From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George.
I have a copy of a memo from Warren to Fraser (City Police), asking if "...it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer".
It is dated 3rd Oct. 1888.

So, apparently Eddowes apron had a bib up the front as shown in the photo's.

This style of apron was for men & women, back in the 70's butchers still wore the same calico apron. Men would often fold the bib portion down behind the skirt, it was viewed as feminine to wear the bib up. Only the manager was expected to wear it that way - and he didn't do anything!
This was the most common apron we see in a lot of photographs of women in the streets, of the time.




Well I'm sorry about that, I didn't mean to suggest the apron was 6 feet tall. The width is about 3 ft, it doesn't just cover the front, it is intended to curl around the legs. There's only a slight gap at the back.



It looks like he used his initiative with Chapman too.
Apparently, Chapman was seen wearing a scarf when she left the lodging house, but no scarf was listed among her possessions. It seems to have disappeared the night she was murdered.
Not many people mention this, but it adds to the spontaneity of his actions, that they were not premeditated.
That's the way it looks to me, at least.



You are kidding, right?



I hoped you would accept the plastic bag was to be ignored in our case.
But, you must have noticed the meat was placed nearer to the bottom corner, not in the middle of the paper, and that near corner is pulled up and over the raw meat. Which explained why this one corner will be more wet with blood (in the absence of a plastic bag), than the other three corners. This is the only corner that is in direct contact with the meat/organs. This is what the evidence suggested, one corner was wet with blood, the others were not.

Yet again the evidential merry-go-round trundles on I wish I had a pound for every time this same topic has been discussed

If she had been wearing a bib apron then the top half around her neck would have still been in situ Insp Collards list of clothing does not make mention of anything around her neck which could relate to the top part of a bib apron. If it was a bib apron the rest of what was left would be clearly visible,

From Dr Browns testimony

Dr. Brown: "I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

yet again we have two evidential conflicts

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have only explained why I see one corner being wet with blood. I don't know how big the wet spot was, it could have been quite large, but that is neither here nor there because we do not have a suitable description detailing the size or shape of the wet area.

If the murderer rolled up the apron piece as you suggested, then a larger area than a corner of it would have been wet with blood because other parts of the same edge of the cloth would have come into contact with the blood.

Such a large area could not have been described as a corner.

One more thing: you are assuming that the murderer placed both organs together in one corner.

Why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, I've never tried to eat one myself.

I meant that you are assuming that the murderer took Eddowes' kidney and uterus with the intention of eating them.

There is no evidence that the Whitechapel Murderer was a cannibal.

[Wickerman]

The act of rolling up the apron would surely have resulted in a lot of wet blood all along that side of the apron and not just in one corner.

I have only explained why I see one corner being wet with blood. I don't know how big the wet spot was, it could have been quite large, but that is neither here nor there because we do not have a suitable description detailing the size or shape of the wet area.

[Wickerman]

Are you not making an assumption?

Yes, I've never tried to eat one myself.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If it is assumed that Jack took away the uterus and other parts from Chapman, it might be logical deduced that it was his intention to also remove organs from Eddowes, and that he would have come prepared for that eventuality.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

We could have a look at the experience of serial killers.

While 'disorganised' and 'organised' probably doesn't work in that you cannot fit serial killers into tidy boxes, for example: they're all organised to a degree otherwise they wouldn't evade capture; all serial killers display traits that are 'disorganised'.

It really wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that he improvised with the apron, the reason being that we have the experience of other serial killers.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... you roll something up from the edge, not from the middle.

Precisely, you might watch a shopkeeper wrapping produce, (Butcher, Fish & Chips,etc), they place the produce nearer to one corner & roll it up from one edge.
They don't put it in the middle.

But, you must have noticed the meat was placed nearer to the bottom corner, not in the middle of the paper, and that near corner is pulled up and over the raw meat. Which explained why this one corner will be more wet with blood (in the absence of a plastic bag), than the other three corners. This is the only corner that is in direct contact with the meat/organs. This is what the evidence suggested, one corner was wet with blood, the others were not.

The act of rolling up the apron would surely have resulted in a lot of wet blood all along that side of the apron and not just in one corner.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

An apron is likely a bit hard to digest.

Are you not making an assumption?

[Wickerman]

If the murderer was worried that the apron piece might be found at his lodgings, then what about Eddowes' kidney and uterus?

An apron is likely a bit hard to digest.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I Googled "size victorian apron". The photo that you show is of a pinafore rather than an apron, the later extending only to the waist.

Hi George.
I have a copy of a memo from Warren to Fraser (City Police), asking if "...it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer".
It is dated 3rd Oct. 1888.

So, apparently Eddowes apron had a bib up the front as shown in the photo's.

This style of apron was for men & women, back in the 70's butchers still wore the same calico apron. Men would often fold the bib portion down behind the skirt, it was viewed as feminine to wear the bib up. Only the manager was expected to wear it that way - and he didn't do anything!
This was the most common apron we see in a lot of photographs of women in the streets, of the time.

Leaving that aside, for an apron to be six ft high, as you suggest, the women in your photo would need to have been extraordinarily tall.

Well I'm sorry about that, I didn't mean to suggest the apron was 6 feet tall. The width is about 3 ft, it doesn't just cover the front, it is intended to curl around the legs. There's only a slight gap at the back.

If it is assumed that Jack took away the uterus and other parts from Chapman, it might be logical deduced that it was his intention to also remove organs from Eddowes, and that he would have come prepared for that eventuality.

It looks like he used his initiative with Chapman too.
Apparently, Chapman was seen wearing a scarf when she left the lodging house, but no scarf was listed among her possessions. It seems to have disappeared the night she was murdered.
Not many people mention this, but it adds to the spontaneity of his actions, that they were not premeditated.
That's the way it looks to me, at least.

At this stage I am not entirely persuaded that Jack did remove and take away the organs from either victim.

You are kidding, right?

I take your point about the wrapping shown in the video that you linked. However, Jack wouldn't have had the convenience of a plastic bag, and blood soaked organs wrapped in the method shown in that video (a third of the distance from the corner) would extend the wet blood stain considerably away from the edge. IMO this would not match Long's description, but I appreciate that you may hold a different viewpoint on that conjecture.

I hoped you would accept the plastic bag was to be ignored in our case.
But, you must have noticed the meat was placed nearer to the bottom corner, not in the middle of the paper, and that near corner is pulled up and over the raw meat. Which explained why this one corner will be more wet with blood (in the absence of a plastic bag), than the other three corners. This is the only corner that is in direct contact with the meat/organs. This is what the evidence suggested, one corner was wet with blood, the others were not.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A 'reason' for cutting off a large portion of apron would be to carry away the organs. It only stands to reason he can't put bloody organs in a pocket without messing up his jacket.
We can only speculate that he must have realized that piece of apron could implicate him if found at his lodgings, maybe he couldn't burn it, so went out to ditch it somewhere, no particular place in mind.

If the murderer was worried that the apron piece might be found at his lodgings, then what about Eddowes' kidney and uterus?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jon,

I Googled "size victorian apron". The photo that you show is of a pinafore rather than an apron, the later extending only to the waist. Leaving that aside, for an apron to be six ft high, as you suggest, the women in your photo would need to have been extraordinarily tall.

If it is assumed that Jack took away the uterus and other parts from Chapman, it might be logical deduced that it was his intention to also remove organs from Eddowes, and that he would have come prepared for that eventuality. At this stage I am not entirely persuaded that Jack did remove and take away the organs from either victim.

I take your point about the wrapping shown in the video that you linked. However, Jack wouldn't have had the convenience of a plastic bag, and blood soaked organs wrapped in the method shown in that video (a third of the distance from the corner) would extend the wet blood stain considerably away from the edge. IMO this would not match Long's description, but I appreciate that you may hold a different viewpoint on that conjecture.

Cheers, George

I think you will find it was this type of apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

What type of apron did you Google?
One typical from the period..



Are we assuming he came out with the intention of removing an organ?

Right, because you roll something up from the edge, not from the middle.

Precisely, you might watch a shopkeeper wrapping produce, (Butcher, Fish & Chips,etc), they place the produce nearer to one corner & roll it up from one edge.
They don't put it in the middle.
Click on link below..
https://youtu.be/dOpuuNoVUpI

Hi Jon,

I Googled "size victorian apron". The photo that you show is of a pinafore rather than an apron, the later extending only to the waist. Leaving that aside, for an apron to be six ft high, as you suggest, the women in your photo would need to have been extraordinarily tall.

If it is assumed that Jack took away the uterus and other parts from Chapman, it might be logical deduced that it was his intention to also remove organs from Eddowes, and that he would have come prepared for that eventuality. At this stage I am not entirely persuaded that Jack did remove and take away the organs from either victim.

I take your point about the wrapping shown in the video that you linked. However, Jack wouldn't have had the convenience of a plastic bag, and blood soaked organs wrapped in the method shown in that video (a third of the distance from the corner) would extend the wet blood stain considerably away from the edge. IMO this would not match Long's description, but I appreciate that you may hold a different viewpoint on that conjecture.

Cheers, George

[Curious Cat]

Do we know if the apron was hand made or produced by a supplier and bought? Was it made to fit or adjusted to fit?

All we know about the apron in question is that it was worn by Catherine at the time of her murder, was cut into two separate pieces, one piece was still tied around her waist while the other piece was found in a doorway some distance away from the body over an hour after the murder.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Eddowes was about 5 ft tall. You're suggesting she wore an apron 6 ft tall and 4 ft wide? A quick Google search suggests the standard size of an apron is 33" Wide x 32" Long.

Hi George.

What type of apron did you Google?
One typical from the period..

One would image that if Jack intended on carrying away organs he might have come prepared for that task.

Are we assuming he came out with the intention of removing an organ?

Had he used the apron for that purpose there would have been a large bloodstain in the middle, but there wasn't.

Right, because you roll something up from the edge, not from the middle.

The apron was, according to Long, who saw it first, wet with blood in one corner.

Precisely, you might watch a shopkeeper wrapping produce, (Butcher, Fish & Chips,etc), they place the produce nearer to one corner & roll it up from one edge.
They don't put it in the middle.
Click on link below..

https://youtu.be/dOpuuNoVUpI