The Goulston Street Apron

[Chava]

The chance of someone seeing him do it, and recognizing him, and making a stink about it later, or even rebuking him at the time, was too great-- even if he wasn't the Ripper, I think it wouldn't be worth a confrontation, unless a confrontation was what he wanted, in which case, he'd do something much more obvious and immediately provocative.

And if he did, no nice Jewish guy would have confronted anybody at that hour of a Shabbes night when he would leave himself open to a lot of questions from his vaybele or his mamele about what he was doing out at such a time...

Has anyone made a 'piece of apron' to actual size? We talk about how big it was and so on but I still have no clear mental picture of it. I know it was a piece of Eddowes' apron that had been stitched back on, so was it torn originally and repaired? Or did she fossick an apron together from odd bits of material and this was one of the bits? It does sound like it's too big to have simply gotten caught and sheared off as she went around her business.

[Errata]

Has anyone made a 'piece of apron' to actual size? We talk about how big it was and so on but I still have no clear mental picture of it. I know it was a piece of Eddowes' apron that had been stitched back on, so was it torn originally and repaired? Or did she fossick an apron together from odd bits of material and this was one of the bits? It does sound like it's too big to have simply gotten caught and sheared off as she went around her business.

It's the size of a modern style tallis. Which I suppose means it's also the size of a table runner.

[RivkahChaya]

So it was a whole bottom slice, not just a corner? Where did I get the idea that it was a corner?

Do we have a reference some place that gives the actual dimensions? If it was more like a strip, than a rag, it sounds like it's the kind of thing used to bind a cut, so maybe the killer cut himself. How much fecal matter was on it? Small smears, or big chunks?

[Wickerman]

If this is large enough to see, the women are wearing an apron which extends from the waist to the ankles and wraps three-quarters of the way around their legs.



It may have had a bib, but the bib was sometimes turned down below the waist so as not to be visible.

[Wickerman]

So it was a whole bottom slice, not just a corner? Where did I get the idea that it was a corner?

Do we have a reference some place that gives the actual dimensions? If it was more like a strip, than a rag, it sounds like it's the kind of thing used to bind a cut, so maybe the killer cut himself. How much fecal matter was on it? Small smears, or big chunks?

The cut was diagonal because the piece still had one string attached, and the cut ran through a patch, which a tear would not.

Have you read this dissertation, it contains all that is known about the apron & the cut-off piece.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

.

[Errata]

So it was a whole bottom slice, not just a corner? Where did I get the idea that it was a corner?

Do we have a reference some place that gives the actual dimensions? If it was more like a strip, than a rag, it sounds like it's the kind of thing used to bind a cut, so maybe the killer cut himself. How much fecal matter was on it? Small smears, or big chunks?

Halse said about half the apron was missing. Which can mean a couple of things. The bottom half was missing, though a bib was still present, The bottom half of the bottom portion of the apron was missing, or the left or right half of the apron was missing. Either way you end up with at least a 1 1/2 foot x three foot section missing. Now the question becomes whether or not what was found at Ghoulston street was the whole missing piece, or just part of the missing piece. And if it was just part of it, where did the rest of it run off to?

As for the quantity of fecal matter, about 25 ounces at most. Anything from the top of the colon cut would technically be chyme (of which I couldn't think there would be more than 12 ounces), but mostly liquid. From the sigmoid colon where the bottom cut was (not coincidentally right behind the uterus) pure solid. I don't think he would have had a lot of contact with the solid, since most of it would have been in the rectum. But he got sprayed with chyme all right. Now if someone could explain to me how on earth the remains of her sigmoid colon got sucked into her rectum barring her still being alive, I'd like to know.

[lynn cates]

manual

Hello Errata.

"Now if someone could explain to me how on earth the remains of her sigmoid colon got sucked into her rectum barring her still being alive, I'd like to know."

I had always assumed he shoved it there manually, whilst digging about and cutting.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata.

"Now if someone could explain to me how on earth the remains of her sigmoid colon got sucked into her rectum barring her still being alive, I'd like to know."

I had always assumed he shoved it there manually, whilst digging about and cutting.

Cheers.
LC

I can see how the colon got cut then, but not pushed into the rectum so that it's folded up like a telescope.

[Michael W Richards]

The apron section was around 2 ft square and had one of the side strings used to secure it still attached,...so he took a side of it, not the top or the bottom.

My guess is that the he wrapped the organs in the cloth and wrapped the string around the "package". It would appear as if he was carrying a butcher cut piece of meat.

Best regards

[lynn cates]

stemming the tide

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Could that not have been done to stem the feculent material oozing out?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

.... It would appear as if he was carrying a butcher cut piece of meat.

...on the other hand, the officer might be intrigued to know which butcher was open at 2 o'clock in the morning.

.

[Michael W Richards]

...on the other hand, the officer might be intrigued to know which butcher was open at 2 o'clock in the morning.

.

We have ample examples of slaughter housemen and butchers about throughout the evenings,.....perhaps that factoid is unsuitable as a way of narrowing the search, but rather, it could be construed as making it more difficult.

All the best

[Wickerman]

I have always thought that the killer used the cloth to wrap the organs in, but it's the question of what happened to them if the empty cloth is thrown in the doorway.
- Did he transfer them into something else, if so, why?, or...
- Did he arrive 'home', then return to the streets to dispose of the cloth? if so, why, and was there a reason he picked that doorway?

Alternately, if the cloth was not empty when it was thrown, did it hit the wall and the organs spill out? Only to disappear down the grate in front of the adjacent window? These grates often were deep in rubbish.
I would prefer to think the police would look, but if they never considered the cloth being used to carry the organs, then they had no reason to look down the grate.

.

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Could that not have been done to stem the feculent material oozing out?

Cheers.
LC

But that would beg the question what on earth was he doing messing around at her pelvic floor after the uterus came out? And it doesn't act as a plug. Invagination or intussusception means that it folded the way you fold over a sock. It doesn't plug. Stuff would still come out. It would mean that the rectum would essentially end up double lined. Which in a mobile person is excruciating, though it's almost never that far down the gut. The blockage in a living person is due to inflammation, but in the dead or dying not enough time passes to inflame the tissue.

[Scott Nelson]

The floor grate wasn't there in 1888. I think the killer wrapped the organ piece in the portion of apron and went to his abode before depositing the piece in inside the doorway.