sentiments written nearby.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"Taking a quick look over all the articles which make reference to the apron being "torn", we can see that these words are those of the reporter describing the appearance of the apron.
I do not see verbatim quotes attributed to a witness at the inquest.

Echo, 11th.
To the best knowledge he believed the apron produced (dirty white, torn, and cut, and marked with blood) was worn by the deceased.

Daily Telegraph, 12th.
The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.

Daily News, 12th.
The apron was shown to the witness. It was much torn and was saturated with blood in several places.

Its the words of the reporter, so far as I can see."

Just took a quick look at this thread, and found this post of yours being discussed. The thing that immediately struck me was that two out of these these three passages may not be speaking of how Eddowes´apron was divided in two.

The Daily Telegraph has it "The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing."

The inference would be that the missing part had been torn off. But I don´t think this is necessarly so.

Look at the Daily News: "It was much torn and was saturated with blood in several places. "

Much torn. Why not just "torn"? Because, perhaps, the apron had been torn BEFORE the smaller piece was removed? There is the expression "tattered and torn" and maybe that is what applies here - the reporter wants to convey the impression that the apron was a very much worn and run-down garment, torn in places? This may be reinforced by the last source: The Echo claims that the apron was "dirty white, torn, and cut, and marked with blood".

Torn - AND cut! Could it be that the cutting was the Ripper´s work, whereas the tearing had been produced by time? Wear and ... tear?

Just thinking aloud here, and I must admit that I have not followed the thread before.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Fisherman.
All we appear to have is a reporter narrating the scene and trying to describe the apron piece to the best of his ability. Presumably from his position some distance across the courtroom, away from the witness & the evidence.

The apron may have had small tears here and there, no-one should dispute this. The reference to being "torn" (in this debate) is apparently in association with the murder, but whether this is truly the case seems to be unclear and largely unsubstantiated at this point.

We should not hold the reporters narrative up to close scrutiny. He is not expected to choose his words as carefully as a professional scholar might, nor even if he had been sworn on the witness stand.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

" The reference to being "torn" (in this debate) is apparently in association with the murder, but whether this is truly the case seems to be unclear and largely unsubstantiated at this point."

To me, the report that speaks of both "torn" and "cut" is interesting. If the "torn" bit was the Ripper´s work, then where did the "cut" thing come from? Age tears - but it does not cut.

Be that as it may - but would the killer have torn the apron? Such a thing produces a very loud sound. Cutting does not.

All the best, Jon. I´m headed for bed now!

The best,
Fisherman

[Edward]

Why not cut, then tear

Hello All -

Why couldn’t the apron have been cut and torn by the same hand at the same time? In other words, cut through the seam with a knife, then to tear the apron piece off the rest of the way. It is sometimes difficult to begin to tear a fabric with a seam (hence cut through the seam). Likewise, it can be very difficult to cut a loose piece of fabric for any length (hence tearing the piece off the rest of the way).

Best Regards,
Edward

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Edward. I'm sure you're correct. Eddowes' killer cut a 'z' type zig-zaggedy design in her clothes, likely right through the patch on her apron, and then would have pulled the apron apart from the middle out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi Edward. I'm sure you're correct. Eddowes' killer cut a 'z' type zig-zaggedy design in her clothes...

.....and the list of suspects gets even longer...

[Carotid Capers]

a vagueley relevent point in defence of Mr. Marriot's rag-as-lavatory-paper option for the rag n the doorway at Wentworth Dwellings (although i don't actually subscribe to it and consider it simply as a rag which Jack not only wiped the blood off his hands, but more specifically the excrement).

My brother works in the meat packing district in New York. don't know what it's called off had, and having never been to USA don't know the geography of NY terribly well. Anyhow. He mentioned in drunken jollification once that it is a district in which transvestite hookers congregate, and apparently they are notorious for excreting in the doorway of his building and leaving excrement encrusted lavatory paper on the spot. All rather disgusting, but interesting in light of Mr,Marriot's idea, although the thought that Mrs.Eddowes may have torn off a large segment of her apron seems very unlikey i think?
Sorry if this is on the wrong thread…I’m new at this…

[curious]

they are notorious for excreting in the doorway of his building and leaving excrement encrusted lavatory paper on the spot. All rather disgusting, but interesting in light of Mr,Marriot's idea, although the thought that Mrs.Eddowes may have torn off a large segment of her apron seems very unlikey i think?
Sorry if this is on the wrong thread…I’m new at this…

Hi, Carotid Capers,
Interesting name and one of JtR's favorite pastimes. (Sorry, I realize that was in poor taste.)

Welcome to Casebook and it looks like the exactly right thread to me.

Like you, I am aware that people do and probably have always done such things as you describe in your post and that Trevor Marriott insists happened.

However, since Eddowes had numerous rags about her person which could have been easily used, it makes no sense to me that she would stumble around cutting an important garment to use in such a manner. Just as important to the discussion is the fact that she apparently had nothing on her person that would have cut through the patch where the apron had been mended. So we have the question of not just why in the world would she do such a thing, but how could she possibly have?

Unlikely? I'd go stronger, but you and I are on the same page here.

curious

[Carotid Capers]

Thanks Curious, oh, and forgot to vote, i think the killer cut off the apron piece...the truth is out there!...

[Bridewell]

It's a close run thing this poll isn't it!

Regards, Bridewell.