Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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
    Again, not necessarily so - just as one of the photos you posted shows.

    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

    Comment


    • So its Browns not Forsters yes ?. How could anyone make out from that sketch if she was wearing and apron or not .?
      '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
        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.
        Although interesting, how does this have any influence on the fact that the two apron parts were seperated and for what purpose the apron piece was taken away, Trevor? Furthermore, why should the apron pieces have cut or stab marks beyond the cut by which the parts were seperated?
        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          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.
          well he drew the rest of the clothes

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
            Again, not necessarily so - just as one of the photos you posted shows.
            The two photos posted show the hands being wiped in the first instance and the second shows the result of that wiping on both sides when the cloth is unfurled so what that photo shows is the result of bloody hands being wiped on both sides of the cloth as the first picture clearly shows

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-15-2022, 05:55 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
              Although interesting, how does this have any influence on the fact that the two apron parts were seperated and for what purpose the apron piece was taken away, Trevor? Furthermore, why should the apron pieces have cut or stab marks beyond the cut by which the parts were seperated?
              because Eddowes was stabbed in the abdomen and the knife drawn down and across several times as the cuts in the clothing are described from the mortuary list

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                well he drew the rest of the clothes

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                In no great detail.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                  So its Browns not Forsters yes ?. How could anyone make out from that sketch if she was wearing and apron or not .?
                  Brown did make a sketch of Eddowes' body before it was removed from Mitre Square to the mortuary. However, I believe Foster used that sketch to prepare his own drawing to be shown in court, which is the version we have today. So it is a copy of Brown's original sketch.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                    Brown did make a sketch of Eddowes' body before it was removed from Mitre Square to the mortuary. However, I believe Foster used that sketch to prepare his own drawing to be shown in court, which is the version we have today. So it is a copy of Brown's original sketch.
                    Why would Forster used Browns sketch to draw from when he was at the mortuary where Eddowes body was ! ?. If Forster wasn't at the mortuary and copied Browns sketch somewhere else , why do we see the date and time at (3.45.am) on Forster sketch?.
                    '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 newspaper article was 1896 not 25 years later

                      But Reid did go back to Miller Courts with the other medics and other police officers later in the day after the full post mortem, so he would have known at that time whether or not the body was complete and the heart had been accounted for.

                      A killer cutting out a heart and taking it away is not something anyone would forget, lets drop this failing memory suggestion in an attempt to discredit Reid.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      It was still years after the fact, and we do not know if he was made aware that the heart was missing. I recognize there is a basis for that assumption, but it is not an ascertained fact. Moreover, what we think someone would not forget at a given time is quite often at odds at what they do forget. And by forget, that doesn't mean "lost entirely", just that during that particular interview he may have not remembered. While you do not believe that occurs, memory is one of the areas I am familiar with and I can assure you that just such things are very common occurrences and should not be dismissed when evaluating things like statements made 8 years after the fact.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                        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
                        Ah yes, that's it. Thanks George.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          It was still years after the fact, and we do not know if he was made aware that the heart was missing. I recognize there is a basis for that assumption, but it is not an ascertained fact. Moreover, what we think someone would not forget at a given time is quite often at odds at what they do forget. And by forget, that doesn't mean "lost entirely", just that during that particular interview he may have not remembered. While you do not believe that occurs, memory is one of the areas I am familiar with and I can assure you that just such things are very common occurrences and should not be dismissed when evaluating things like statements made 8 years after the fact.

                          - Jeff
                          There are several newspaper reports from 1888 which corroborate the fact that no body parts were taken away, and such a horrific murder as that for anyone involved in the investigation, I am sorry I dont buy the memory failure to suggest that I see as nothing more than an excuse for not accepting the reality of Reids newspaper interview.

                          Walter Dew another Detective involved in the murder also makes no mention of any organs taken away in his memoirs
                          Dr Bond in his letter to Anderson on the murders makes no mention of any organs taken away by the killer

                          How can such an important part of this particluar murder have simply been forgotten back then, the answer is that it was not forgotten because the heart was not taken away by the killer.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            The two photos posted show the hands being wiped in the first instance and the second shows the result of that wiping on both sides when the cloth is unfurled so what that photo shows is the result of bloody hands being wiped on both sides of the cloth as the first picture clearly shows
                            Below is the photo we're talking about, isn't it? Or, at least, that's the one I am talking about. Now, what I see is an unfurled piece of cloth of which only one side is visible (the up side - the down side being underneath and invisible) and that contains two bloody stains, caused by the wiping of two hands. How do you see both the up and down side in this picture?? Plus, even if we'd be talking about 'stains on left or right side (of the up side)' we might say that the stains were on one side only, because, by far, the bigger part of the right side is unstained.

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	wipe hands on cloth.jpg
Views:	75
Size:	39.9 KB
ID:	785976


                            Last edited by FrankO; 05-16-2022, 07:56 AM.
                            "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                            Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                              Below is the photo we're talking about, isn't it? Or, at least, that's the one I am talking about. Now, what I see is an unfurled piece of cloth of which only one side is visible (the up side - the down side being underneath and invisible) and that contains two bloody stains, caused by the wiping of two hands. How do you see both the up and down side in this picture?? Plus, even if we'd be talking about 'stains on left or right side (of the up side)' we might say that the stains were on one side only, because, by far, the bigger part of the right side is unstained.

                              Click image for larger version  Name:	wipe hands on cloth.jpg Views:	0 Size:	39.9 KB ID:	785976

                              I can tell you that what you see is as a result of two bloody hands being wiped on a piece of material which was screwed up in the wiping in exacatly the same way you would dry your hands on towel. That process is shown in the first picture. The result is that blood stains were transferred to both sides of the material and were seen when the material was unfurled

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-16-2022, 08:06 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                because Eddowes was stabbed in the abdomen and the knife drawn down and across several times as the cuts in the clothing are described from the mortuary list
                                First of all, there's no evidence of the cuts in the waistbands being done in several separate goes. In fact, they could all very well have been caused by one and the same stabbing & cutting action that Wickerman has suggested in the past. But, regardless, the apron pieces were seperated all the same.

                                But perhaps your point is that Eddowes wasn't wearing the apron and her killer put it on her after the mutilations, then cut off a piece and took it with him to drop it in Goulston Street (or something similar)?

                                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X