Who cut Eddowes Apron?

[Michael W Richards]

Clearly, any reports that indicate it was also 'cut' can only support the majority opinion that it was the killer's own work, since he was the one known to have the sharp knife, not Eddowes.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, that white handled table knife that she had among her possessions could have been capable of cutting cloth if it were sharp enough. The requisite for a knife for the cutting of the cloth would be different than the one required for the serious knife work there, granted, but she did have a knife.

Cheers,
Mike R

[caz]

I just came across this thread and added my vote.

Incidentally, the repair to the apron proves it had been 'torn' at some point before the murder night, so I agree with Fisherman here, that the reports of the garment being torn may merely be describing its generally poor state of repair, or even be a direct reference to the repair itself.

Clearly, any reports that indicate it was also 'cut' can only support the majority opinion that it was the killer's own work, since he was the one known to have the sharp knife, not Eddowes.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

And the final score appears to be..well yes. I just want to congratulate all the learned members of Casebook for apparently having a rational brain cell. Even if it's only one, that's still something.

[Bridewell]

Hi Colin

How can I put this to a Scot?

Well Trevor's done better than Bon Accord did against Arbroath...but only just...

Dave

Hi Dave,

We're assuming that the lone Marriottist is the great man himself, but he could be playing a waiting game. The 'Eddowes herself' option could therefore double its support at any moment!

Regards, Colin.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin

How can I put this to a Scot?

Well Trevor's done better than Bon Accord did against Arbroath...but only just...

Dave

[Bridewell]

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

Regards, Bridewell.

[Carotid Capers]

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

[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]

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…

[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...

[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

[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

[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

[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:

"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