And, of course, you haven't a shred of evidence to support this argument. But then many contributors to this subject don't think they need anything as banal as actual evidence to support their arguments.
Oh dear, oh dear.
It is not my case to say who was the killer in 1888-1889.
Evidence must be allowed to speak for itself.
I will never accuse dead people.
Evidence is all there is. It is all I have. I have no right to protect old sources.
The fact that you "APPARENTLY" do not understand what is very clear, makes your continual misinterpretations understandable.
I find it astonishing to hear a Brit claim that you cannot use "apparently" in a sentence when you are certain of what you are talking about.
Perhaps someone needs to remind Mr Marriott of the Great British Understatement.... https://notesfromtheuk.com/2017/01/2...nderstatement/
Note the matching of the two pieces was done via the seams of the borders so that means the two pieces must have come from the same side of the apron. Do you not think that is strange, if she was wearing an apron?
The last time I looked an apron had a border all around, that border is stitched, this stitching is the seam.
All that line says to me is the cut began at one side of the apron and extended across to the opposite side. From border to border.
.... and if that be so would still have been attached to the body and would have been recorded as her wearing it.
It was recorded, but not as a piece of apron, it was designated as a handkerchief, in this case meaning a headcovering. Likely due to it being tied around the neck.
So there were three pieces of apron,Jon?The piece found on her body,the piece noted by Collard among her possessions.The Handkerchief around her neck,which wasn't a handkerchief but a piece of apron.
Sorry,four pieces,I forgot the piece Long found.Any advances on four pieces anyone?
Now which piece was brought to the attention of Brown?Not the piece on the body,because the body was nude.
Plus it isn't Brown's notes that survived as evidence,but notes made of Brown's evidence,which as notes seem to contain an extraordinary amount of detail.Perhaps Brown was a very sloe speaker.
Well it depends on which scenario you want to believe, which fits in with what you believe happened.
A different killer is quite probable. Someone who knew that the abdomens were ripped open on the other victims and that in some case the intestines were apparently drawn out. Someone who perhaps had a motive for killing Kelly and wanted to make it look like the same killer who had killed the other victims?
There is no uncertainty as to whether those intestines were removed. Both doctors involved in those respected cases described as much. They saw with their own eyes the intestines removed from the bodies. They reported what they saw, it is not open to dispute.
So, when you wrote the sentence above (quoted) you had no reasonable doubt whether the intestines were removed.
Yet, you chose to use "apparently", which tells me you clearly understand it's usage, yet you pretend not to.
The intestines were certainly drawn out.
Dr. Brown's "Apparently wearing" is exactly the same, and you know it.
Regards, Jon S.
Last edited by Wickerman : 09-21-2017 at 06:57 PM.