Who cut Eddowes Apron?

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

A preliminary check has found Brown referring to her upper dress as "torn" open in the Telegraph on Friday the 5th, Ill keep looking for the specific quote.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Monty]

That's her dress, not apron?

Monty

[harry]

Personnely I wouldn't be able to tell a rip from a cut when it comes to material,so obviously I might question the originator'r judgement on it being a cut unless I knew his or her knowledge of such.Maybe it was a judgement made with the knowledge the killer had a knife in his possession,and it seemed the most logical explanation,but w as it the correct one?.Me I would tend to say the two pieces were separated and leave it at that.

[Michael W Richards]

Monty and Don,

After searching a bit fruitlessly for the quote I recall reading that states that the apron piece was torn and cut I finally realized that finding one quote isnt going to validate the position nor end the debate. The quote that the dress was torn open by Brown Monty does support a notion that her apron was also torn in the process, since it lay on top of the dress. So, if the quote said it was "torn and cut" it may be referring to 2 separate times and events, not just during the removal of the section itself.

He could have torn the apron when tearing her dress, then later, when cutting a section of it free, he could have cut off a section that included the tear.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Supe]

Michael,

Rather than engage in flights of fancy to support your recollection, why not simply admit your memory betrayed you in this instance and move on? Wouldn't be the first time that has happened to a poster and it won't be the last.

This would be a wise course all the more because a "torn" apron is only an effort to support Marriott's insupportable theory.

Don.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Echo, 11th October 1888—

"To the best of his knowledge he [PC Robinson] believed the apron produced (dirty white, torn, and cut, and marked with blood) was worn by the deceased."

Regards,

Simon

[curious]

The quote that the dress was torn open by Brown Monty does support a notion that her apron was also torn in the process,

Mike R

Hi, Mike,
I don't think that because the dress bodice was torn open supports the apron being torn at the top.

According to information here on casebook, she was wearing a man's white vest, matching buttons down front. and a Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
White calico chemise -- which I don't believe would have had buttons, but I'm not an expert on Victorian dress.

Do we know for a fact that the apron had a bib top or was the apron just from the waist down?

curious

[Monty]

Thank Simon,

I see your Echo and raise you a Daily News

Daily News
United Kingdom
5 October 1888

Dr. Gordon Brown, surgeon to the City Police, said - I was called to mitre square shortly after 2 o'clock on Sunday morning. I reached there about eighteen minutes past two. My attention was called to the body of a woman lying there. The body was lying in the position the constable has already described. It was on its back, the head turned to the left shoulder; the arms by the side of the body as if they had fallen in that position, the palms of the hands being upwards. The fingers were slightly bent; a thimble was lying near to the right hand; the clothes were disarranged. The bonnet was at the back of the head; the throat was cut across; below the cut was a neckerchief; and the upper part of the dress was pulled open. The intestines were to a large extent drawn out of the abdomen and placed over the right shoulder. A piece of the intestines about two feet long was detached and placed between the left arm and the body, apparently by design. This would also apply to what had happened to the right shoulder. The lobe of the right ear was cut completely through. There was a quantity of clotted blood on the left side of the body on the pavement above the shoulder, and the same above the right shoulder. the body was quite warm and no death stiffening had taken place. Death must have taken place within the half hour. we looked for superficial bruises and saw none. There were no marks of blood below the middle of the body.

By the City Solicitor - There was no blood on the throat part of the jacket or dress.

The witness, continuing his evidence, said - A post mortem examination was made in the mortuary in Sunday afternoon. Rigor mortis was strongly marked, but the body was not quite cold. After washing the left hand carefully, a recent bruise the size of a sixpence was discovered on the back of it between the thumb and first finger. There were a few small bruises on the right shin, but these were old. The hands and arms were bronzed as though the sun had been much on them. There were no bruises on the scalp, the back of the body, or the elbows. There were sixteen teeth missing, The face was very much mutilated. There was a cut of about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid, dividing the structures completely. The upper eyelid of that side had a scratch through the skin near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch in extent. There was a deep cut over the bridge of the nose extending from the left border of the nasal bone, down nearly to the angle of the jaw of the right side. This cut went into the nasal bone, dividing all the structures of the cheek except the mucus membrane of the mouth. The tip of the nose was quite detached by an oblique cut from the bottom of then nasal bone to where the corners of the nostrils join on the face. A cut from this divided the upper lip and the substance of the gum over the right upper lateral incisor. About half an inch from the tip of the nose was another oblique cut. There was a cut at the right angle of the mouth as if from the point of a knife. There was on each side of the cheek a cut which peeled up the skin forming a triangular flap of about an inch and a half. On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the outer skin and two more under the left ear. The throat was cut across, extending some six or seven inches. A superficial cut commenced beneath the lobe of the ear on the left side and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear. The sterno mastoid was divided and the large vessels of the left side were also severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chords. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking the vertebral cartilage. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened; the carotid artery had a pinhole opening. The internal jugular vein was opened to an inch and a half in extent, but was not divided. The cause of death was hemorrhage from the severance of the left columnar carotid artery. Death was immediate, and the mutilations were made after death. The witness then went on at great length to describe the shocking further mutilations to which the deceased had been subjected, but the details were too horrible for publication. One of the most important points in this part of the evidence was that the injuries to the lower part of the body having been inflicted after death, the murderer would probably get but little blood upon his hands. The left kidney had been carefully taken out in such as manner as to show that it had been done by somebody who not only knew its anatomical position, but knew how to remove it. Some part of another specific portion of the body similar to that abstracted from a previous victim was also missing with its ligaments.

By the City Solicitor - I think the wound in the throat must have been inflicted as the deceased lay on the ground. The wounds must have been inflicted with a sharp knife, which must have been pointed, and at least six inches long. The person who made the mutilations must have possessed considerable knowledge of the position of the abdominal organs, and of the way of removing them. the missing parts would be of no use or value for any professional or scientific purpose.

Would the knowledge necessary for these mutilations be likely to be possessed by one engaged in cutting up animals? - Yes.

have you any opinion as to whether the perpetrator was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time, or he would not have cut and nicked the eyelids if he had not had plenty of time. I should think the whole thing could have been done in five minutes. As a professional man, I can assign no reason for the parts being taken away. I feel sure there was no struggle. I think the act would have been the act of one man only. As to no noise being heard, the throat would have been so instantly severed that no noise could have been emitted by the victim. I should not expect to find much blood on the person who had inflicted these wounds. My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent. Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body. It is impossible to assert that the blood is human blood. It looks as if it had had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped upon it.

Tread warily with news report Michael. You will find they support and flounder any opinion.

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,

Rather than engage in flights of fancy to support your recollection, why not simply admit your memory betrayed you in this instance and move on? Wouldn't be the first time that has happened to a poster and it won't be the last.

This would be a wise course all the more because a "torn" apron is only an effort to support Marriott's insupportable theory.

Don.

Hi Don,

Simon found the flight of fancy so I wont address that part, but correct in this instance isnt as black and white as you would like to make it. Her upper dress was torn...the apron lay over that. Its not improbable that the section had cut and torn areas...just unprovable.

And you can be sure that nothing I say or do here is designed to pump up or support anyones theory, published or not.

To Monty,

You comments at the end of your post are why I did keep Browns remarks in the mix. Torn is torn, not cut, and who among us could say whether that section taken had both extraction components on it.

Best regards ,

Mike R

[Supe]

Michael,

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

Don.