Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Its not an opinon it is my interpreation based on the evidence that is before me which I have set out in great detail in a previous post to you and I stand by that evidence which you are not able to rebut and that is clearly pissing you off because you have no answer to the issues I have highlighted other than to keep doing your polly parrot impression which is getting boring and tedious now.

    I dont expect for one minute that you or the others who sit here in judgement will agree because over the years you have clearly been brainwashed into beliveing and accepting the old accpeted theories. History is there to be analysed not readily accepted as being correct in how it was written

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Your interpretation.

    Others interpret events differently and this is the point that I was making. Why do you think that because you’ve interpreted events one way everyone should agree.

    I have given an answer (as have others) to every point that you’ve made. Your ‘Polly Parrot’ point makes no sense because very obviously if you make the same points the responses are bound to be the same. We can’t rebut individual points in numerous ways just to avoid repetition.

    Its the evidence the you ignore or seek to discredit when it suits you. We have a woman seen by two Police Officers wearing an apron. She is murdered and a part of that apron is found elsewhere. Not one single person mentions that there might have been a piece missing from the whole apron. The apron piece, according to the Doctor that saw it, looked as though something had been wiped on it. The Police (again, who were there at the time) were under no doubt that the killer deposited it in Goulston Street. Then you turn up, desperate to be the one to come up with a new theory, and read between lines, discredit inconvenient witnesses, then put in some huge conjecture whilst condemning others for doing the same.

    And you keep ‘Polly Parroting’ the Marriott Defence, that we’re all defending the old established theories (which is pretty vacuous) when the truth is that you have your own agenda. It’s self promotion - trying to convince people that you’ve found something new. Let’s be honest Trevor. I’m just a bloke with an interest in the case. It doesn’t bother me what ideas are or aren’t correct. I simply read and form an opinion. But you, at least in part, make a living from this……

    ​​​​​​​So who has the incentive to defend a lost cause at all costs? It ‘ain’t me.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    Comment


    • I’d say that ‘which the deceased was apparently wearing’ means simply that when the apron arrived at the mortuary it wasn’t attached to the body because the killer had cut through the string. Someone who’d been at the scene might have told him that it was around her though so she was ‘apparently’ wearing it at the time that she was killed.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        I’d say that ‘which the deceased was apparently wearing’ means simply that when the apron arrived at the mortuary it wasn’t attached to the body because the killer had cut through the string. Someone who’d been at the scene might have told him that it was around her though so she was ‘apparently’ wearing it at the time that she was killed.
        how could she have been wearing an apron when the two pieces found and as decribed, when matched could not have made up a full apron why cant to see that?

        The red line in the picture is where as described the seams and the border corresponded

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Click image for larger version

Name:	Victorian apron new corner.jpg
Views:	193
Size:	101.8 KB
ID:	786070 Click image for larger version

Name:	Victorian apron new corner 2.jpg
Views:	187
Size:	106.9 KB
ID:	786071

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          how could she have been wearing an apron when the two pieces found and as decribed, when matched could not have made up a full apron why cant to see that?

          The red line in the picture is where as described the seams and the border corresponded

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Click image for larger version

Name:	Victorian apron new corner.jpg
Views:	193
Size:	101.8 KB
ID:	786070 Click image for larger version

Name:	Victorian apron new corner 2.jpg
Views:	187
Size:	106.9 KB
ID:	786071

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          They also run along the bottom.
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            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?
            I don't dispute this, Mr. Palmer sir - I merely put it to you that Mr. Rogan was neither there nor provided categorical proof of his claim.

            I don't like the word 'dispute'. I'm far too conciliatory a person to be engaging in such pugilistic ritual.

            Ike
            Chilled-Out, Man
            Iconoclast
            Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
            Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
            Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              Stopping the bleeding of a wound would seem to be a very good reason.

              Long testified that one corner of the apron was wet with blood and Brown said there were stains consistent with wiping hands/knife. So with his hands in the body cavity he cuts a finger. The wound is already contaminated. He wipes the excess off the finger and uses the corner of the apron to bind the wound (the wet) and hold the apron so that he is then able to also wipe his hands/knife (the stains) on the remaining surface.

              If the wound did turn septic and he died, we then have a reason why the serial killings stopped, and MJK was the victim of someone else. A search of hospital records, if they still existed, might be very revealing?

              Cheers, George
              Morning George,

              The snag here is that if the cut finger/out of action scenario comes with a condition that MJK was not killed by the same man who killed Eddowes, then I would give it about as much credence as Trev's apron theory.

              Sorry.

              Love,

              Caz
              X

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


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                how could she have been wearing an apron when the two pieces found and as decribed, when matched could not have made up a full apron why cant to see that?

                The red line in the picture is where as described the seams and the border corresponded

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Click image for larger version  Name:	Victorian apron new corner.jpg Views:	0 Size:	101.8 KB ID:	786070 Click image for larger version  Name:	Victorian apron new corner 2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	106.9 KB ID:	786071

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                I still can’t see your point. If he cut through the waistband in a downward motion and then to the left (through the seam) as per your diagram on the left (MP?) Then the apron and the piece would have match up at the seam. Giving us the missing piece and the remaining apron to make up a full apron. The diagram on the left shows all. ‘MP?’ being the Goulston Street piece while the black area was what remained at the crime scene.

                Also wasn’t thee mention of a patch? So why couldn’t the ‘seam’ have been where the patch was attached?
                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-18-2022, 10:10 AM.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  I am having difficulty in coming to terms as to what you do not understand.
                  I just wanted to have a more complete view of how you see things regarding the apron, so that I could understand better what you were alluding to in several separate posts addressed to me. And you delivered, so thanks for that.

                  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.
                  A couple of remarks here. If the killer indeed cut through the waistband area before he lifted the clothes, then I would have expected the cuts to each and every item of clothing to have been more or less equally long. If he indeed cut through the waistband area several times, I would have expected more than one garment to have contained more than one cut. Also, if the cuts in the garments were caused by separate stab & cuts, then I’d expect the resulting wounds on the body not to have ended up as appearing to be just one cut.

                  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.
                  A couple of remarks here, too. We don’t now how much, or little for that matter, blood the apron pieces contained compared to the other garments. We do know, however, from more than one source that both pieces did contain blood. As far as I’m concerned, the lack of information about the quantities of blood on the individual garments makes it impossible for us to draw any conclusions about at what stage the piece of apron was cut off. It seems to be more logical that he did so before he lifted the skirts than after, but who knows? One thing that we can be fairly sure of, however, is that Eddowes was wearing the apron when she was found. It’s indicated by more than one source as well.

                  Echo, 1 October:

                  The police have made an important discovery, which they are of opinion affords a clue to the direction in which the murderer made his escape. Yesterday afternoon a portion of apron was found in Goldstein-street, and when the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was searched, it was discovered that she was wearing the upper portion of the apron to which the piece found belonged.

                  Times, 2 October:
                  As stated in the particulars given in The Times of yesterday, part of the attire of the unfortunate woman who was butchered in Mitre-square consisted of a portion of a coarse white apron, which was found loosely hanging about the neck.

                  Daily News, 5 October:
                  Inspector Edward Collard: The body was then taken to the mortuary. It was stripped in the presence if the two doctors and myself. No money was found on it. The piece of linen produced, which was found in Gouldstone street, corresponds with a piece which is missing from an apron the deceased was wearing at the time of the discovery of the body.

                  Dr. Gordon 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.

                  MA, 12 October:

                  Daniel Halse: I then went to the mortuary, saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing.

                  Times, 12 October:
                  Daniel Halse: He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.
                  "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

                    I still can’t see your point. If he cut through the waistband in a downward motion and then to the left (through the seam) as per your diagram on the left (MP?) Then the apron and the piece would have match up at the seam. Giving us the missing piece and the remaining apron to make up a full apron. The diagram on the left shows all. ‘MP?’ being the Goulston Street piece while the black area was what remained at the crime scene.

                    Also wasn’t thee mention of a patch? So why couldn’t the ‘seam’ have been where the patch was attached?
                    then the mortuary piece would have also have a string attached if the apron had been cut from the front as you suggest because you cant tie an apron with only one string

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                      I just wanted to have a more complete view of how you see things regarding the apron, so that I could understand better what you were alluding to in several separate posts addressed to me. And you delivered, so thanks for that.


                      A couple of remarks here. If the killer indeed cut through the waistband area before he lifted the clothes, then I would have expected the cuts to each and every item of clothing to have been more or less equally long. If he indeed cut through the waistband area several times, I would have expected more than one garment to have contained more than one cut. Also, if the cuts in the garments were caused by separate stab & cuts, then I’d expect the resulting wounds on the body not to have ended up as appearing to be just one cut.


                      A couple of remarks here, too. We don’t now how much, or little for that matter, blood the apron pieces contained compared to the other garments. We do know, however, from more than one source that both pieces did contain blood. As far as I’m concerned, the lack of information about the quantities of blood on the individual garments makes it impossible for us to draw any conclusions about at what stage the piece of apron was cut off. It seems to be more logical that he did so before he lifted the skirts than after, but who knows? One thing that we can be fairly sure of, however, is that Eddowes was wearing the apron when she was found. It’s indicated by more than one source as well.

                      Echo, 1 October:

                      The police have made an important discovery, which they are of opinion affords a clue to the direction in which the murderer made his escape. Yesterday afternoon a portion of apron was found in Goldstein-street, and when the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was searched, it was discovered that she was wearing the upper portion of the apron to which the piece found belonged.

                      Times, 2 October:
                      As stated in the particulars given in The Times of yesterday, part of the attire of the unfortunate woman who was butchered in Mitre-square consisted of a portion of a coarse white apron, which was found loosely hanging about the neck.

                      Daily News, 5 October:
                      Inspector Edward Collard: The body was then taken to the mortuary. It was stripped in the presence if the two doctors and myself. No money was found on it. The piece of linen produced, which was found in Gouldstone street, corresponds with a piece which is missing from an apron the deceased was wearing at the time of the discovery of the body.

                      Dr. Gordon 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.

                      MA, 12 October:

                      Daniel Halse: I then went to the mortuary, saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing.

                      Times, 12 October:
                      Daniel Halse: He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.
                      I have discussed all of this in post #327 where the newspapers report conflvit with the signed depositions

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                        I just wanted to have a more complete view of how you see things regarding the apron, so that I could understand better what you were alluding to in several separate posts addressed to me. And you delivered, so thanks for that.


                        A couple of remarks here. If the killer indeed cut through the waistband area before he lifted the clothes, then I would have expected the cuts to each and every item of clothing to have been more or less equally long. If he indeed cut through the waistband area several times, I would have expected more than one garment to have contained more than one cut. Also, if the cuts in the garments were caused by separate stab & cuts, then I’d expect the resulting wounds on the body not to have ended up as appearing to be just one cut.


                        A couple of remarks here, too. We don’t now how much, or little for that matter, blood the apron pieces contained compared to the other garments. We do know, however, from more than one source that both pieces did contain blood. As far as I’m concerned, the lack of information about the quantities of blood on the individual garments makes it impossible for us to draw any conclusions about at what stage the piece of apron was cut off. It seems to be more logical that he did so before he lifted the skirts than after, but who knows? One thing that we can be fairly sure of, however, is that Eddowes was wearing the apron when she was found. It’s indicated by more than one source as well.

                        Echo, 1 October:

                        The police have made an important discovery, which they are of opinion affords a clue to the direction in which the murderer made his escape. Yesterday afternoon a portion of apron was found in Goldstein-street, and when the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was searched, it was discovered that she was wearing the upper portion of the apron to which the piece found belonged.

                        Times, 2 October:
                        As stated in the particulars given in The Times of yesterday, part of the attire of the unfortunate woman who was butchered in Mitre-square consisted of a portion of a coarse white apron, which was found loosely hanging about the neck.

                        Daily News, 5 October:
                        Inspector Edward Collard: The body was then taken to the mortuary. It was stripped in the presence if the two doctors and myself. No money was found on it. The piece of linen produced, which was found in Gouldstone street, corresponds with a piece which is missing from an apron the deceased was wearing at the time of the discovery of the body.

                        Dr. Gordon 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.

                        MA, 12 October:

                        Daniel Halse: I then went to the mortuary, saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing.

                        Times, 12 October:
                        Daniel Halse: He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.
                        hi Frank
                        so all these witnesses mention the apron,the police involved talk about it, theres a bloody apron piece found in goulston street, the press is reporting on the apron etc, etc, and yet trevors theory is she wasnt wearing an apron?!? so was it mass hallucination or perhaps a massive conspiracy? LOL its just another absurd and ridiculous theory in the long line of them by Trevor.

                        and worse than that, its fantasizing away the only evidence and clue the ripper ever left.



                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          then the mortuary piece would have also have a string attached if the apron had been cut from the front as you suggest because you cant tie an apron with only one string

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          The mortuary piece did have string attached.

                          Ill try again…

                          If the killer cut through the waistband then out through the side of the apron, either in a diagonal cut or a cut at something like a right angle then he would have have been faced with both parts with the string still through them and the apron would still have been tied behind her back with Eddowes lying on top of it. So when he pulled the GS piece to take it away the string would have pulled through the waistband leaving the string in situ attached to the piece that ended up in the mortuary.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Brown..

                            “My attention was called to the apron [found on the body]”

                            Not in a pocket, not in a bag, not tucked under her skirts but on the body.

                            So why would it have been on the body in Mitre Square unless she was wearing it, unless you’re suggesting that she was just carrying it or that the killer took it from where she was concealing it and lay it on the body.

                            Your theory just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny Trevor. So you’re consistent at least.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • I see that Trevor has successfully managed to derail the subject with his crackpot theory... again.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                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
                                That's what i would guess....he wasn't planning to commit two murders that night.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X