The Goulston Street Apron

[curious4]

Chemise

Hello Wickerman,

Well, without knowing where and when it comes from, I can't comment. Doesn't resemble the simple chemise of the period I have seen though - and certainly not like the one her majesty wore! www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/27/kensington-palace-royal-rip-off-to-must-see-tourist-attraction/queen-victoria-underwear/

Best wishes,
C4

P.S. Any idea of what yours is made of?

[Wickerman]

I copied it over from the "Chemise" thread on Mary Kelly.

The picture came from a site offering Victorian undergarments, particularly the Chemise. It was not easy to find a simple one, most were offering an upmarket 'sexy' version, the type a West end Lady might wear.

The Chemise was made of either cotton or linen, as it was intended to protect the skin from metal & bone structures which came in the next layer of womens clothing (so sayeth the site).

This was the nearest example I could find which included the almost ruffled appearance of what we see over Mary Kelly's left shoulder.



.

[curious4]

Chemise

Hello Wickerman,

Yes it is a maze out there, many offering romantised versions to make or buy. I can hear the heavy breathing from here! This site http://retrorack.blogspot.com/2013/0...-garb.html?m=1 I think is a little more accurate, but even so not the plainer versions worn by the poor. I don't think Mary would have had much left of what was in her box, though, sold or "popped" long since.

A chemise was in essence a long vest, worn under the corset to protect it. I think Queen Vic's version is nearest the mark, only a bit larger.

In any case, whatever it is seems to me to be draped over the arm and shoulder
not worn.

Over to you, although this is way off thread, sorry!

Best wishes,
C4

[Errata]

Chemises came short, long, sleeveless, long sleeved, short sleeved, heavy, light, embellished and plain. Also long sleeve chemises are not that big of a deal, certainly no more complicated that putting a sweater on over a buttoned shirt. They were also used as nightgowns by those who could not afford a separate garment to sleep in. As it was November, odds are that Mary Kelly was wearing a mid length, long sleeved chemise. Falling right below the knee if my estimates are correct based on the crime scene photo. I personally never even considered a short ruffled sleeve. Nor do I think it looks like one. I think it looks like a long sleeve shoved up past the bicep. And I think that's what it is. Being intimately familiar with all of the various ways to roll up chemise sleeves and all that.

[RivkahChaya]

I'm pretty sure the chemise has been around longer than the Victorian whalebone corset. A chemise specifically intended as under-the-corset wear is going to be fitted; a lot of fabric, even very thin fabric, gathered under a corset, is going to be uncomfortable, not to mention make the corset slip and fit badly.

Also, FWIW, not all women wore corsets; aside from the expense, a woman couldn't lace up her own corset, unless she put it on backwards. But there were undergarments that were similar to corsets, without being so restrictive, nor needing a second person to help with the fitting, that a woman who worked for a living and needed freedom of movement, but the support of the not-yet-invented bra, and something that made her clothing fit right, could wear. They were just stiff canvas, and didn't have rigid bone or metal in them. My gawd, I'm so glad I didn't live then.

[Errata]

I'm pretty sure the chemise has been around longer than the Victorian whalebone corset. A chemise specifically intended as under-the-corset wear is going to be fitted; a lot of fabric, even very thin fabric, gathered under a corset, is going to be uncomfortable, not to mention make the corset slip and fit badly.

Also, FWIW, not all women wore corsets; aside from the expense, a woman couldn't lace up her own corset, unless she put it on backwards. But there were undergarments that were similar to corsets, without being so restrictive, nor needing a second person to help with the fitting, that a woman who worked for a living and needed freedom of movement, but the support of the not-yet-invented bra, and something that made her clothing fit right, could wear. They were just stiff canvas, and didn't have rigid bone or metal in them. My gawd, I'm so glad I didn't live then.

Hahahah you have no idea. A chemise was worn to protect the skin from the corset. Because if you think cloth folds are uncomfortable try boning on skin (I've done it. Long red blisters). Then came the corset. Then came the corset cover. Then came the blouse. And then the dress or bodice. So yeah these women were insane. Now any woman could get herself into a corset as long as she wasn't trying to get an 18 inch waist. Corsets were laced in the back but had a busk in the front. Once it was laced properly, a woman would get in and out of it through the busk, tightening the strings every so often as they slackened. The real problem was that corsets were pricey. Stays were a cheap alternative. And for women who were not shaping themselves a corset cover worked just as well as a corset.

[Chava]

Stays also hooked up the front as well as having ties. As for the apron, I'm not convinced it would be made of particularly stern stuff. I've seen examples of the pinnies made by my mother and aunts when very young and they were just straighforward linen and not real heavy linen either.

(and, yes, 'nice little sweatshop' was a joke.)

[curious4]

Sweatshop

Hello Chava,

Sorry, social conscience v sense of humour - in general sense of humour gets the upper hand, but missed this one!

Cheers,
C4

[Michael W Richards]

Back to the ultimate question here......when you have an unusual night, even for the Fall of 1888 in Whitechapel,... when a woman is found murdered in a club owned by Jewish Immigrants, when a second is found very near the Great Synagogue and outside the borders of all the other kills, you have evidence that is discovered at the entrance to dwellings almost exclusively occupied by Jewish immigrants, and some writing on the wall above it mentioning Jews and Blame, can you afford to not consider that the writing and the evidence could be linked to the same person?

I would think that a gentile would be most likely to have done something so accusatory to an entire race, rather than a selective aspersion on a branch of the faith. Which would mean a gentile likely killed Kate. We cant assume that he also kills Liz because the only hard evidence in that doorway is the apron section, which leads directly to the murder site and the victim.

He may have...it may have been an anti-semetic smear campaign that night. Slightly less than a year earlier all these Immigrants became a threat rather than a mere nuisance, to the christian locals and the government itself. Bloody Sunday left deep feelings of rage on both sides Im sure.

Best regards

[Phil H]

... when a woman is found murdered in a club owned by Jewish Immigrants,

I don't think Stride was actually IN the International Club but in the entry to it's yard.

when a second is found very near the Great Synagogue and outside the borders of all the other kills,

ONLY a significant second if Stride was a first victim of the same killer.

Coincidence surely has to be taken into account - and in the East End in 1888 almost any spot would be likely to be close to a Jewish-related building or area. The Jews' graveyard in Brady St near Buck's Row for example.

you have evidence that is discovered at the entrance to dwellings almost exclusively occupied by Jewish immigrants, and some writing on the wall above it mentioning Jews and Blame, can you afford to not consider that the writing and the evidence could be linked to the same person?

It surely cannot be dismissed, but no one has yet managed to work out a convincing meaning for this drivel - the best interpretation IMHO is directed at a resident of the building, or more generally at the Jewish community loocally, by an aggrieved non-Jew or maybe a customer who felt he had been cheated. It cimes best to me, after years of thinking about it as "Jews go home!"

I think we agree on that when you write: "He may have...it may have been an anti-semetic smear campaign that night. "

Slightly less than a year earlier all these Immigrants became a threat rather than a mere nuisance, to the christian locals and the government itself. Bloody Sunday left deep feelings of rage on both sides Im sure.

I wasn't aware that Bloody Sunday had any relation to immigration of Jews?

The key fact remains that (leaving aside it's potential use) the apron scrap could have been discarded anywhere. It is as likely to have been under some random graffito as not.

I fully accept that some Ripperologists want a "speaking" culprit - a killer who communicates by graffito or letter, who leaves clues etc. But IMHO that is more Agatha Christie than 1888 serial killer.

Why no other graffiti? people were looking for them, after all.... the apochryphal messages " I am down on whores.. going to kill X more..." attest to that. So why were no others found - a murderer so keen to leave clues would surely have done so? Why no letters - and there were many hoax ones as we know - that are irrefutably by the killer. Would it not be logical for a literate killer with a message to get over to convey that to the authorities or the press in a more permanent, undiscardable way?

It is also circular logic to argue, as many do, that the graffito is anti-Semitic, we can find Jewish associations in the two murder scenes that night, thus both must be related and the graffito must be by the killer. That is self-serving and actually, in my view, weakens the case, as it shows the paucity of other convincing reasons to support the argument that "Jack" was a scrawler.

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

... when a woman is found murdered in a club owned by Jewish Immigrants,

I don't think Stride was actually IN the International Club but in the entry to it's yard.

when a second is found very near the Great Synagogue and outside the borders of all the other kills,

ONLY a significant second if Stride was a first victim of the same killer.

Coincidence surely has to be taken into account - and in the East End in 1888 almost any spot would be likely to be close to a Jewish-related building or area. The Jews' graveyard in Brady St near Buck's Row for example.

you have evidence that is discovered at the entrance to dwellings almost exclusively occupied by Jewish immigrants, and some writing on the wall above it mentioning Jews and Blame, can you afford to not consider that the writing and the evidence could be linked to the same person?

It surely cannot be dismissed, but no one has yet managed to work out a convincing meaning for this drivel - the best interpretation IMHO is directed at a resident of the building, or more generally at the Jewish community loocally, by an aggrieved non-Jew or maybe a customer who felt he had been cheated. It cimes best to me, after years of thinking about it as "Jews go home!"

I think we agree on that when you write: "He may have...it may have been an anti-semetic smear campaign that night. "

Slightly less than a year earlier all these Immigrants became a threat rather than a mere nuisance, to the christian locals and the government itself. Bloody Sunday left deep feelings of rage on both sides Im sure.

I wasn't aware that Bloody Sunday had any relation to immigration of Jews?

The key fact remains that (leaving aside it's potential use) the apron scrap could have been discarded anywhere. It is as likely to have been under some random graffito as not.

I fully accept that some Ripperologists want a "speaking" culprit - a killer who communicates by graffito or letter, who leaves clues etc. But IMHO that is more Agatha Christie than 1888 serial killer.

Why no other graffiti? people were looking for them, after all.... the apochryphal messages " I am down on whores.. going to kill X more..." attest to that. So why were no others found - a murderer so keen to leave clues would surely have done so? Why no letters - and there were many hoax ones as we know - that are irrefutably by the killer. Would it not be logical for a literate killer with a message to get over to convey that to the authorities or the press in a more permanent, undiscardable way?

It is also circular logic to argue, as many do, that the graffito is anti-Semitic, we can find Jewish associations in the two murder scenes that night, thus both must be related and the graffito must be by the killer. That is self-serving and actually, in my view, weakens the case, as it shows the paucity of other convincing reasons to support the argument that "Jack" was a scrawler.

Phil

I think Phil that you are speaking as if this killer on the Double Event night was a serial or multiple killer, as if he was driven to kill by impulses. I would say that neither need be the case, and if there is but one killer that night there may have been other motives than to satisfy a desire to kill. Therefore what "killers" do, in terms of notes and letters, isnt really, in my opinion, applicable at this point. The author of the grafitto could have just been pissed off at Jews in addition to having reasons to kill the women. For the record, I believe its highly unlikely both murders were in fact by one man, so the evidence Im interested in primarily at Goulston is the apron section, relating to ONLY the 2nd murder, but directly and unequivocally. Point being there is no reason at this point to assume that the grafitto and apron section if connected to one man was intended as a broadcast to the locals or the authorities. It could be graffitti meant to satisfy only the writer.

I personally see alternative answers possible for both murders, as one takes place on property thought to be run by anarchists and the second victim is alleged to have told a friend she was going to turn in "the Ripper". Or at least the guy who killed the women while she was out of town...he wasnt Jack then. Maybe Leather Apron.

Also I believe its fair to say Liz was killed on Jewish property, after all, inside the gates is where it began.

Cheers Phil

[Phil H]

I applaud you open-mindeness, Michael.

I think Phil that you are speaking as if this killer on the Double Event night was a serial or multiple killer, as if he was driven to kill by impulses.

Far from it. I have no personal views on the subject. In my post, I was simply seeking to illustrate some of the questions about assigning the graffito to the killer of eddowes, AT ALL.

I would say that neither need be the case, and if there is but one killer that night there may have been other motives than to satisfy a desire to kill. Therefore what "killers" do, in terms of notes and letters, isnt really, in my opinion, applicable at this point.

I don't think I said anything about "what killers do". But I do seriously question the association of the graffito and the apron-piece at all. I see it as so different from the other murders that I tend to discount the association on those grounds alone. On the whole, I perceive the killer of Eddowes (NOT of Stride - on which point you seem to agree) as being the same hand that murdered Polly and Annie, yet I see no message-leaving in the other crimes, unless the arrangement of knick-nacks at Annie's feet was some attempt to do so. If so, the killer was singularly incoherent in both cases.

For the reasons I gave in my previous post I see the material and the graffito as separate with no connection save location.

...so the evidence Im interested in primarily at Goulston is the apron section, relating to ONLY the 2nd murder, but directly and unequivocally.

Unless you believe that Polly and Annie were killed by someone different to the man who killed Eddowes, I don't see how you can disassociate the events - at least not without bringing them back at some point to seek consistencies (or lack of them) which should surely underpin any conclusions tentatively reached.

Point being there is no reason at this point to assume that the grafitto and apron section if connected to one man was intended as a broadcast to the locals or the authorities. It could be graffitti meant to satisfy only the writer.

Well that's a new one. He pauses, takes a risk and writes something incoherent, while the police are no doubt in pursuit, but it has no value or meaning except to him? Then, previously, he had time, but did nothing in the yard at No 29.... Sorry, I can't take that seriously.

I personally see alternative answers possible for both murders, as one takes place on property thought to be run by anarchists and the second victim is alleged to have told a friend she was going to turn in "the Ripper". Or at least the guy who killed the women while she was out of town...he wasnt Jack then. Maybe Leather Apron.

Well the "I know the killer" angle is, I will admit intriguing, but there is little to sustain it, and it requires invention to make it believeable. There is the whole question of her movements beforehand - she could not have known precisely when she would be released from the cells, for instance. It becomes even more difficult, if one believes that the same killer was having to rush north from Berner's St - one reason I have largely dropped that idea.

Also I believe its fair to say Liz was killed on Jewish property, after all, inside the gates is where it began.

But was she killed there by intent or just because she happened to be there. I rather think she was waiting for her "date" who was inside. Thus, there by accident. I see nothing to indicate that "Jack" arranged for her to be there, as he just might have with Mitre square. But actually, in the latter case, I think eddowes led him to the spot where there was a wooden "hoarding" against which she could lean. It is difficult, IMHO, in practical terms to make a Jewish connection stick.

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Phil,

Let me say that not every argument I provide is my own personal favorite, sometimes the Devils Advocate rules.

Ive saved a few comments you made and offered my own take after..

I do seriously question the association of the graffito and the apron-piece at all. I see it as so different from the other murders that I tend to discount the association on those grounds alone. On the whole, I perceive the killer of Eddowes (NOT of Stride - on which point you seem to agree) as being the same hand that murdered Polly and Annie, yet I see no message-leaving in the other crimes, unless the arrangement of knick-nacks at Annie's feet was some attempt to do so. If so, the killer was singularly incoherent in both cases....

For the reasons I gave in my previous post I see the material and the graffito as separate with no connection save location....

...Unless you believe that Polly and Annie were killed by someone different to the man who killed Eddowes, I don't see how you can disassociate the events - at least not without bringing them back at some point to seek consistencies (or lack of them) which should surely underpin any conclusions tentatively reached....

...Well that's a new one. He pauses, takes a risk and writes something incoherent, while the police are no doubt in pursuit, but it has no value or meaning except to him? Then, previously, he had time, but did nothing in the yard at No 29.... Sorry, I can't take that seriously....

Also I believe its fair to say Liz was killed on Jewish property, after all, inside the gates is where it began.

But was she killed there by intent or just because she happened to be there. I rather think she was waiting for her "date" who was inside. Thus, there by accident. I see nothing to indicate that "Jack" arranged for her to be there, as he just might have with Mitre square. But actually, in the latter case, I think eddowes led him to the spot where there was a wooden "hoarding" against which she could lean. It is difficult, IMHO, in practical terms to make a Jewish connection stick.

Phil

I think that Id take the word for the man who examined both Polly and Annie Phil as to whether Kate appeared to have been killed by the same hand....and we have that opinion on record. He didnt think so. Nor do I, for that and a few other reasons. So what was done at the crime scenes of C1 and C2 and what wasnt done have little or nothing to do with the crime scenes of C4. And C3 for that matter...in my opinion.

If the man that kills Kate didnt kill anyone else then no other crime scene comparison is relevant. Nor whether communications of any kind were made.

Liz could well have been killed by an Immigrant Jew on that property as a perceived threat...there were unfortunates paid to spy on dissidents and anarchists at that time...and if so they could have been right. She had been working for Jews for a few months, maybe she was approached. Point being, she may have been where she was with intent, not coincidentally. Even if mistaken for a spy, and actually waiting for a date...that may be my personal favorite so far...she apparently was alone on private property, not with a member or as an announced guest.

So when the man, the anti-semetic man, hears about this Berner Street murder from someone on the street he decides to rant. Maybe not to accuse anyone specific, maybe not to mislead the authorities...maybe just to make a hate statement on his own against Jews.

I dont believe anyone thinks that the man who dropped the apron lived in the Model Homes there....a pretty stupid place to leave evidence of a murder if its your own doorstep,..so it was dropped or placed there.

Since "IT was not there" at 2:20, I opt for placement, and since the writing also alludes to Jews and a blameless state..perhaps unjustly....I feel there is likely a connection.

But I do not believe that the apron, the writing, the murder in Mitre Square nor the murder in Berner Street had anything to do with a single mad killed nicknamed Jack the Ripper....he was born from the acts committed on earlier victims, and his absence in killings 3, 4 and 5 are what interest me most about the cases.

If we knew why we didnt have more abdominally mutilated street women...until Alice anyway....then we might be able to figure out who was responsible. A great example of that may be Lynn Cates's look at Jacob Isenschmid, who if guilty of the first 2 crimes, was off the street for the rest.

Cheers

[Phil H]

I think that Id take the word for the man who examined both Polly and Annie Phil as to whether Kate appeared to have been killed by the same hand....and we have that opinion on record. He didnt think so.

While there are certainly theories that assert that Kate was not killed by the same man who murdered Polly and Annie, and I certainly do not dismiss that view, the over-riding opinion seems to be that she was. I have an open mind on both scores.

(Can we please refer to victims by name and not as an acronym of number - they were people, after all and surely deserve recognition as women?)

If the man that kills Kate didnt kill anyone else then no other crime scene comparison is relevant.

Can you point me to anyone who holds that view though and to the full list of supporting evidence/arguments? We can and do speculate about Fenians, mistaken identity (Kelly) etc - but I don't think I have ever seen that argument advanced in full. I would agree that Stride is potentially a separate case.

Nor whether communications of any kind were made.

You appear to misunderstand my point - but then, I had not realised until now that you see the Eddowes murder, the graffito and cloth as an entirely separate case wholly unrelated to any other of the (usually linked) murders. Is that indeed your position?

Liz could well have been killed by an Immigrant Jew on that property as a perceived threat...there were unfortunates paid to spy on dissidents and anarchists at that time...and if so they could have been right.

Anything is possible - but a "domestic" is more my preference for the Stride murder. Kidney "dunnit".

She had been working for Jews for a few months, maybe she was approached. Point being, she may have been where she was with intent, not coincidentally. Even if mistaken for a spy, and actually waiting for a date...that may be my personal favorite so far...she apparently was alone on private property, not with a member or as an announced guest.

You have woven an elaborate scenario - in my view out of whole cloth. Her "date" may have invited her to wait in the yard.

So when the man, the anti-semetic man, hears about this Berner Street murder from someone on the street he decides to rant.

What anti-semitic man? How did he hear in the time available? Are you saying he was not Kate's killer either?

I dont believe anyone thinks that the man who dropped the apron lived in the Model Homes there....a pretty stupid place to leave evidence of a murder if its your own doorstep,..so it was dropped or placed there.

I have not seen anyone I respect here or elsewhere argue such a thing, for the very reasons you give.

Since "IT was not there" at 2:20, I opt for placement, and since the writing also alludes to Jews and a blameless state..perhaps unjustly....I feel there is likely a connection.

We do not know it was not there before 2.20 - the only person to say that (the PC) had sufficient motive to lie.

...his absence in killings 3, 4 and 5 are what interest me most about the cases.

I agree in relation to Stride and probably Kelly, but Eddowes is logically a progression from Chapman. The reasons - Stride and Kelly were killed by (different) people intimate with them, in Kelly's case in a way that was supposed to imitate the "Ripper" based on newspaper accounts of Eddowes' body. The killer went too far, but successfully misled the police at the time.

If we knew why we didnt have more abdominally mutilated street women...until Alice anyway....then we might be able to figure out who was responsible.

Alicehas all the hallmarks of Polly to me, but I also get the impression of a weakened killer - illness would be a good explanation for the gap, also fear, the police presence and the fact that someone was imitating him!

A great example of that may be Lynn Cates's look at Jacob Isenschmid, who if guilty of the first 2 crimes, was off the street for the rest.

Or - I hate to say it - Lechmere/Cross.

Phil

[Errata]

I'm one of those people who thinks that what somebody did is most often more revealing than what they say. Nobody acted as thought they thought the graffiti was significant other than it's placement being potentially riotworthy. And given that a bunch of cops hanging around waiting for it to get light enough to photograph would undoubtedly be seen as confirming the statement, I'm not sure they didn't make the right decision. Superintendent Arnold ought to have known. He was on the Lipski case. They got rid of the graffiti, but not the notes. And as best we can tell, no great effort was made to try and pin down when it was written, if there were similar messages elsewhere in the city, all that. None of the cops thought it was special, it was just uniquely located. Which says to me that the sentiment was scribbled on walls all the time, it just so happened this message was scribbled on a wall that hosted Ripper evidence. And if the police thought it likely to have been penned by the Ripper, I'm not sure why they wouldn't have seen that as the biggest break they'd yet gotten. And they really don't seem to have seen it that way. So since I think they are in a better position to know what was common, what sentiments were high, and what was potentially dangerous, I trust them on it. They don't seem to think it's related.