Apron placement as intimidation?

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks jon,


The differences are obvious are they not?

Steve

I wondered when you would find the need to surface yet again

Just for your benefit !!!!!!!!

Eddowes had a wound to the abdomen from the breast bone to the pubes now by my reckoning thats about 10 inches- The cuts in the skirts were 10 inches in a downward direction.

I think you need to go back and check Dr Browns testimony and then go back and look at the image the other wounds he describes they are there to be seen in the photo I highlighted.

In fact some he mentions cannot be clearly seen on the photo i.e.
Stab wound to the liver
Stab wound to the left groin, below this was a cut of three inches going through all the tissues making a wound.
An inch below the crease of he thigh was a cut extending from the anterior spine of the illium obliquely down the inner side of the left thigh and separating the left labium forming a flap of skin up to the groin

You have to bear in mind that that mortuary photo was taken some time after the post mortem and after the wounds had been stitched, but I am happy to stick with my assessment and evaluation of the cuts to the clothing in comparisons to the wounds on the body, and that some were inflcited at the start of the onslaught. We are never going to match them identically because we dont know the position of the clothes in relation to the body when the knife wounds were inflicted.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Stab wound to the liver

The liver was not stabbed through her clothing, this was collateral damage from when the killer inserted the knife at the sternum and drew it down towards the pubes.

[Elamarna]

I wondered when you would find the need to surface yet again

Insults are the last resort of those who cannot debate.

If you checked, I have not been away.

Just for your benefit !!!!!!!!

No Trevor, not mine, but all who use this forum and expect answers to genuine questions.

Eddowes had a wound to the abdomen from the breast bone to the pubes now by my reckoning thats about 10 inches- The cuts in the skirts were 10 inches in a downward direction.

I think you will find it is more than 10 inches Trevor.

I think you need to go back and check Dr Browns testimony and then go back and look at the image the other wounds he describes they are there to be seen in the photo I highlighted.

In fact some he mentions cannot be clearly seen on the photo i.e.
Stab wound to the liver

Indeed. and the liver stab should be if it is a stab which goes through the clothing and body wall.

Its not there is it?

Explain?

Stab wound to the left groin, below this was a cut of three inches going through all the tissues making a wound.
An inch below the crease of he thigh was a cut extending from the anterior spine of the illium obliquely down the inner side of the left thigh and separating the left labium forming a flap of skin up to the groin

Ignoring the point of course Trevor, as always.

You claimed in June, and it appears that has not changed, that a mark to the right of the right hip as looked at, which you highlighted, was a stab wound.

Just which cut to the clothing does the Cut line up with?

Once again it is clear from the photo which you used, and even more so from the one posted today by Jon, that this is not a stab wound, and is not even on the body of Eddowes.


Even when this is made clear, you find it impossible to agree and accept such.

You have to bear in mind that that mortuary photo was taken some time after the post mortem and after the wounds had been stitched, but I am happy to stick with my assessment and evaluation of the cuts to the clothing in comparisons to the wounds on the body, and that some were inflcited at the start of the onslaught. We are never going to match them identically because we dont know the position of the clothes in relation to the body when the knife wounds were inflicted.

Irrelevant details to the issue under discussion,

The one thing your post DOES NOT address is the actual issue both Jon and I specifically raised and which post #241 purports to be about.


Come on admit you were wrong and retain some degree of integrity!



Steve

[Pierre]

Jon,

It is unlikely you will get any response to this point, I have been pointing out Trevor since June when he posted the below.



He has never responded to this, not to even to defend his position, however despite this Trevor continues to post view.



Steve

Hi Steve,

And the cut to the left is outside of the body.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

And the cut to the left is outside of the body.

Pierre

Pierre


Indeed it is on the left of the photo, which is her right.


That is the one I am talking about.

Have been waiting 6 months(nearly) for a reply, and still waiting.


Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre


Indeed it is on the left of the photo, which is her right.


That is the one I am talking about.

Have been waiting 6 months(nearly) for a reply, and still waiting.


Steve

Yes, well, I don´t think there is any reason to wait. Everyone can see that he is wrong.

Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Insults are the last resort of those who cannot debate.

If you checked, I have not been away.






No Trevor, not mine, but all who use this forum and expect answers to genuine questions.





I think you will find it is more than 10 inches Trevor.






Indeed. and the liver stab should be if it is a stab which goes through the clothing and body wall.

Its not there is it?

Explain?




Ignoring the point of course Trevor, as always.

You claimed in June, and it appears that has not changed, that a mark to the right of the right hip as looked at, which you highlighted, was a stab wound.

Just which cut to the clothing does the Cut line up with?

Once again it is clear from the photo which you used, and even more so from the one posted today by Jon, that this is not a stab wound, and is not even on the body of Eddowes.


Even when this is made clear, you find it impossible to agree and accept such.






Irrelevant details to the issue under discussion,

The one thing your post DOES NOT address is the actual issue both Jon and I specifically raised and which post #241 purports to be about.


Come on admit you were wrong and retain some degree of integrity!



Steve

First things first, I am not going to admit I am wrong so if you are waiting for that you have a long wait my integrity is not in question. In fact if anyone's is at stake it is yours with regards to your forlorn attempts at continually trying to prop up the old accepted theories, which you seem to readily accept without question and as soon as someone questions those theories whether it be me or anyone else, up you pop with your stock questions asking for sources and data. There isnt a need to provide sources and data because most of the time there is none available and you know that, but when the flaws in the evidence, the facts, and witness testimony are highlighted and clearly visible for all to see, then that is when the old accepted theories are called into question, and then that is the point when they should not be readily accepted as being correct

I am happy to stick with my assessment and evaluation of the cuts to the clothing in comparisons to the wounds on the body, and say that at least two wounds were inflicted through the outer clothing, which is the point I was trying to make in the first instance, but someone rang the bell waking everyone up in numpty towers, to descend on another thread on here in their inimitable fashion

As to the cuts in the clothing in general, anyone who suggests that the cuts in the clothing were made without the skin being cut or stabbed is deluded.

In any event we are never going to match them identically because we dont know the position of the clothes in relation to the body when the knife wounds were inflicted.

As to the one issue with the photo you seem to want to eliminate it could quite easily be a small cut, it is only your opinion that it is a paper issue.

Grey Petticoat 1.5 inch cut on front.

I dont see any other marks of a similar nature on the photograph to corroborate your suggestion, but I do see many crease marks on the photo.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

First things first, I am not going to admit I am wrong so if you are waiting for that you have a long wait my integrity is not in question.

Well you are incorrect in your interpretation of the mark to the right of Eddowes right hip.

Just look at it Trevor, it is not on the body.

NOTE I am talking about 1 MARK, which you claim shows a stab wound, nothing else on the photo..

And your continual refusal to admit this point does indeed raise serious questions over the integrity shown.

In fact if anyone's is at stake it is yours with regards to your forlorn attempts at continually trying to prop up the old accepted theories, which you seem to readily accept without question and as soon as someone questions those theories whether it be me or anyone else, up you pop with your stock questions asking for sources and data.

Come on you must be able to do better than that, surely?

Lets get things clear shall we, you asked a set of question in post # 1451 of the thread "Pc long and the piece of rag", in an attempt to gauge my views on the "old theories" which is your code for something you do not agree with.

I replied post#1453, making my views clear on many subjects, some of which I probably agreed with you on, others not.
It seems that you did not get what you expected; because you have not had the common decency or good manners to say thank you.



What one gets instead are snide comments and insults, so immature!

There isnt a need to provide sources and data because most of the time
there is none available and you know that, but when the flaws in the evidence, the facts, and witness testimony are highlighted and clearly visible for all to see, then that is when the old accepted theories are called into question, and then that is the point when they should not be readily accepted as being correct

Oh dear,

Firstly to do any meaningful research, be that in history or medicine or any other discipline one needs data and sources.

To actually claim such are not need is either ignorance or the intentional misleading of others.

The evidence you claim is faulty are actually sources, do you not understand that?



Yes some of the older theories are faulty, see above.

However something is not faulty just because you say it is, and your repeated claim of it being "clear to all," is just not true, it is your view, just yours.

I am happy to stick with my assessment and evaluation of the cuts to the clothing in comparisons to the wounds on the body, and say that at least two wounds were inflicted through the outer clothing, which is the point I was trying to make in the first instance, but someone rang the bell waking everyone up in numpty towers, to descend on another thread on here in their inimitable fashion

Insults again, people who disagree with you are "numpties", why not show some maturity Trevor.

People descend as you call it, because they consider you wrong and highly disingenuous.

As to the cuts in the clothing in general, anyone who suggests that the cuts in the clothing were made without the skin being cut or stabbed is deluded.

In which case show on the photographs, the stab wound to the liver on the body please?

In any event we are never going to match them identically because we dont know the position of the clothes in relation to the body when the knife wounds were inflicted.

That is very true, we agree on something!

As to the one issue with the photo you seem to want to eliminate it could quite easily be a small cut, it is only your opinion that it is a paper issue.

Lets be really clear here, No one is trying eliminate the photo, it is an historical source, you know something you claim we do not NEED.

Please refrain from making such disingenuous claims.



However I am certainly challenging what you claim it shows in one area.

You are still claiming that the mark to the right of Eddowes hip is on her body; considering that even in the photo you posted the outline of the body can be seen and the mark is outside of the body;One wonders how it is possible to continue to maintain this simply unrealistic position and maintain any degree of integrity.

It is not just my opinion, provide someone who seriously thinks that is a mark on her body?

You are seriously misrepresenting that particular mark by continuing promote this "idea"

Grey Petticoat 1.5 inch cut on front.

Please be realistic

I dont see any other marks of a similar nature on the photograph to corroborate your suggestion, but I do see many crease marks on the photo.

Trevor,

One does not need there to be another example; please, please look at the photo, the mark is not on the body, it is several inches off of it.

In addition the mark is not visible on other copies of the photograph, its something produced by coping.

This is not opinion, it is fact supported overwhelmingly by the photographic evidence ( there is a body outline, the mark is outside, not inside of this outline.)



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes some of the older theories are faulty, see above.

However something is not faulty just because you say it is, and your repeated claim of it being "clear to all," is just not true, it is your view, just yours.

When I say something is faulty as you describe, I do not do so without anything to support it. With regards to this I do have a little more experience with witness and statements and evidential issue than you.

People descend as you call it, because they consider you wrong and highly disingenuous.

Those people you refer to are those that are guilty of continually propping up the old theories, and you are one of those. You continually try to negate any new issues that are put forward or any new suggestions. But I dont see any sign of you making any effort to dispel any of the old accepted theories.

Lets be really clear here, No one is trying eliminate the photo, it is an historical source, you know something you claim we do not NEED.

No I do not, I am pointing what I see on the photo, and I do accept that it appears to not show on other photos so in that re[ect you may be correct.


Steve

In concluding let me ask you one question, which should bring this issue of the cuts and the wounds to a close.

Do you accept that the cuts as described by Collard in her clothing were as a direct result of her being stabbed through her outer clothing ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Indeed. and the liver stab should be if it is a stab which goes through the clothing and body wall.

Its not there is it?

Explain?

Hi Steve

The liver was stabbed, but this was done as the knife was inserted and drawn down from the breast bone down to the pubes, as Dr Brown noted at the p.m.

We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.

Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

The liver was stabbed, but this was done as the knife was inserted and drawn down from the breast bone down to the pubes, as Dr Brown noted at the p.m.

We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.

Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut.

Yes Jon, it seems clear from the medical evidence, that the damage to the liver was due to the other cut, it was collateral damage, not a distinct separate wound.



I was just trying to make the point there is on obvious individual stab wound which would be te case, if this was done by stabling through her clothing.Maybe I could have worded my post better.

This is something Trevor highlighted himself in a post yesterday.

I find his response to the issue regarding the mark not on te photo you published to be truly incredulous.


Steve

[Elamarna]

In concluding let me ask you one question, which should bring this issue of the cuts and the wounds to a close.

Do you accept that the cuts as described by Collard in her clothing were as a direct result of her being stabbed through her outer clothing ?

Firstly it will not conclude the issue because you refuse to acknowledge that on a photo you posted and on which you highlighted and claimed as stabs a selection of wounds and marks; One of these was clear not a wound to the body!.

Until such time as you show some humility and say "that particular mark was a mistake" the subject is not concluded.


However unlike some I answer questions when ask , its the polite thing to do. and I say thank you too!!


The cuts to the clothing, are just that, cuts. They are by no stretch of the imagination stabs.


Answer here, or ignore like normal, makes no difference.

The questioning will continue until a relevant and reasonable response is given.


All the best


Steve

[Jon Guy]

.Maybe I could have worded my post better.

No, your post to Trevor was clear, Steve.
I just needed to get in my point about how the damage to the liver occurred, and Trevor won`t play with me anymore :-(
I may still be wrong about how the liver was stabbed and sliced, but I really don`t mind being corrected.

[Elamarna]

No, your post to Trevor was clear, Steve.
I just needed to get in my point about how the damage to the liver occurred, and Trevor won`t play with me anymore :-(
I may still be wrong about how the liver was stabbed and sliced, but I really don`t mind being corrected.

Jon,

no problem.

I just wish some would say "yes made an honest mistake" rather than carry on defending that which cannot be defended.

Your view seems perfectly sensible from the medical evidence, yes you may be wrong, but it will need some real evidence to convince that is the case.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Firstly it will not conclude the issue because you refuse to acknowledge that on a photo you posted and on which you highlighted and claimed as stabs a selection of wounds and marks; One of these was clear not a wound to the body!.

Until such time as you show some humility and say "that particular mark was a mistake" the subject is not concluded.


However unlike some I answer questions when ask , its the polite thing to do. and I say thank you too!!


The cuts to the clothing, are just that, cuts. They are by no stretch of the imagination stabs.


Answer here, or ignore like normal, makes no difference.

The questioning will continue until a relevant and reasonable response is given.


All the best


Steve

I have no intention of ignoring you

I notice you didn't answer my question !

I mentioned in a previous post that it would be near on impossible for the killer to have made those cuts to the clothing without penetrating the skin. The fact that the cuts in the clothing were bloodstained is testimony to that fact.

As to stabbing, and cuts to clothing, for the cuts and wounds referred to, to have been made the killer would have to have first stabbed her and then drawn the knife down or across as i have suggested from day one and is corroborated by the cuts as described by collard.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk