Kate's Apron

[harry]

We do not know how many pieces the apron was divided into.It could have been more than two.What puzzles me is the arguement that there were 12 pieces of cloth more suitable to use than the apron.If that had been the case why cut the apron?

[JeffHamm]

We do not know how many pieces the apron was divided into.It could have been more than two.What puzzles me is the arguement that there were 12 pieces of cloth more suitable to use than the apron.If that had been the case why cut the apron?

Hi Harry,

Obviously we don't and can't know, but presumably the 12 pieces of rags were in a pocket or something. If, as someone suggested, he cut the apron before cutting the rest of her clothes (which would be the most likely time under the circumstances that we know), he may have done that either simply as part of getting through her clothes, which ended up with a piece beside him which he grabs when PC Harvey arrives (meaning, he didn't cut it for the express purpose of having a piece of cloth, he just ended up grabbing it out of necessity when he was interrupted by PC Harvey's arrival) or I suppose he may have wanted a piece of cloth, having learned from Chapman's case that it would be good to have. The latter idea suggests he wanted the cloth so cut it right away before he found the rags. But, the apron piece was either in a more convenient location to grab in a hurry, or a more appropriate size, etc.

Again, I want to emphasize this is all purely speculation because there is no way for us to know what JtR was thinking at the time. We can try and figure out to the best of our ability what he did, but the why will always remain elusive.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

We do not know how many pieces the apron was divided into.It could have been more than two.What puzzles me is the arguement that there were 12 pieces of cloth more suitable to use than the apron.If that had been the case why cut the apron?

Hi Harry

Its nice to know that I dont stand alone in this debate. I am sure there are many more who concur but are reluctant to put pen to paper.

I have already given a possible explanation for her being in possession of so many pieces of material but as usual the naysayers choose to ignore it, and so for their benefit I will again postulate that explanation, but first as you rightly pointed out in another post, we do not know what the material was that made up the pieces or the size of the pieces, but if they were found in the tick bags she had her possession in i would imagine they were not to big, and for all we know they could have been 12 pieces of an old white apron, which had been originally cut from an old white apron. So if that had been the case one could have been used as suggested.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Harry

Its nice to know that I dont stand alone in this debate. I am sure there are many more who concur but are reluctant to put pen to paper.

I have already given a possible explanation for her being in possession of so many pieces of material but as usual the naysayers choose to ignore it, and so for their benefit I will again postulate that explanation, but first as you rightly pointed out in another post, we do not know what the material was that made up the pieces or the size of the pieces, but if they were found in the tick bags she had her possession in i would imagine they were not to big, and for all we know they could have been 12 pieces of an old white apron, which had been originally cut from an old white apron. So if that had been the case one could have been used as suggested.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

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. I could easily see your guesses being possible. A few other ideas occur to me, such as they could also have been things she used to clean if she took such jobs, or they may have been used as a source of material for making repairs to her clothes I suppose. Without any information to constrain us, the only limit to the possibilities is our imaginations. As such, we all can probably come up with uses for pieces of material, and there would be no way to know who was right. One thing is for sure, most, and maybe all, of us would therefore be wrong. Still, I've never seen anything implausible about those suggestions, there's just no way to evaluate them as we have no data by which to do so.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Harry,

Obviously we don't and can't know, but presumably the 12 pieces of rags were in a pocket or something. If, as someone suggested, he cut the apron before cutting the rest of her clothes (which would be the most likely time under the circumstances that we know), he may have done that either simply as part of getting through her clothes, which ended up with a piece beside him which he grabs when PC Harvey arrives (meaning, he didn't cut it for the express purpose of having a piece of cloth, he just ended up grabbing it out of necessity when he was interrupted by PC Harvey's arrival) or I suppose he may have wanted a piece of cloth, having learned from Chapman's case that it would be good to have. The latter idea suggests he wanted the cloth so cut it right away before he found the rags. But, the apron piece was either in a more convenient location to grab in a hurry, or a more appropriate size, etc.

Again, I want to emphasize this is all purely speculation because there is no way for us to know what JtR was thinking at the time. We can try and figure out to the best of our ability what he did, but the why will always remain elusive.

- Jeff

Jeff

This long lengthy, and at times heated debate on this topic has dragged on for ages with an impasse being reached.

Let me clarify my position in all of this when I first set out to re investigate these murders I found that the Eddowes murder was the one which raises more questions than we have answers to. My priority was to first try to prove or disprove the fact that the killer removed and took away the organs from Eddowes. Other alternatives have been discussed but I am of the opinion that he didn't intentionally cut or tear a piece of apron to wipe his hands on, or his knife and he certainly didn't take away her organs wrapped in it had he done so the piece would have been heavily bloodstained.

Now whether or not he as you suggest simply grabbed a piece of material when he left, or if you believe he cut or tore a piece of apon really has no real impact on the investigation other than the suggestion to indicate which way he left the area. Likewise with the sanitary towel suggestion does that have any major impact? no it doesn't it only shows which way she could have gone in the 45 mins before her murder.

So really all of this time unnecessary arguments have been taking place simply on whether or not she was wearing an apron, in the grand scheme of things does it really matter, you and others have elevated this small part of her murder to a major issue when in fact it is but a small part.

Of course we would all like a definitive answer but that isnt going to ever happen

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Jeff

This long lengthy, and at times heated debate on this topic has dragged on for ages with an impasse being reached.

Let me clarify my position in all of this when I first set out to re investigate these murders I found that the Eddowes murder was the one which raises more questions than we have answers to. My priority was to first try to prove or disprove the fact that the killer removed and took away the organs from Eddowes. Other alternatives have been discussed but I am of the opinion that he didn't intentionally cut or tear a piece of apron to wipe his hands on, or his knife and he certainly didn't take away her organs wrapped in it had he done so the piece would have been heavily bloodstained.

Now whether or not he as you suggest simply grabbed a piece of material when he left, or if you believe he cut or tore a piece of apon really has no real impact on the investigation other than the suggestion to indicate which way he left the area. Likewise with the sanitary towel suggestion does that have any major impact? no it doesn't it only shows which way she could have gone in the 45 mins before her murder.

So really all of this time unnecessary arguments have been taking place simply on whether or not she was wearing an apron, in the grand scheme of things does it really matter, you and others have elevated this small part of her murder to a major issue when in fact it is but a small part.

Of course we would all like a definitive answer but that isnt going to ever happen

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I do agree with you in many ways on that. Even for those who concur with the idea that the piece found in GS came from the crime scene, we cannot be sure when it was left there (before or after PC Long's 2:20 patrol). And because of that, it really makes it difficult to progress to the next step. If it was dropped earlier, it suggests a rough compass bearing, if it was left after 2:20, it doesn't even tell us that.

For those who consider the piece to have been left there by Eddowes herself, then clearly it doesn't tell us anything at all about JtR.

And I think all of us involved are guilty of raising this into a major issue, but that happens often in this case. The battles are so fierce because the stakes are so low.

Anyway, we've both spelled out our positions and reasons behind them, and obviously we're both standing firm on our positions, which is entirely fine of course. I'm not going to convince you, nor you me, but sometimes a lot of information is gained simply through the process of discussion itself. One doesn't have to change their position to still learn and gain from a conversation. I know I have gained and learned a lot from our conversations, which may come as a surprise to you.

But I don't think we've left any stone unturned, as they say, and it's probably time to put things to rest as we're getting into repeating ourselves.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Trevor does not concede that there is sufficient time available for the murder. Rather, he argues "but we don't know what time the CPC left the spot they were seen in, and so because they could have left later there wasn't enough time available).

I'm going to use Trevor's method here now. Because we do not know the size of the apron piece, it could have been too large to be used as a sanitary napkin, and therefore it was too big to be used that way

Believe it or not Jeff, you beat me to it. I was thinking along those same lines.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Of course, it would be far better for us had the dimensions of the piece been stated on record, but I fear if it were too large, Trevor would insist they measured it wrong

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Harry,

For a sanitary napkin, perhaps the better adjective would be to assume the apron piece was small enough. A sanitary napkin is not a particularly large piece of material, after all. We do not have the sizes of either the collection of rags or of the piece found in Goulston Street. Given the police at the time were under the impression the piece found in Goulston Street was cut by the killer to wipe their hands or his knife on (even if Trevor argues against this being its use, it is what the police at the time believed). It therefore would have to be large enough for "wiping hands on" to be considered a viable option. That doesn't rule out it being small enough to be used as a sanitary napkin, but we do not know the size of the piece.

If we apply Trevor's approach that he takes towards the amount of time available for the murder to take place, specifically when considering the CPC as being Eddowes and JtR, despite there being 6 minutes unaccounted for under the most restrictive reading of the evidence, which exceeds the longest estimate of time stated as required (5 minutes, although this is qualified with a "maybe more" we'll just simplify the example for now), Trevor does not concede that there is sufficient time available for the murder. Rather, he argues "but we don't know what time the CPC left the spot they were seen in, and so because they could have left later there wasn't enough time available).

I'm going to use Trevor's method here now. Because we do not know the size of the apron piece, it could have been too large to be used as a sanitary napkin, and therefore it was too big to be used that way.

It is this approach that I believe makes it impossible to advance our understanding. My preference is to suggest that the only way the apron piece could have been used as a sanitary napkin is if it were suitably small. We do not know the size, and therefore cannot say that Trevor's idea is supported but we cannot refute it based upon the size of the piece. We could try to infer whether it was more likely to be a larger than suitable piece based upon the fact it must have been large enough to wipe one's hands and/or knife on, but that can be done with a face cloth (I believe flannel is the UK term?), which would not be too large. However, a much larger piece could still be used to wipe hands/knife even if unsuitable for use as a sanitary napkin. As such, while Trevor's idea must assume the piece was small, the original police idea does not fail regardless of the size of the found piece. Of the two, therefore, Trevor's is more unsafe because it requires making an unfounded assumption as to the size of the found piece, while no assumption about the size need be made with regards to the original police idea. Of course, it would be far better for us had the dimensions of the piece been stated on record, but I fear if it were too large, Trevor would insist they measured it wrong.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

For what it's worth, I would imagine that the sanitary napkin would likely consist of a larger piece of rag folded over several times for better absorbance.

Just a quick interjection from a female perspective.......!

[Ms Diddles]

Absorbance sounds wrong!
Absorption???

Brain fog!

Achh! You know what I mean!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Harry

Its nice to know that I dont stand alone in this debate. I am sure there are many more who concur but are reluctant to put pen to paper.

I would be at all sure about that Trevor.

I have already given a possible explanation for her being in possession of so many pieces of material but as usual the naysayers choose to ignore it, and so for their benefit I will again postulate that explanation, but first as you rightly pointed out in another post, we do not know what the material was that made up the pieces or the size of the pieces, but if they were found in the tick bags she had her possession in i would imagine they were not to big, and for all we know they could have been 12 pieces of an old white apron, which had been originally cut from an old white apron. So if that had been the case one could have been used as suggested.

These pieces of cloth would have had to have been so small as to have been useless for selling if they were too small to use as a sanitary towel Trevor. At a guess I’d speculate that maybe she was going to try and sell them as handkerchiefs if they were good quality material or that she kept them to use as patches. Wasn’t her apron already patched?

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.

Certainly possible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

None of us can even begin to say what those 12 pieces were for. We could compile a list but it would serve no purpose. It’s reasonable to assume though that if she’d kept them they were of a size that would have been useful whatever size that was. So they might have been useable as sanitary towels or they might not have been.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jeff,

For what it's worth, I would imagine that the sanitary napkin would likely consist of a larger piece of rag folded over several times for better absorbance.

Just a quick interjection from a female perspective.......!

A good point Ms D. It’s a topic that I never thought that I’d be discussing online.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absorbance sounds wrong!
Absorption???

Brain fog!

Achh! You know what I mean!

Absorbance of a material, denoted A, is given by

where
is the radiant flux transmitted by that material, is the radiant flux received by that material, is the transmittance of that material.
Absorbance is a dimensionless quantity. Nevertheless, the absorbance unit or AU is commonly used in ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy and its high-performance liquid chromatography applications, often in derived units such as the milli-absorbance unit (mAU) or milli-absorbance unit-minutes (mAU×min), a unit of absorbance integrated over time.^[2]

Absorbance is related to optical depth by

where τ is the optical depth

...

Didn't you know this Ms D?

[Ms Diddles]

Absorbance of a material, denoted A, is given by

where
is the radiant flux transmitted by that material, is the radiant flux received by that material, is the transmittance of that material.
Absorbance is a dimensionless quantity. Nevertheless, the absorbance unit or AU is commonly used in ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy and its high-performance liquid chromatography applications, often in derived units such as the milli-absorbance unit (mAU) or milli-absorbance unit-minutes (mAU×min), a unit of absorbance integrated over time.^[2]

Absorbance is related to optical depth by

where τ is the optical depth

...

Didn't you know this Ms D?

Ha! My brain is about to explode.....!!!!