Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Ms Diddles,

Fair point. Folding along a the length of a long piece would work but I'm assuming the width would have to be a particular size (at least there would be a much more limited range of viable widths). Although I suppose one could fold in all dimensions, but it's going to get rather large after some number of folds. There must have been a standard size and shape of cloth and a known folding pattern that was passed down through the generations. I wonder if such things are recorded anywhere?

- Jeff

But it was fixed to other items she was wearing it would have to be of significant size to be able to reach from the front to the rear very much like a nappy would be affixed. But if she had been wearing drawers the item would be a lot smaller and would probably not need to be attached.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

I seem to recall that after the Pinchin St torso was discovered, a bloodstained piece of cloth was found in a nearby street. I also seem to recall that it was somehow determined that this had been used as a sanitary product. Can't find it now, of course, so I may have imagined the whole thing.

[Fiver]

We also have to take into account the fact that Eddowes was described as being a hawker and if the pieces were of a much finer material perhaps she had them in order to sell for some purpose which I have know idea what that could be.

We know that they were "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained". Rag does not mean "a fine piece of cloth", it means "a waste piece of cloth".

Collard's list gives plenty of details anything fabric in Eddowes possession. It reads like the writings of a tailor, not a police Inspector.

• Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.
• Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
• Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
• Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
• Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
• Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
• Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
• Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
• White calico chemise
• No drawers or stays
• Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread
• 1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
• 1 large white pocket handkerchief
• 1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
• 2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
• 1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
• Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned at the feet with white cotton

• 2 small blue bags made of bed ticking
• 12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained
• 1 piece coarse linen, white
• 1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
• 1 piece red flannel with pins and needles
• 1 piece of old white apron with repair
• 1 red mitten

Collard refers to velvet, cloth (a period term for woolens), stuff (a period term for woven fabrics that mixed linens and woolens) silk, chintz, linsey, alpaca, twill, calico, mohair, gauze, cotton, bed ticking, coarse linen, shirting, and flannel. And "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained".

Care to explain how a man with Collard's knowledge of fabric would call anything rag if it wasn't "a waste piece of cloth"?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Ms Diddles,

Fair point. Folding along a the length of a long piece would work but I'm assuming the width would have to be a particular size (at least there would be a much more limited range of viable widths). Although I suppose one could fold in all dimensions, but it's going to get rather large after some number of folds. There must have been a standard size and shape of cloth and a known folding pattern that was passed down through the generations. I wonder if such things are recorded anywhere?

- Jeff

Yes she probably carried a written pictorial guide as to how to use and affix a sanitary device using an old piece of apron.

And still the debate continues

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

We know that they were "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained". Rag does not mean "a fine piece of cloth", it means "a waste piece of cloth".

Collard's list gives plenty of details anything fabric in Eddowes possession. It reads like the writings of a tailor, not a police Inspector.

• Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.
• Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
• Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
• Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
• Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
• Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
• Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
• Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
• White calico chemise
• No drawers or stays
• Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread
• 1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
• 1 large white pocket handkerchief
• 1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
• 2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
• 1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
• Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned at the feet with white cotton

• 2 small blue bags made of bed ticking
• 12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained
• 1 piece coarse linen, white
• 1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
• 1 piece red flannel with pins and needles
• 1 piece of old white apron with repair
• 1 red mitten

Collard refers to velvet, cloth (a period term for woolens), stuff (a period term for woven fabrics that mixed linens and woolens) silk, chintz, linsey, alpaca, twill, calico, mohair, gauze, cotton, bed ticking, coarse linen, shirting, and flannel. And "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained".

Care to explain how a man with Collard's knowledge of fabric would call anything rag if it wasn't "a waste piece of cloth"?

and what is your point? you again have not kept up because I suggested that the 12 pieces you referred to could have been cut from an apron, and Jeff suggested that she might have used them for cleaning rags so if she was doing that then one of those pieces could have turned up in GS and the killer not having cut it or torn it after all.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

As we don't know anything about the bits of rag/cloth that she had, such as their size, material, and so forth, the possibilities are endless.

We may not know size, but Collard repeatedly specifies material, color, patterns, repairs, and wear on the fabric items in Eddowes possession.

[Joshua Rogan]

If it had a string attached as the evidence tells us, it would have to have been the top left or the top right of the apron and if someone wanted to cut a piece from a full apron they are hardly likely to cut from the waistband downwards to difficult a manoeuvre.

Cutting a garment with a knife through the waistband is actually a lot easier than cutting it where the clothing is loose. Simply slip the knife under the waistband and pull up, you don't even need two hands.
Since all the other clothing around Kate's waist had the waistband cut through it would be surprising if the apron wasn't cut at the same time in this way.

[Fiver]

Just a minor point on whether Long did or didn't miss the apron when he passed at 2.20 or earlier. I can't remember, did he ever state, like John Richardson about Chapman's body, that he couldn't possibly have missed it?

When asked if the apron was there at 2:20, PC Long said "It was not."

When Detective Halse was asked the same thing, he replied "At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron."

[JeffHamm]

Ooooooft! No detail too small on this forum!!

I'm going to look into this......

It's probably slightly less weird on my browser history than yours!!!

Hi Ms Diddles,

Indeed. I admit, I never would have predicted this line of inquiry. I suppose it would have been a bit strange had I had such information readily available. Hmmm, now I am not sure as to whether I should hope you find something, and so inform me, or to hope your searches are in vain, so that should this topic arise again I don't reply and appear to be one of the resident experts in mensuration attire of the Victorian age. That might not be the reputation I wish to foster. Seriously though, I hope you find something. The collection of eclectic knowledge one acquires here from the discussions is truly remarkable.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

We may not know size, but Collard repeatedly specifies material, color, patterns, repairs, and wear on the fabric items in Eddowes possession.

Hi Fiver,

True, but he doesn't provide that information for the rags. We can make an inference, and I think there's a justifiable argument to be made they were of low quality material, but other than being "rags" we don't know anything specific. It is always better when things are stated "for the record", so that such details are written down. We know they produced and showed the jury various items, but because "what one can see" was not said, it was not written down, and so that information becomes unavailable to us despite it being available to them. That's what I'm getting at. We must rely on our inferences, and they will be wrong in some detail. Hopefully, though, our errors are small enough that they don't lead us astray.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

and what is your point? you again have not kept up because I suggested that the 12 pieces you referred to could have been cut from an apron, and Jeff suggested that she might have used them for cleaning rags so if she was doing that then one of those pieces could have turned up in GS and the killer not having cut it or torn it after all.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But it doesn’t mean that the killer couldn’t have taken and dropped it in GS so you’re no further forward.

[JeffHamm]

But it was fixed to other items she was wearing it would have to be of significant size to be able to reach from the front to the rear very much like a nappy would be affixed. But if she had been wearing drawers the item would be a lot smaller and would probably not need to be attached.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Yes, true, if it was worn like that. Whether or not that was a method of wearing them is what I am in no position to know. If Ms. Diddles finds anything on Victorian feminine hygiene attire, we may find that was indeed done or not and be able to evaluate that idea. I would not want to hazard a guess at this point, though, as this is all well beyond my ken.

- Jeff

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms Diddles,

Indeed. I admit, I never would have predicted this line of inquiry. I suppose it would have been a bit strange had I had such information readily available. Hmmm, now I am not sure as to whether I should hope you find something, and so inform me, or to hope your searches are in vain, so that should this topic arise again I don't reply and appear to be one of the resident experts in mensuration attire of the Victorian age. That might not be the reputation I wish to foster. Seriously though, I hope you find something. The collection of eclectic knowledge one acquires here from the discussions is truly remarkable.

- Jeff

Indeed, Jeff!

One never knows which direction these threads will take!

So far I have seen many Victorian contraptions which look like torture devices, aimed at middle / upper class Victorian ladies.

They look kind of like nag's bridles for your privates!

I suspect that for those in the slums, it was each to their own with whatever was to hand.

I have just learned that Johnson & Johnson produced the first product that we would recognise as being a sanitary towel in the US in 1888. It looks like it's adhesive and has none of the weird accoutrements of the other contraptions.

That's kinda interesting!

Will keep looking.......

[Trevor Marriott]

But it doesn’t mean that the killer couldn’t have taken and dropped it in GS so you’re no further forward.

But by process of elimination I am getting there

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But by process of elimination I am getting there

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The only thing that you’ve eliminated so far are witnesses but of course you’ve eliminated them with absolutely zero reason except for your groundless fallback position which is to call everything ‘unsafe’ with challenges your position. This obviously isn’t an acceptable method but you continue to employ it.

Hutt and Robinson alone kill your theory. Collard and Brown bury it. We’re just saying a few words over the corpse.