Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott
Yes, both pieces were there but there is no evidence that they ever made up a full apron all we have all through this are references to apron pieces
So why would they add the GS piece to the list of possessions when it was believed that it was from the apron she was wearing that doesn't make any sense at all.
Because they made a mistake.
None of your proposals explain why Eddowes is recorded under oath as wearing an Apron.
If she was wearing one as the official report strongly confirms, where did it go?
You however accept the list as being beyond reproach.
Why is this ?
Surely there must be more than just it fits your thinking.
Your argument appears to be because it is never explicitly said the two pieces form a whole (full) apron, they do not!
Such an approach is just your intreptation, that's ok, people disagree; however those who don't agree are numpties according to you, that is a very poor form of debate.
In an earlier post you said to the effect that you did not enjoy repeating this over and over again, let me assure you that you are not alone, I for one do not enjoy point out to you that your theories are often lacking in substance over and over again.
And don't forget, when I feel credit is due I say so, and I have done several times this year regarding some of your work.