Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • 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
    Uh, Trevor, actually one can, maybe not you, but it is possible. Have a loop or button/stud on the other end that the string wraps around and then ties to itself. It might not be common nowadays, but I've seen it in older-style outfits. It might have been more common in some types of uniforms where the wearer only had one hand free.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      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.
      My understanding is that there was no string through the waistband the string would have been attached at each end of the waistband

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        Brown..

        “My attention was called to the apron [found on the body]”
        You are misrepresenting the facts from Dr Browns signed inquest testiomy

        "My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached, the blood spots were of recent origin-I have seen a portion of an apron and stated to have been found in GS" At no time does he say "found on the body"

        And your attempts at trying to negate this are floundering and showing signs of desparation

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-18-2022, 10:03 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          You are misrepresenting the facts from Dr Browns signed inquest testiomy

          "My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached, the blood spots were of recent origin-I have seen a portion of an apron and stated to have been found in GS" At no time does he say "found on the body"

          And your attempts at trying to negate this are floundering and showing signs of desparation

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          It wasn’t an attempt to negate anything Trevor. It was an error on my part which, unlike some, I’m always prepared to admit. What I did was that I took this from Sugden…

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

          I mistakenly attributed the part in brackets to Brown when it was actually Sugden himself.

          ​​​​​​…..

          That said, you are well aware of what Collard said:

          “I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress

          So are you suggesting that she was carrying the apron in her hand? It clearly wasn’t in a pocket or a bag. How else could it have been found ‘outside her dress’ unless she had been wearing it at the time?

          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            My understanding is that there was no string through the waistband the string would have been attached at each end of the waistband

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            So you just made an assumption?
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              It wasn’t an attempt to negate anything Trevor. It was an error on my part which, unlike some, I’m always prepared to admit. What I did was that I took this from Sugden…

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

              I mistakenly attributed the part in brackets to Brown when it was actually Sugden himself.

              ​​​​​​…..

              That said, you are well aware of what Collard said:

              “I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress

              So are you suggesting that she was carrying the apron in her hand? It clearly wasn’t in a pocket or a bag. How else could it have been found ‘outside her dress’ unless she had been wearing it at the time?
              But he uses the word apparently that means he was unsure, and he had a piece of apron which he could not postively say if she was wearing it or not. In the context of his testimony he lists the clothing and her possessions and as the list shows it was listed among her possessions and not with her clothing, and again may I remind you that he gave his evidence 4 days after the murder when it was known that an apron piece was found in GS which matched the mortuary piece hence the use of the word apparently, and again no mention of a full apron

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                But he uses the word apparently that means he was unsure, and he had a piece of apron which he could not postively say if she was wearing it or not. In the context of his testimony he lists the clothing and her possessions and as the list shows it was listed among her possessions and not with her clothing, and again may I remind you that he gave his evidence 4 days after the murder when it was known that an apron piece was found in GS which matched the mortuary piece hence the use of the word apparently, and again no mention of a full apron

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Hi Trevor,

                You can win this argument by referencing just one statement saying that when the two pieces of apron were matched the apron was incomplete with a portion missing. This is the positive proof. Your insistence that it was incomplete because no-one said it was complete (or if they did they were unreliable) is the negative. If the apron were incomplete surely one person would have mentioned it?

                Cheers, George
                Last edited by GBinOz; 05-19-2022, 12:33 AM.
                “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.”
                If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
                Everybody lies - Greg House MD

                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post

                  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
                  Hi Caz,

                  That is your prerogative. From my reading there are many people who are unsure that MJK was a JtR victim.

                  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.”
                  If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
                  Everybody lies - Greg House MD

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                    there are many people who are unsure that MJK was a JtR victim.

                    Cheers, George
                    theory that belongs in the nut tree with trevor's apron

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Hi Caz,

                      That is your prerogative. From my reading there are many people who are unsure that MJK was a JtR victim.

                      Cheers, George
                      Those people should find another topic to discuss , i usually send them a link to the Boston strangler page .
                      '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 GBinOz View Post

                        Hi Trevor,

                        You can win this argument by referencing just one statement saying that when the two pieces of apron were matched the apron was incomplete with a portion missing. This is the positive proof. Your insistence that it was incomplete because no-one said it was complete (or if they did they were unreliable) is the negative. If the apron were incomplete surely one person would have mentioned it?

                        Cheers, George
                        Conversley someone would have mentioned the two pieces when matched made up a full apron, surely someone would have used the term "the remaining piece of the apron" "the rest of her apron" or "the two pieces when matched made the apron complete" or words to that effect. if the two pieces made up a full apron, but all that is mentioned in the term "pieces of apron"

                        let me take this opportunity of making my position quite clear where I stand on the apron and my belief that she was not wearing an apron when she was murdered but simply at some time before her murder had been in possession of two old pieces of apron which in the past had been cut from and old apron and therfore the killer could not have cut a piece and deposited it in GS.

                        First I will deal with the matter of female hygene back then, and in particular that which applied to the Victorian street women. When those women were menstruating they would use pieces of material as sanitary devices which they would place between their legs and when soiled discard.

                        Of course we do not know if Eddowes was menstruating prior to her murder but the description of the GS piece may give some indication, a point I will cover later. But if she was, then it is not beyond the realms of possibilty that she was using one of the old pieces of apron she had in her possession as a sanitary device.

                        On leaving the police station no one knows where she went. or if she met anyone other than her killer. However we know that she was residing in lodgings in Flower dean Street which is about a 10 minute walk from the police station so we cannot dismiss the suggestion that at that time of the morning she would be heading in that direction, and of course GS is a stones throw away from Flower and dean Street. Whether she arrived at her lodgings and couldnt get in, or the lodging house keeper had fallen asleep and couldnt be woken up also has to be considered and having failed to gain access she then decided to go back to the city area.

                        Had she not been lodging in Flower and dean Street and she had the time to head back to Flower and Dean Street after leaving the police station I probably would not be offering this explanation

                        Now either on her way to her lodgings, or on her way back to the city and passing the GS archway it is possible that she wanted to go to the toilet and went under the archway to do that, and there discarding the soiled piece of apron realising that she had stopped menstruating. The decsripton of the apron piece corroborates that as blood spotting is a part of the menstrual cycle especially in malnourished females.

                        The decsription of the GS piece fits the scenario, spotted/smeared with blood, traces of faceal matter all on one side of the apron piece all consistent with it having been placed between her legs and used as a sanitary device where we would expect to see all of that residue

                        Now before those eagle eyed researches say but she wasnt wearing any drawers so how could she have used a piece of apron in this way, The answer is that she was in possession of pins and needles and she was wearing a chemise and a mans vest which she could have easily affixed the apron piece to.

                        I feel that this is a valid and plausible explantion for how the apron piece got to GS and who deposited it, as an alternative explantion for the killer depositing it, and all the reasons why the killer could not have deposited it have been discussed many times with no definitive explantion forthcoming or being accepted.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Im not sure why i keep reading this nonsense theory. If the royal consprisory and the maybrick diary are considered out there as far as theories and murderers are concerned, then this ones tops them both.

                          Sanitary divices and Menstral Cycles...... my goodness where will it end .
                          '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 FISHY1118 View Post
                            Im not sure why i keep reading this nonsense theory. If the royal consprisory and the maybrick diary are considered out there as far as theories and murderers are concerned, then this ones tops them both.

                            Sanitary divices and Menstral Cycles...... my goodness where will it end .
                            probably when you stop posting !!!!!!!!!!!!

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              But he uses the word apparently that means he was unsure, and he had a piece of apron which he could not postively say if she was wearing it or not. In the context of his testimony he lists the clothing and her possessions and as the list shows it was listed among her possessions and not with her clothing, and again may I remind you that he gave his evidence 4 days after the murder when it was known that an apron piece was found in GS which matched the mortuary piece hence the use of the word apparently, and again no mention of a full apron

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              It seems fairly obvious why he used the word ‘apparently’ so I really can’t see why you are making such an issue of it.

                              Because the apron had been cut it could not have been attached to the body when it was discovered but it was located in such a position that made it probable that she had been wearing t before she was killed. Collard specified that it “…..was found outside her dress.” So it wasn’t in a pocket or concealed underneath her clothing as it would have been if she was simply carrying a loose piece of apron (like the other items that she had with her.)

                              The fact (and we know that it is a fact) that the apron was found ‘outside her dress’ shows us very clearly that she was wearing it at the time.

                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                probably when you stop posting !!!!!!!!!!!!

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                '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

                                Working...
                                X