Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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
    However true that may be, where in the picture are those both sides, Trevor - where do we also see the down/flip side?
    "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 GBinOz View Post

      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
      Don't be too hard on yourself, George!
      "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
        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.

        The cuts to the clothing go down and across and therefore could not have occured with one stab

        “Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

        “Brown Lindsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

        “Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

        “Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

        “Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.


        If she was wearing an apron there would have been cuts to coincide with the above items of clothing that were cut as decsribed

        Note that none of the clothing mentions any traces of facecal matter


        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)?
        I am going to totally ignore that suggestion

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk



        Comment


        • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
          However true that may be, where in the picture are those both sides, Trevor - where do we also see the down/flip side?
          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 .

          '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 cuts to the clothing go down and across and therefore could not have occured with one stab
            I want to understand what you mean, Trevor, so could you try and explain a little better than this what you mean? The way I see it now is that, as all of the different layers of clothing contained 1 cut only, I don’t see why they must have been the result of more than one stab. Could well have, but not MUST have.

            If she was wearing an apron there would have been cuts to coincide with the above items of clothing that were cut as decsribed
            Okay, so are you suggesting that she wasn’t wearing the apron when the waistbands were cut? And, if so, what are you suggesting as far as the apron is concerned? That she was carrying it around under her arm/in her pocket instead of wearing it? And who then cut it so that it ended up bloodstained as if a hand and knife had been wiped on it? The killer? The police? Who…?

            Note that none of the clothing mentions any traces of facecal matter
            Why should any of the clothing show any traces of faecal matter? Wouldn’t the faecal matter only have come into the picture after all the clothing had been moved out of the way?
            "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
              I want to understand what you mean, Trevor, so could you try and explain a little better than this what you mean? The way I see it now is that, as all of the different layers of clothing contained 1 cut only, I don’t see why they must have been the result of more than one stab. Could well have, but not MUST have.


              Okay, so are you suggesting that she wasn’t wearing the apron when the waistbands were cut? And, if so, what are you suggesting as far as the apron is concerned? That she was carrying it around under her arm/in her pocket instead of wearing it? And who then cut it so that it ended up bloodstained as if a hand and knife had been wiped on it? The killer? The police? Who…?


              Why should any of the clothing show any traces of faecal matter? Wouldn’t the faecal matter only have come into the picture after all the clothing had been moved out of the way?
              I am having difficulty in coming to terms as to what you do not understand. If she was wearing and apron when she was murdered and before the killer lifted her clothes up above her waist he stabbed her several times in the abdomial area through her clothing, starting around the waist area and drawing the knife downwards and across the outer clothing. Had she been wearing an apron there would be cuts in the apron which coincided with the cuts to the clothing which occured as a result of his drawing the knife down and across.

              Neither of the two pieces of apron referred to had any cuts in them and contained very little blood compared to the blood decsribed in the decsriptions of her other clothing considering that if she had been wearing an apron and when he lifted the clothes up that apron would have been the closest item of clothing to the abdominal stab wounds and I would have expected it to have been more heavily blood stained.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk



              Comment


              • Ok, it’s my turn to ‘not understand’ something. Frank posted quotes which showed…

                Skirt - jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front

                Petticoat - white waistband cut one and a half inches long

                Green skirt - jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards

                Blue skirt - jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards

                So we have four items with a cut through the waistband with the petticoat, which would have been underneath, having the shortest cut. So why is it so strange that when these cuts from the waistband down were made her apron, worn on top of those skirts, was also similarly cut? We have no photograph of the GS piece or the apron so obviously we don’t know exactly what they looked like. It seems to me that the apron would have been cut at the same time that the skirts were cut, through the waistband and down through the side. Where is the problem?
                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-16-2022, 02:06 PM.
                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 Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  Ok, it’s my turn to ‘not understand’ something. Frank posted quotes which showed…

                  Skirt - jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front

                  Petticoat - white waistband cut one and a half inches long

                  Green skirt - jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards

                  Blue skirt - jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards

                  So we have four items with a cut through the waistband with the petticoat, which would have been underneath, having the shortest cut. So why is it so strange that when these cuts from the waistband down were made her apron, worn on top of those skirts, was also similarly cut? We have no photograph of the GS piece or the apron so obviously we don’t know exactly what they looked like. It seems to me that the apron would have been cut at the same time that the skirts were cut, through the waistband and down through the side. Where is the problem?
                  Neither of the pieces of apron were described as having cuts, or in my opinion sufficent stains of blood consistent with the frenzied attack on her abdomen in fact the mortuary piece did not have any blood stains on it at all.

                  The problem is that if that had been the case and the apron cut through at the waistband during the stab wounds inflicted, then both pieces of apron would have strings attached would they not? and there would be evidence that they were matched also by the strings

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-16-2022, 03:06 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Its you that brought it up, if you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    First aprons now kitchens - sure you weren't a baker instead of a copper? Might explain the half-baked ideas.

                    Comment


                    • Afternoon All,

                      I thought Trevor's theory was that Eddowes cut or tore off the piece of old apron earlier in the day, to use for hygiene purposes, before discarding it in Goulston Street and presumably keeping the rest of the cloth among her possessions, so she wasn't actually wearing it as an apron before being killed. What a coincidence that would have been, for it to have been found beneath a message that was potentially chalked by the man who killed her!

                      When the two pieces were matched up after the murder, by an old repair which went across both, it would surely have been immediately apparent and noteworthy if they didn't make up a complete apron, indicating that at least one other piece was missing. Yet it was accepted that the two pieces began as a whole apron worn by the victim, from which the killer cut or tore a section, which he discarded himself in Goulston Street.

                      I do wonder if after the killer had subdued and cut Eddowes's throat he immediately cut/tore off that piece of cloth and laid it to one side, before it could get soaked in blood by the subsequent mutilations. He could then use it afterwards if needed for a swift clean-up. Alternatively, he may have wanted something provably from this victim, either to indicate a false direction of travel or to place a false clue where it might naturally implicate a Jewish killer and resurrect the Leather Apron suspicions. When he had finished mutilating and removing body parts, he would then have a dirty, but relatively unstained piece of cloth to use as desired, which could double up as a makeshift organ carrier, or something to wrap round the bloody knife, as he made good his escape. Whatever he did with it, it inevitably came into contact with the faecal matter which emerged during the commission of the crime, and would have smelled really bad. He must have had a very good reason not to dump it right there at the scene if he used it to wipe the worst of the muck off his hands.

                      I suspect most men would have been aware by 1888 that bandaging an open wound with a filthy, stinking piece of material like this was asking for it to go septic and do the hangman's job but more swiftly. This killer was back in business on 9th November.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                        First aprons now kitchens - sure you weren't a baker instead of a copper? Might explain the half-baked ideas.
                        There a bit like you posts then !

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Neither of the pieces of apron were described as having cuts, or in my opinion sufficent stains of blood consistent with the frenzied attack on her abdomen in fact the mortuary piece did not have any blood stains on it at all.

                          The problem is that if that had been the case and the apron cut through at the waistband during the stab wounds inflicted, then both pieces of apron would have strings attached would they not? and there would be evidence that they were matched also by the strings

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Why would the apron have needed cuts other than the one? The killer makes diagonal cut through the waistband (the corresponding ones being on the skirts) This would have occurred before the frenzied attack so there would have been no heavy staining. The marks on the cloth appear to have been consistent with wiping.

                          At the time the waistband was cut through the string would have been tied at the back, then in taking the piece away he’d have left the string still attached as it would have pulled through the loop. So he walks away with a piece of apron with no string. Again, where’s the problem?
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-16-2022, 03:37 PM.
                          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 caz View Post
                            Afternoon All,

                            I do wonder if after the killer had subdued and cut Eddowes's throat he immediately cut/tore off that piece of cloth and laid it to one side, before it could get soaked in blood by the subsequent mutilations. He could then use it afterwards if needed for a swift clean-up.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            I was thinking exactly the same thing Caz.

                            Makes perfect sense, so Trevor won’t have it.

                            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 caz View Post
                              Afternoon All,

                              I thought Trevor's theory was that Eddowes cut or tore off the piece of old apron earlier in the day, to use for hygiene purposes, before discarding it in Goulston Street and presumably keeping the rest of the cloth among her possessions, so she wasn't actually wearing it as an apron before being killed. What a coincidence that would have been, for it to have been found beneath a message that was potentially chalked by the man who killed her

                              Not if she had two pieces of old white apron on her person earlier in the day and she herself deposited it in GS between leaving the police station and being found murdered

                              There is no evidence that the graffiti was written by the killer

                              When the two pieces were matched up after the murder, by an old repair which went across both, it would surely have been immediately apparent and noteworthy if they didn't make up a complete apron, indicating that at least one other piece was missing. Yet it was accepted that the two pieces began as a whole apron worn by the victim, from which the killer cut or tore a section, which he discarded himself in Goulston Street.
                              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

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk




                              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-16-2022, 03:47 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                I was thinking exactly the same thing Caz.

                                Makes perfect sense, so Trevor won’t have it.
                                and why would he do that there is no evidence of him doing that on any of the other murders

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X