Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    you keep missing the point and you are not listening or reading the posts. I accept that the two pieces matched, but you cant seem to grasp the fact that when the two pieces were matched there isnt any evidnce to show that they made up a full apron. So if you say she was wearing a full apron where did the rest of it go? and how did the piece found among her posessions come to be there and was not seen on the body. not forgetting that she carried her possessions in two tick bags

    Because they were matched by the seams they had to have come from the same side of the apron, therefore one piece with a string attached was from the top half and the other piece from the bottom half. making up half an apron and again if the killer lifted up all her clothes above her waist was he able to cut a piece of apron for whatever purpose when it would have been easier for him to cut a piece of material from any other item of her clothing which was more accesible because the apron would have been the furthest away from him.

    She had more than enough time after leaving the police station to make her way back to Flower and Dean Street, if she did that I have no idea why she didnt go to her lodgings and then decided to go back to the City and try to make some money to compensate for the money she had spent on drink earlier in the day.

    What cant speak can lie there is no sign of an apron or any piece of an apron in Fosters sketch of the body that is another factor which clearly shows she was not wearing an apron.

    www.trevormarriott,co.uk


    Which Forster sketch would that be , can you post it ?.....as ive only seen one that was from the Mortuary .



    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      The connecting evidence discredits them

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Not even close. Your simply making a deliberate and very convenient attempt to discredit them based on a desire to bolster your own theory.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
        Fair enough.


        Daily News of October 5:
        "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. It is impossible to assert that the blood is human blood. It looks as if it had had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped upon it."
        Evening News of October 5:
        "Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman? - It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
        Are the stains of recent origin? - They are. Dr. Phillips afterwards brought me a piece of apron which had been found in Goldstone street by a policeman. The stains are those of blood, but it is impossible to say that it is human blood.
        On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if some one had wiped bloodstained hands upon it? - Yes. There were also what appeared to be stains of faecal matter."
        Morning Advertiser of October 5:
        "Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
        Are the stains of recent origin?-They are. Dr. Phillips afterwards brought me a piece of apron which had been found in Goulstone-street by a policeman. The stains are those of blood, but it is impossible to say that it is human blood.
        On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if someone had wiped blood-stained hands upon it?-Yes. There were also some other stains."
        St. James Gazette of October 5:
        "He had examined a portion of an apron found on the deceased with blood spots upon it of recent origin. He had also seen another portion of the apron found in Gouldstone street, which had smears of blood upon it as if hands or a knife had been wiped upon it."
        Times of October 5:
        "Could you say whether the blood spots on the piece of apron produced were of recent origin? Witness. - They are of recent origin. Dr. Phillips brought on a piece of apron which had been found by a policeman in Goulston-street.
        Mr. Crawford. - Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood? Witness. - Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence."



        True enough George, but it was also the only victim with whom he had to deal with faecal matter. So, yes, the evidence doesn’t preclude that he used the apron piece to stop some relatively minor cut from bleeding, just as it doesn’t preclude that the main purpose for taking it was to clean his hands, knife and, possibly, the organs from especially the faecal matter. The thing is that we know too little. For instance, we don’t know how big the wet corner was and whether it was only blood or even whose blood it was.


        There’s no way for us to know. What you suggest, does sound sound & logical, but that doesn’t mean it has to be true. He may well have mostly ran/jogged for a minute or 2 (some 450 metres/490 yards) to first get some distance between himself and the crime scene before reaching Goulston Street and deeming the entrance to the building safe enough to do the wiping and dumping. Perhaps it was a bit of both (stopping the bleeding, if there was any on his part, and first getting some distance away from the crime scene). Who knows?

        All the best,
        Frank
        But you are also missing the point and that is that he lifted her clothes above her waist so any apron she was wearing would be nearest to her body and the least accessible for him to then cut a piece as an afterthought and he cleary stabbed her several times initally through her outer clothing there was no mention of either two pieces of apron having cut or stab marks.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Not even close. Your simply making a deliberate and very convenient attempt to discredit them based on a desire to bolster your own theory.
          and you have no answer to the facts quoted to support the theory, other than your polly parrot impression of keep repeating the same old same.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post



            Which Forster sketch would that be , can you post it ?.....as ive only seen one that was from the Mortuary .


            They are one and the same

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
              I see what you mean, Trevor, although what you say doesn't mean that hands can't be wiped on only one side of a cloth (as the photo on the right seems to portray). The only thing you have to do is to fold the cloth in half. But also, who's to say whether "on one side" meant "only on the front or back side" instead of "the upper or lower side" of the apron piece? And, of course, it's also possible that he only had one hand he needed to wipe off (using his other hand to only hold the knife).
              If you have two bloody hands covered in faecal matter and you pick up a cloth to wipe your hands you cannot help but get some form of residue on both sides you hold one piece to wipe with one hand and wipe the other hand on the opposite side

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                you keep missing the point and you are not listening or reading the posts. I accept that the two pieces matched, but you cant seem to grasp the fact that when the two pieces were matched there isnt any evidnce to show that they made up a full apron. So if you say she was wearing a full apron where did the rest of it go? and how did the piece found among her posessions come to be there and was not seen on the body. not forgetting that she carried her possessions in two tick bags

                Because they were matched by the seams they had to have come from the same side of the apron, therefore one piece with a string attached was from the top half and the other piece from the bottom half. making up half an apron and again if the killer lifted up all her clothes above her waist was he able to cut a piece of apron for whatever purpose when it would have been easier for him to cut a piece of material from any other item of her clothing which was more accesible because the apron would have been the furthest away from him.

                She had more than enough time after leaving the police station to make her way back to Flower and Dean Street, if she did that I have no idea why she didnt go to her lodgings and then decided to go back to the City and try to make some money to compensate for the money she had spent on drink earlier in the day.

                What cant speak can lie there is no sign of an apron or any piece of an apron in Fosters sketch of the body that is another factor which clearly shows she was not wearing an apron.

                www.trevormarriott,co.uk
                The fact that there was no mention of a missing piece is evidence in itself that there was none. We have a piece found in Goulston Street which possibly gives us an idea of where the killer went after Mitre Square so if there was a missing piece why was there no mention of the police looking for it as it might in theory have taken them further along his escape route.

                Why couldn’t the killer have simply cut through the waistband and then across? There were stabs through her clothing so why couldn’t the apron have been cut before the skirt was lifted? So in effect the apron was already partially cut away, leaving the killer with only one cut to make to cut the piece away?

                Why would Foster have drawn the apron? Especially if had become bunched up or twisted?

                She was wearing an apron. No doubt at all.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  They are one and the same

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Ok what am i missing ,why would Forster need to draw an apron on the sketch of a naked dead women.?
                  'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    and you have no answer to the facts quoted to support the theory, other than your polly parrot impression of keep repeating the same old same.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    How else can I respond to your same old theory. I know that you hate being disagreed with Trevor but you really should be used to it by now now with your record of coming up with theories that no one else believes.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      They are one and the same

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      The Foster sketch is showing the mutilations. The whole abdomen is uncovered. On both sides of her abdomen there are areas of indistinct white which could easily have been bunched up apron. To suggest that Foster would have drawn a recognisable apron is absurd and utterly desperate.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

                        Daily News of October 5:
                        "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. It is impossible to assert that the blood is human blood. It looks as if it had had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped upon it."
                        Evening News of October 5:
                        "Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman? - It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
                        Are the stains of recent origin? - They are. Dr. Phillips afterwards brought me a piece of apron which had been found in Goldstone street by a policeman. The stains are those of blood, but it is impossible to say that it is human blood.
                        On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if some one had wiped bloodstained hands upon it? - Yes. There were also what appeared to be stains of faecal matter."
                        Morning Advertiser of October 5:
                        "Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
                        Are the stains of recent origin?-They are. Dr. Phillips afterwards brought me a piece of apron which had been found in Goulstone-street by a policeman. The stains are those of blood, but it is impossible to say that it is human blood.
                        On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if someone had wiped blood-stained hands upon it?-Yes. There were also some other stains."
                        St. James Gazette of October 5:
                        "He had examined a portion of an apron found on the deceased with blood spots upon it of recent origin. He had also seen another portion of the apron found in Gouldstone street, which had smears of blood upon it as if hands or a knife had been wiped upon it."
                        Times of October 5:
                        "Could you say whether the blood spots on the piece of apron produced were of recent origin? Witness. - They are of recent origin. Dr. Phillips brought on a piece of apron which had been found by a policeman in Goulston-street.
                        Mr. Crawford. - Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood? Witness. - Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence."


                        All the best,
                        Frank
                        Hi Frank,

                        Thank you for those references. I must be slipping. I should have remembered that different reporters give different selections of testimony at the inquests.

                        Best regards, George
                        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          That comes from a hypocraphal tale from one of the police memoirs written many years later (I forget who just now). It never happened - well, the blood was not found still swirling down the sink, as he told he found it.

                          - Jeff
                          Hi Jeff,

                          That was Major Henry Smith, Acting Commissioner City of London Police in 1888. The tale was contained in his 1910 memoirs "From Constable to Commissioner: The Story of Sixty Years Most of Them Misspent". He placed the sink incident first in relation to Mitre Square, and a few pages later placed the same incident after Miller St. His memoirs were particularly harsh on "the blunders" of Anderson.

                          Best regards, George
                          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                          Comment


                          • Click image for larger version

Name:	Jack-the-Ripper.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	107.9 KB
ID:	785950
                            So is the the sketch ? , which Dr Gordon Brown made on the spot . ​
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              you keep missing the point and you are not listening or reading the posts. I accept that the two pieces matched, but you cant seem to grasp the fact that when the two pieces were matched there isnt any evidnce to show that they made up a full apron. So if you say she was wearing a full apron where did the rest of it go?

                              www.trevormarriott,co.uk
                              Hi Trevor,

                              You might have missed this:

                              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.


                              Cheers, George
                              “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	Jack-the-Ripper.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	107.9 KB
ID:	785950
                                So is the the sketch ? , which Dr Gordon Brown made on the spot . ​
                                That's the one, but there is a higher resolution version here:
                                https://kttfacialimages.com/tag/catherine-eddowes/
                                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X