GSG Conclusion

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have returned to reply to this post seeing as you are intent of having the last word on this topic and you are doing your polly parrot impression yet again. Let me for the last time make my position clear.

The two officers stated that they saw her wearing an apron which is your ace playing card. The officers gave their testimony 4 days after the event what was so differnet about the apron that they were able to remember 4 days later when they gave their testimony when virtually all women of the day wore white aprons. They were shown the GS piece and they identified it as having come from the apron she was wearing, now that is incredible as how they were able to positivley identify a piece of apron and on oath state that it came from the apron they saw her wearing, if they had been shown any old piece of apron they would still have stated it came from the one she was wearing, because by the time they gave their evidence it was a known fact that a piece of apron had been found in GS and that piece had been matched to another piece found in her possession. So their testimony is totally unsafe for the reasons stated because they were simply going along with what the belief was that the killer had deposited it in GS.

There is nothing remotely ‘unsafe’ about their testimony. Yes, Hutt took it a step too far when he said “I believe the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the Station.” But by then he knew that a piece had been discovered that had conclusively come from Eddowes apron and so he naturally assumed that it was from the same apron. After all, why would someone have presented a different apron at an Inquest into the death of the person who had worn it? Hutt and Robinson are totally believable and your attempt to discredit them is simply an attempt at shaping the narrative in favour of your theory.

Now playing devils advocate and it accepted that she was wearing an apron when arrested there now comes other problems firstly SGt Byfield the station officer who booked her into custody and released her makes no mention of seeing her wearing an apron. I am sure you wil try to answer that by saying he wasnt asked, well if that be the case why were the other two constables asked and not him? or was he asked and couldnt be certain?

But you’re not playing Devil’s Advocate are you Trevor? You are playing the part of a man trying anything to shoehorn a theory into place.

I won’t try to answer Trevor, I will answer. Byfield very clearly wasn’t asked. Why would he have brought up the apron if he wasn’t asked? This is black and white stuff to all but you.

On the subject of the apron and again playing devils advocate and accepting she was wearing and apron on arrest, how do we know that she didnt cut her own apron after all she had a knife in her possession, but of course that could not have happened becasue there is no evidnce to show that the two apron pieces ever made up a full apron.

Yes there is.

Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.

About as clear as it gets although as it doesn’t fit you theory I’m guessing that this one goes onto the ever growing ‘unsafe’ pile.

More importantly though, there’s not a single mention by any Police Officer or Doctor that there was a missing piece. The piece found in Goulston Street was evidence as would a missing piece have been but there’s no record of it being mentioned or searched for. Why? Because we know that the GS piece when put to the apron made a complete apron. Only your desperation keeps you flogging away at this long dead horse.

Then we come to the mortuary, the clothes were taken carefully off the body starting at the top and working down. The list of her clothing does not show an apron or the remains of a cut apron. That list was made at the time and so is prime evidence.

Pages on here have been wasted on this. I recall Wickerman losing the will to live trying to get through to you.

Then we come to the list of possessions which describes one piece of old white apron, which you and others suggest is the remaining piece of her apron after the killer had cut a piece, but this apron piece has no signs of stab marks conssitent with the other items of clothing or significant blood stains consitent with the other items of clothing having regards to the fact that the killer stabbed her several times through her outer clothing. In fact none of the two pieces of apron were described as having cuts consistent with her being stabbed in the abdomen and bearing in mind if she was wearing an apron there would be cuts to the apron caused by the actions of the killer and there is no evidnce to show the two pieces when matched made up a full apron, they were both described as simply pieces.

But the downward cut on the skirts would have cut through the apron too and if the killer cut the away and moved it at that point there would have been no further cuts.

And why and how did the killer manage to cut the GS piece when it was a corner piece with a string attached when it would have been easier for him to cut a piece from the bottom half of the apron doesnt make any sense, what happend to the other corner with the remaining string attached, On the subject of the matching of the two pieces of apron they were matched by Dr Brown who matched them by the seams of the borders corresponding which as I have stated time and time agsin means that they were from the same side of what was an old apron, the corner piece being from the top left/right and the bottom piece from the bottom left/right

Stamp your feet as much as you like Trevor. I, and most others on her don’t just take your opinion as gospel because you are usually wrong. You weren’t there. He cut through the waistband then across and through the side Id say. Why is this so difficult? You are simply imagining difficulties that wouldn’t have existed at the time and at the same time you’re even trying to claim to know the exact order of things and how the killer was thinking too.

The we have PC Long who in his signed deposition makes no mention of examaning the apron piece and noticing yet in his testimony recorded by the Times Newspaper. He found the apon piece over an hour after the murder and states one corner was wet with blood. I think by that time any blood would have dried, on this note the evidence of Dr Brown conflcits with that and says "There were smears of blood on it as if a hand or knife had been wiped" how good is that opinion, if Eddowes had been using that as a sanitary device that would also show the same result and adding to that traces of faceal matter also on the same side 100% consistent with her using that piece for the purpose suggested.

Really? If the blood should have been dried by the time Long saw it had the killer dropped it then it certainly should have been dry if Eddowes had dropped it even earlier or does menstrual blood have different properties that we’re unaware of?

Now we look at Insp Collards testimony he was present when the body was stripped and produced lists of her clothing and her possessions. Again by the time the inquest took place he was aware of the GS piece being found and what the explanation was, and so he sits on the fence and says when shown the apron piece, he says "that she was apparently wearing" so he is not sure because of what the belief was as to how it got to GS.

Or he used ‘apparently’ because it was no longer attached to the body when he saw it. This isn’t difficult stuff Trevor.

The we look at Dc Halse who in his deposition testimony says "I saw deceased stripped and noticed and saw a portion of the apron was missing" he is not wrong there because a portion from the apron piece in her possession was missing. then we get another evidential conflict courtesey of the press yet again in The Times inquest report he states"He there saw the deceased undressed and noticed that a portion of the apron she wore was missing" We have to accept the signed deposition because that would have been read to him before signing. The newspaper report is therefore unsafe to rely on.

Where is the conflict here? You are nitpicking over the words “she wore.” Pathetic. That the words ‘she wore’ was omitted from the testimony is no issue at all because it could be inferred.

As you can see there is more than enough evidence to cast a major doubt as to whether or not she was wearing an apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nothing. Not a smidgeon. Just a product of your over-active imagination and your utter desperation to come up with something ‘new.’

Eddowes was wearing an apron. It’s a fact. It’s not even worthy of discussion.

[Abby Normal]

Not mistaken, the two pieces were matched but they didnt make up a full apron your reading it wrong but no need to apologise, and you are referriing to a newspaper report which is in direct conflcit with the signed deposition

www.trevormarriott.co,uk

ah so now they matched-but didnt make up a full apron. lol.

not that it matters one bit-if they matched the piece from Goulston street to the piece from Eddowes-its end of story. it dont even matter if it still didnt make a complete apron, because there may have been a piece missing already.

but how do you know it didnt make a full apron???

im quivering with anticipation for your reply

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

You made a statement:
Where does it say it is accepted, there is nothing to show that the two pieces made up a full apron or were ever matched to make up a full apron

which proved to be incorrect:

Daily News 5 Oct 1888 - Inquest - Dr Brown:
My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent. Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.

You might at least acknowledge that you could have been mistaken.

Cheers, George

Not mistaken, the two pieces were matched but they didnt make up a full apron your reading it wrong but no need to apologise, and you are referriing to a newspaper report which is in direct conflcit with the signed deposition

www.trevormarriott.co,uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The point isn’t necessarily about that validity of a new theory Trevor as a new theory will always elicit strong opinion, the problem is that you don’t appear to present a theory. What you do is present a ‘fact.’ You make your own interpretation then automatically assume that your suggestion must be true and that everyone should accept it and then you treat everyone as ‘numpties’ because they dare to disagree with you.

What we have is a piece of apron that undoubtedly came from the rest of the apron in Eddowes possession and two Constable’s who both saw her at close quarters and spent time in her company hours and minutes before she was murdered who both stated with that she was undoubtedly wearing an apron. You can’t really get better witnesses than these two and yet you attempt to discredit them even though the Police wouldn’t have benefitted in any way at all in any way from a false claim. The piece of apron was considered as a piece of evidence and but you claim that the apron was incomplete (based on zero evidence) and yet the Police made no mention of searching for this potentially important piece of missing evidence. No Policeman or Doctor mentions the apron being incomplete.

The conclusion is inescapable and obvious Trevor. Eddowes was wearing the apron when she was murdered and the killer deposited a piece of it, for whatever reason, in Goulston Street. There’s not a grain of evidence to contradict this Trevor. You are only seeking to establish your own storyline. You criticise others for conjecture but ignore it when you do it yourself. The facts are completely against you as is the very obvious conclusion that the killer dropped the apron piece in Goulston Street. It’s as close to a fact that we can get.

I have returned to reply to this post seeing as you are intent of having the last word on this topic and you are doing your polly parrot impression yet again. Let me for the last time make my position clear.

The two officers stated that they saw her wearing an apron which is your ace playing card. The officers gave their testimony 4 days after the event what was so differnet about the apron that they were able to remember 4 days later when they gave their testimony when virtually all women of the day wore white aprons. They were shown the GS piece and they identified it as having come from the apron she was wearing, now that is incredible as how they were able to positivley identify a piece of apron and on oath state that it came from the apron they saw her wearing, if they had been shown any old piece of apron they would still have stated it came from the one she was wearing, because by the time they gave their evidence it was a known fact that a piece of apron had been found in GS and that piece had been matched to another piece found in her possession. So their testimony is totally unsafe for the reasons stated because they were simply going along with what the belief was that the killer had deposited it in GS.

Now playing devils advocate and it accepted that she was wearing an apron when arrested there now comes other problems firstly SGt Byfield the station officer who booked her into custody and released her makes no mention of seeing her wearing an apron. I am sure you wil try to answer that by saying he wasnt asked, well if that be the case why were the other two constables asked and not him? or was he asked and couldnt be certain?

On the subject of the apron and again playing devils advocate and accepting she was wearing and apron on arrest, how do we know that she didnt cut her own apron after all she had a knife in her possession, but of course that could not have happened becasue there is no evidnce to show that the two apron pieces ever made up a full apron.

Then we come to the mortuary, the clothes were taken carefully off the body starting at the top and working down. The list of her clothing does not show an apron or the remains of a cut apron. That list was made at the time and so is prime evidence

Then we come to the list of possessions which describes one piece of old white apron, which you and others suggest is the remaining piece of her apron after the killer had cut a piece, but this apron piece has no signs of stab marks conssitent with the other items of clothing or significant blood stains consitent with the other items of clothing having regards to the fact that the killer stabbed her several times through her outer clothing. In fact none of the two pieces of apron were described as having cuts consistent with her being stabbed in the abdomen and bearing in mind if she was wearing an apron there would be cuts to the apron caused by the actions of the killer and there is no evidnce to show the two pieces when matched made up a full apron, they were both described as simply pieces.

And why and how did the killer manage to cut the GS piece when it was a corner piece with a string attached when it would have been easier for him to cut a piece from the bottom half of the apron doesnt make any sense, what happend to the other corner with the remaining string attached, On the subject of the matching of the two pieces of apron they were matched by Dr Brown who matched them by the seams of the borders corresponding which as I have stated time and time agsin means that they were from the same side of what was an old apron, the corner piece being from the top left/right and the bottom piece from the bottom left/right

The we have PC Long who in his signed deposition makes no mention of examaning the apron piece and noticing yet in his testimony recorded by the Times Newspaper. He found the apon piece over an hour after the murder and states one corner was wet with blood. I think by that time any blood would have dried, on this note the evidence of Dr Brown conflcits with that and says "There were smears of blood on it as if a hand or knife had been wiped" how good is that opinion, if Eddowes had been using that as a sanitary device that would also show the same result and adding to that traces of faceal matter also on the same side 100% consistent with her using that piece for the purpose suggested.

Now we look at Insp Collards testimony he was present when the body was stripped and produced lists of her clothing and her possessions. Again by the time the inquest took place he was aware of the GS piece being found and what the explanation was, and so he sits on the fence and says when shown the apron piece, he says "that she was apparently wearing" so he is not sure because of what the belief was as to how it got to GS.

The we look at Dc Halse who in his deposition testimony says "I saw deceased stripped and noticed and saw a portion of the apron was missing" he is not wrong there because a portion from the apron piece in her possession was missing. then we get another evidential conflict courtesey of the press yet again in The Times inquest report he states"He there saw the deceased undressed and noticed that a portion of the apron she wore was missing" We have to accept the signed deposition because that would have been read to him before signing. The newspaper report is therefore unsafe to rely on.

As you can see there is more than enough evidence to cast a major doubt as to whether or not she was wearing an apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

Why did he choose the east entrance rather than the slightly nearer west entrance? Presumably to watch what happened from the safety of his room in Middlesex Street.

Setting aside the diary's modernity, didn't Mr. Rogan establish that the door jamb, etc., was not visible from Middlesex Street?

"the entire West side of Goulston St and the South side of New Goulston St was one continuous line of 5-storey housing (Brunswick Buildings) which was taller than any building in Middlesex St and so would have blocked any line of sight."

Do you dispute this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Apologies. My mistake. I was referring to the sighting of a man wiping his hands in Church Lane (not Passage) after the Stride murder. If he came prepared, as usual, but expended his wiping cloth after Stride he would need to improvise with the apron. Just a thought.

Cheers, George
P.S. Try to avoid getting old as long as possible.

I’m 57 this year George but the way that I’m aching after yesterdays gardening I feel 87!

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

That could have been the case. Or he might have used that cloth in situ and location might have come into it too perhaps? Hanbury Street and Mitre Square were both bloodier affairs than Bucks Row but with the Chapman he was in a yard where he would have had at least some time to check himself over and clean up whereas in Mitre Square he had three entrances to keep an eye on where at any second a Constable’s step might have been heard, so it wouldn’t have been surprising for him to have decided to acquire a piece of cloth for a clean up at a safer location after wiping his hands and knife with a cloth that he might have bought himself.

Hi Herlock,

Apologies. My mistake. I was referring to the sighting of a man wiping his hands in Church Lane (not Passage) after the Stride murder. If he came prepared, as usual, but expended his wiping cloth after Stride he would need to improvise with the apron. Just a thought.

Cheers, George
P.S. Try to avoid getting old as long as possible.

[GBinOz]

Hi Trevor,

You made a statement:
Where does it say it is accepted, there is nothing to show that the two pieces made up a full apron or were ever matched to make up a full apron

which proved to be incorrect:

Daily News 5 Oct 1888 - Inquest - Dr Brown:
My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent. Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.

You might at least acknowledge that you could have been mistaken.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ridiculous to you and the several other blinkered researchers here who cant and wont accept that there is a wealth of evidence to challenge the old accpted theory and I know that despite being told that I am the only one who believes in the challenge I know that not to be the case and that there are many others who as a result of my challenge are not so ready to now accpet the old theory.

I am done now with this topic and intend to ignor the resident band of numpties who hold court here every minute of every day

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The point isn’t necessarily about that validity of a new theory Trevor as a new theory will always elicit strong opinion, the problem is that you don’t appear to present a theory. What you do is present a ‘fact.’ You make your own interpretation then automatically assume that your suggestion must be true and that everyone should accept it and then you treat everyone as ‘numpties’ because they dare to disagree with you.

What we have is a piece of apron that undoubtedly came from the rest of the apron in Eddowes possession and two Constable’s who both saw her at close quarters and spent time in her company hours and minutes before she was murdered who both stated with that she was undoubtedly wearing an apron. You can’t really get better witnesses than these two and yet you attempt to discredit them even though the Police wouldn’t have benefitted in any way at all in any way from a false claim. The piece of apron was considered as a piece of evidence and but you claim that the apron was incomplete (based on zero evidence) and yet the Police made no mention of searching for this potentially important piece of missing evidence. No Policeman or Doctor mentions the apron being incomplete.

The conclusion is inescapable and obvious Trevor. Eddowes was wearing the apron when she was murdered and the killer deposited a piece of it, for whatever reason, in Goulston Street. There’s not a grain of evidence to contradict this Trevor. You are only seeking to establish your own storyline. You criticise others for conjecture but ignore it when you do it yourself. The facts are completely against you as is the very obvious conclusion that the killer dropped the apron piece in Goulston Street. It’s as close to a fact that we can get.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Or maybe he wasn't forgetful, but he used the cloth he bought with him to wipe his hands/knife in Church Passage and he discarded it after that?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

That could have been the case. Or he might have used that cloth in situ and location might have come into it too perhaps? Hanbury Street and Mitre Square were both bloodier affairs than Bucks Row but with the Chapman he was in a yard where he would have had at least some time to check himself over and clean up whereas in Mitre Square he had three entrances to keep an eye on where at any second a Constable’s step might have been heard, so it wouldn’t have been surprising for him to have decided to acquire a piece of cloth for a clean up at a safer location after wiping his hands and knife with a cloth that he might have bought himself.

[Trevor Marriott]

and heres hoping his ridiculous theories burn up too. good lord

Ridiculous to you and the several other blinkered researchers here who cant and wont accept that there is a wealth of evidence to challenge the old accpted theory and I know that despite being told that I am the only one who believes in the challenge I know that not to be the case and that there are many others who as a result of my challenge are not so ready to now accpet the old theory.

I am done now with this topic and intend to ignor the resident band of numpties who hold court here every minute of every day

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

and heres hoping his ridiculous theories burn up too. good lord

Ageed ,you would think with all the replys back and forth, with so many ifs buts, and maybe,s that someone could believe 100% in such a theory .



Post 289 .somes it up


''I think your wasting your time Franco , but never mind. Im sure youve seen the responses to trevors theory of late [that highlight to many discrepancies to count], and for a while now!!!. In fact its fast becoming just an old theory with way too many holes that belongs with the rest of the dumb ass ones out there.

For if it were in fact true the person who if ever solves this mystery surely would be dining with Royalty and having lunch with Presidents.
So dont expect a ''Sir Trev'' any time soon ''.

[Abby Normal]

and heres hoping his ridiculous theories burn up too. good lord

[FISHY1118]

for the sake of us all i hope its you... and you forget your boots

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n786015]

and maybe one day a man will walk on the sun

www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/QUOTE

for the sake of us all i hope its you.. and you forget your boots