The Goulston Street Apron

[curious4]

Useful evidence

Hi All,

What useful evidence as to the identity of the Mitre Square murderer could the LVP cops have hoped to glean from the graffiti and apron piece found in Goulston Street?

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

I suppose on the face of it, not much, apart from the fact that the piece of apron is the only thing we can be sure the killer touched not found by the bodies. We can't even be sure that he/she left it in Goulston street. It seems likely though. The graffito was said to resemble the handwriting in one of the letters the police received, but that doesn't prove anything, unless the police had some idea of who the letter writer was. As so much is missing from the police files, we can't rule anything out, except that wiping it off was considered a huge mistake by some police officials.

At the time, not much, today it would have proved very important. And perhaps in another hundred years - nano techniques and so on. I learned to write with an iron-nibbed pen and got quite a lot of the ink on me and it follows that in that process some of me got into the ink. Future cold case maybe?

Best wishes,
C4

[Chava]

So even by modern standards, while Eddowes wouldn't be tall, she wouldn't be unusually short. I know quite a few women who are 5-even. The mean height in a poverty-stricken area 125 years ago was surely less than it is now. So what height would a woman's apron be made to fit? Or maybe they were sold unhemmed.

They may have been sold that way, or--since skirts were long--some women could use an apron to cover her entire skirt and some women couldn't and had to settle for an apron that only covered the top 3/4 of her skirt. Aprons were definitely sold in the markets ready-made. My uncles had a cart in all the local markets selling pinafores and they had a nice little sweat shop in their rented rooms where their five sisters made them... This was in the 1918-27 or so period, so later than the murders but not by lots.

[RivkahChaya]

They may have been sold that way, or--since skirts were long--some women could use an apron to cover her entire skirt and some women couldn't and had to settle for an apron that only covered the top 3/4 of her skirt. Aprons were definitely sold in the markets ready-made. My uncles had a cart in all the local markets selling pinafores and they had a nice little sweat shop in their rented rooms where their five sisters made them... This was in the 1918-27 or so period, so later than the murders but not by lots.

My great-grandmother had a treadle sewing machine that she'd gotten second hand sometime in the 1920s, for very cheap, because everyone who could afford one was getting a motorized one, but I'm here to tell you that the difference between sewing by hand, and using a machine with a treadle is huge, and if one wanted to be a professional seamstress or tailor, I'm sure the investment in one paid off very quickly. The apartment where my grandmother lived had electricity, but it was fitted after the fact, with iron tubes that had wires in them snaking down to one light fixture, which also had an outlet, and it was very easy to overload it and blow the fuse, so my great-grandmother continued to use the treadle machine, and she could take it apart, clean and oil all the parts, and put it back together, because it was very simple, so even though she got an electric Singer sometime in the 1950s, if it ever broke, she had to have her husband take it out for repairs, and so she brought out the old one. After my great-grandfather died, she went back to using the treadle machine all the time, but by then, all she ever did were small repairs and alterations.

I make a broomstick skirt in a few hours, so I imagine very practiced people making aprons could churn them out. If they were just half-aprons, with no bib, then they did not need buttons, and button holes were something that I think still had to be sewn by hand. I do them on a machine with an attachment that takes all the work out of it for me. I can't personally sew one by hand, other than a really sloppy one.

FWIW, though, hemming an apron by hand would not take all that long, but it's also possible that doss-house attendants had sewing machines, and perhaps would lend them or rent them. I recall reading that the attendants often took in laundry during the day, so maybe they did repairs on clothes as well.

[Phil H]

Most women in 1888 would surely be reasonably skilled with a needle. It was a necessary skill even (or particularly) in the poorest households and was probably passed down the generations, mother to daughter. Most - if not all - of the victims had known better times and run households/raised children. We have no need to consider sewing machines, really.

They had to darn socks and stockings (if they had any) and repair shirts and other clothing.

Hemming a garment, especially one in a lightweight cloth, would not, I believe, have been a difficulty.

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

Hi All,

What useful evidence as to the identity of the Mitre Square murderer could the LVP cops have hoped to glean from the graffiti and apron piece found in Goulston Street?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Hope all is well with you and yours. "..hoped to glean"....I like that, but as far as I can see the only thing they could "deduce" from the apron section, if indeed it was placed there before Longs 2:20am pass-by, is the killers rough route home. Which would make him an East Ender, and by its location, likely an Immigrant Jew if he lived in, or near, the model homes.

Sure would match nicely with what we know a senior official on leave later claims upon his return in early October.

All the best

[curious4]

Hand sewn

Most women in 1888 would surely be reasonably skilled with a needle. It was a necessary skill even (or particularly) in the poorest households and was probably passed down the generations, mother to daughter. Most - if not all - of the victims had known better times and run households/raised children. We have no need to consider sewing machines, really.

They had to darn socks and stockings (if they had any) and repair shirts and other clothing.

Hemming a garment, especially one in a lightweight cloth, would not, I believe, have been a difficulty.

Phil

Hello Phil,

And Kate had a thimble among her possessions. Some time ago I put up a link to a photo of Queen Victoria's undies, and as I remember they were hand-sewn. It was a thread about whether the thing over Mary Kelly's arm was a puffed sleeve - which it ain't. Wearing a puffed sleeve under your clothes would be like wearing american footballers' shoulder pads under a suit. A chemise would have either no sleeves, or a small cap sleeve like the ones on little girls' dresses in the fifties.

Best wishes,
C4

Sorry, off-thread!

[curious4]

Kate's size

They may have been sold that way, or--since skirts were long--some women could use an apron to cover her entire skirt and some women couldn't and had to settle for an apron that only covered the top 3/4 of her skirt. Aprons were definitely sold in the markets ready-made. My uncles had a cart in all the local markets selling pinafores and they had a nice little sweat shop in their rented rooms where their five sisters made them... This was in the 1918-27 or so period, so later than the murders but not by lots.

Hello Chava,

Kate wasn't just small in stature, she was extremely slightly built as well. Wouldn't take a great deal of material to go round her.

By the way, nice little and sweat shop are not words I would expect to see in the same sentence, but I suppose you should know!

Cheers,
C4

[RivkahChaya]

Most women in 1888 would surely be reasonably skilled with a needle. ... We have no need to consider sewing machines, really.

They had to darn socks and stockings (if they had any) and repair shirts and other clothing.

In fact, it was noted that Eddowes socks were darned. My point about the sewing machine was a bit of thinking aloud, on why I'd reconsidered her making her own apron. The existence of the treadle machine probably meant that something like an apron could be bought off the rack nearly as cheaply as the cloth needed to make one from scratch, so one bought second hand would be even cheaper. Unless Eddowes lucked in to something like a torn bedsheet she could have for free, there wouldn't be much reason for her to make an apron.

I still wonder whether whether they sold them hemmed.

When I was a kid, you could by clothes unfinished. At the really good stores, they had on-site seamstresses, and the alterations were part of the price. Even totally off-the-rack clothes were made with extra fabric, so they could be altered.

Which would make him an East Ender, and by its location, likely an Immigrant Jew if he lived in, or near, the model homes.

One problem with an immigrant Jew living in a place like the model homes, was that on Shabbes, his family would note his absence, and surely ask what he was doing. Also, you are not supposed to bathe on Shabbes, so if he came home and wanted to do more than just wash his hands or tried to wash his clothes, and would be a forbidden activity. I'm not saying he wasn't Jewish, just that he probably didn't live in the model homes, if he was.

By the way, nice little and sweat shop are not words I would expect to see in the same sentence, but I suppose you should know!

Cheers,
C4

I think it was a joke, like "We had our own, personal sweat shop."

[Errata]

As a point of reference, her apron was made of cotton canvas. Which if new is the mother of all bitches to sew manually. It's possible, I've done it, but it's like sewing a tent by hand. In fact, it is exactly sewing a tent by hand, just less fabric. It is by no means an easy task. It is a brutal one. So the question boils down to whether or not she would be interested in spending a day blunting needle after needle, with incredibly sore fingers, and dulling every cutting instrument put to the garment in order to have a custom fit. Some people are very into it. Others don't care. But it would have been real work.

[RivkahChaya]

As a point of reference, her apron was made of cotton canvas. Which if new is the mother of all bitches to sew manually. It's possible, I've done it, but it's like sewing a tent by hand. In fact, it is exactly sewing a tent by hand, just less fabric. It is by no means an easy task. It is a brutal one. So the question boils down to whether or not she would be interested in spending a day blunting needle after needle, with incredibly sore fingers, and dulling every cutting instrument put to the garment in order to have a custom fit. Some people are very into it. Others don't care. But it would have been real work.

Was that a typical apron fabric? It certainly doesn't sound like what you wore to dust m'Lady's boudoir. Would it have been something she acquired especially for the hops picking? It also sounds like something that, once acquired would be useful to someone who occasionally had to sleep outside in a drizzly climate.

How do you know that's what it was made from? I didn't see "apron" or anything like apron, on the list of clothes she was wearing elsewhere on the site. Also, if that's true, the idea that the killer used it to wipe his hands is ridiculous. He would have cut a piece of her dress, instead. And, canvas, cotton or otherwise, doesn't cut easily, so the idea that he must have cut it with his knife is pretty much settled.

"Cotton" canvas is just canvas, BTW. It isn't lighter or heavier than linen or hemp canvas, it's just made from cotton. Tent material has been waterproofed. Denim is a similar weight, but it's a twill weave, which is why it makes more comfortable clothing. Canvas is a straight weave, and if it's intended for a tent or sail, it's a very tight weave.

[Errata]

Was that a typical apron fabric? It certainly doesn't sound like what you wore to dust m'Lady's boudoir. Would it have been something she acquired especially for the hops picking? It also sounds like something that, once acquired would be useful to someone who occasionally had to sleep outside in a drizzly climate.

How do you know that's what it was made from? I didn't see "apron" or anything like apron, on the list of clothes she was wearing elsewhere on the site. Also, if that's true, the idea that the killer used it to wipe his hands is ridiculous. He would have cut a piece of her dress, instead. And, canvas, cotton or otherwise, doesn't cut easily, so the idea that he must have cut it with his knife is pretty much settled.

"Cotton" canvas is just canvas, BTW. It isn't lighter or heavier than linen or hemp canvas, it's just made from cotton. Tent material has been waterproofed. Denim is a similar weight, but it's a twill weave, which is why it makes more comfortable clothing. Canvas is a straight weave, and if it's intended for a tent or sail, it's a very tight weave.

There were several different kinds of aprons in the LVP. I think Archaic can back me up on this, but only two would not have looked alarmingly out of place on Kate. The first is the char apron, which looked exactly like the shopkeeper's apron, except with wider ties. The second is the shopkeepers apron, which is the one being shown in all the pictures that occasionally pop up of period aprons. Ladies maids, parlor maids, even dairy maids and milkmaids had different aprons. Any upstairs staff that might be seen by a guest wore much finer aprons of linen, often trimmed, sometimes with lace. Which would immediately be recognized as stolen by anyone who saw it. Because it would have been stolen. The women who scrubbed floors, pots, did laundry, wore char aprons which were of cotton canvas. Shopkeepers aprons of the lower and middle class were also cotton canvas.

Servants aprons were provided by the house. They did not belong to the staff who wore them. Upon termination, they were supposed to give their uniforms back. Sometimes they didn't, as evidenced by Nichols linsey dress, but really only the common stuff would not be ridiculously out of place on the streets. And that it is cotton canvas as opposed to hemp canvas is only useful to know for two reasons. Cotton absorbs more evenly than hemp or linen, and it also wears faster. So a second hand apron could be the consistency of a table cloth instead of an awning. And I imagine any number of worn aprons ended up in charity bins. Hemp is like sewing iron. It's just a pain.

So I don't think she had a new apron. It was evidently patched so even if she got it new, it was no longer new at the time of her death. I think it was second hand, possibly in one of the charitable clothing deposits workhouses and churches occasionally got. There was certainly a thriving used clothing market in the neighborhood. I think she had an old worn one that serviced for hops picking and other odd jobs. I think the fabric had worn enough to be fairly supple, and I think the starching was so long gone it did make a serviceable towel.

So I only know what is what made of in that I know what aprons she would have access to were made of. And any diagonal cut would have to be made with the knife no matter what the weave, but if it was a horizontal cut, that could have been ripped even if it was canvas. Aside from it being easier on worn canvas, once you get a rip in canvas started, it tears fairly easily. It just tears louder, so learn from my mistake and never tear lengths of canvas to be made into bodices while sitting at the back of a theater during play rehearsal. Because they then make terrible noises at you when your scenes are up. Try going mad over the murder you committed in rhymed iambic pentameter with a chorus of terrible farting noises coming from the mezzanine.

[Wickerman]

.... It was a thread about whether the thing over Mary Kelly's arm was a puffed sleeve - which it ain't. Wearing a puffed sleeve under your clothes would be like wearing american footballers' shoulder pads under a suit. A chemise would have either no sleeves, or a small cap sleeve like the ones on little girls' dresses in the fifties.

The chemise found on the Pinchin St. torso was a simple hand-made garment..

I have had the chemise that was found on the body cleansed, and I now produce it. (The chemise was 37in. in length, common material, and stitched, but certainly not by an experienced needlewoman. It had evidently been home-made by a poor person.)

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18890925.html?printer=true

Nichols wore a chemise under her clothes, as did Chapman, as did Eddowes, as did Stride, as did Mary Kelly, apparently.
These women wore all the clothes they owned, in layers.

Mary Kelly might be the only exception, it was suggested by Mrs Buki (?), that Mary needed to return to the West End brothel to retrieve a chest of clothes she owned. Her chemise may have been more fancy than the typical woman of the East end.

.

[curious4]

Chemise

Hello Wickerman,

Yes, a chemise was standard underwear. However, no undergarment, at least at that time, when women wore tightfitting sleeves would have had sleeves resembling those on Disney's Snow White's dress.

A few years on the gigot or leg of mutton sleeve became fashionable, but that was propped up with a framework of wood and material.

I believe that what is draped over Mary's arm and shoulder are intestines, as in Annie Chapman. What seems to be a length of intestine attached to the whatever runs down the side of the body, as in Kate Eddowes. Unfortunately this doesn't match up with the doctor's report, but if we only have one report, and that from a newspaper, there is perhaps room for error.

Could be wrong, of course, but nothing will convince me that is a sleeve!

Best wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

Hi C4.

What do you think about this example?

[Phil H]

People in the C19the put up with more under their clothes and we might today.

For men, the shirt did not have tailored sleeves (with the seam at shoulder/armpit) until well into the C20th. For most of history, the shirt was cut on the "T" with a seam half way down the upper arm. This left a large amount of material to bunch under the armpit - but men still wore them.

Phil