GSG Conclusion

[Trevor Marriott]

all that matters is they matched the piece from Goulston street to the one with eddowes. which they did. end of. its really that simple

Yes I know that, but the two didnt and couldnt have made up a full apron by how the two pieces were described this is hard work with some on here

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats just you interpretation he is referring to the two pieces the mortuary piece and the GS piece why would he be concerned about a patch that had been sown onto one of the pieces? He was simply describing one of the pieces, and while on the subject of the patch does that not show that the apron pieces were from an old white apron that may have been cut into pieces?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, that’s my interpretation. You may have a different interpretation but why do you assume that your interpretation MUST be correct. This is what I keep saying Trevor. You keep stating as some kind of ‘fact’ that the apron couldn’t have amounted to a whole one, as if this has been somehow proven. It hasn’t. It’s just your interpretation and it appears that no one agrees with you.

Ill say it again and I’ll keep saying it, no matter how many times you repeat that the GS piece and the Mortuary piece….you are wrong.

…..

Why did he bother mentioning the patch if it wasn’t relevant?

I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have, the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding

Basically he’s saying “I fitted the piece of apron with a patch to the patched part of the mortuary piece and they matched up by the seam of the patch.”

Sadly you can’t patch your theory up which is beyond repair.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes I know that, but the two didnt and couldnt have made up a full apron by how the two pieces were described this is hard work with some on here

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Please get someone to explain this to you Trevor. It’s not that we don’t understand. It’s not that we’ve misunderstood you. I know that you hate hearing this but…..we disagree with your assessment. We think that you are WRONG. In fact I’ll go further. I’ll state with 99% certainty that you’re wrong.

Just stop claiming that we don’t understand.

[C. F. Leon]

Yes I know that, but the two didnt and couldnt have made up a full apron by how the two pieces were described this is hard work with some on here

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But Trevor, you're forgetting the piece/-es of the apron that she would have used previously (?the day before) for "sanitary purposes".

[Joshua Rogan]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There are no seams on the piece you have marked with GS. Therefore your interpretation does not fit Brown's description.

The red line you have drawn does not indicate a seam, but a hem.

A seam joins two pieces of material together.
Such as a patch sewn on to an apron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are no seams on the piece you have marked with GS. Therefore your interpretation does not fit Brown's description.

The red line you have drawn does not indicate a seam, but a hem.

A seam joins two pieces of material together.
Such as a patch sewn on to an apron.

Exactly Joshua. Brown clearly mentioned this patch for a reason and it seems fairly clear that he matched up the two pieces by the seams of the 2 halves of the patch (cut through by the killer)

[Trevor Marriott]

There are no seams on the piece you have marked with GS. Therefore your interpretation does not fit Brown's description.

The red line you have drawn does not indicate a seam, but a hem.

A seam joins two pieces of material together.
Such as a patch sewn on to an apron.

I beg to differ but a hem on a garment of clothing is located at the bottom of the garment and the red line on the image does indicate a seam

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Please get someone to explain this to you Trevor. It’s not that we don’t understand. It’s not that we’ve misunderstood you. I know that you hate hearing this but…..we disagree with your assessment. We think that you are WRONG. In fact I’ll go further. I’ll state with 99% certainty that you’re wrong.

Just stop claiming that we don’t understand.

Well by all the desparate explantions that keep getting put forward tells me that you do not understand, or dont want to, which I think is more the case

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I beg to differ but a hem on a garment of clothing is located at the bottom of the garment and the red line on the image does indicate a seam

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A hem…

“A hem in sewing is a garment finishing method, where the edge of a piece of cloth is folded and sewn to prevent unravelling of the fabric and to adjust the length of the piece in garments, such as at the end of the sleeve or the bottom of the garment.”

I know nothing about sowing so I asked a family member. As per the description above, a hem is when a piece of garment is folded over and sown. In the case of an apron, it could have been folded over and stitched down the side - which would be a hem. In most clothing for example, yes, a hem would be at the bottom, but a hem isn’t defined by its location but by what it actually is. So wherever a piece is folded over and sown….that is a hem.

So if Eddowes apron had been folded over and sown down the edge, hardly unlikely considering how these items would have been regularly repaired or altered when going from owner to owner, it would have been called a hem.

You keep on finding different ways of being wrong Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well by all the desparate explantions that keep getting put forward tells me that you do not understand, or dont want to, which I think is more the case

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

All you’re doing Trevor is inventing your own explanations based on a desire to bolster a theory then defending them at all costs. Your suggestion that the apron and the GS piece, which you state as if it’s a fact, couldn’t have made a full apron is simply wrong and has been proven to be wrong but your just unwilling as ever to admit it.

The game’s up. Your non-starter is now a dead theory (which only you believed in the first place)

[Trevor Marriott]

A hem…

“A hem in sewing is a garment finishing method, where the edge of a piece of cloth is folded and sewn to prevent unravelling of the fabric and to adjust the length of the piece in garments, such as at the end of the sleeve or the bottom of the garment.”

I know nothing about sowing so I asked a family member. As per the description above, a hem is when a piece of garment is folded over and sown. In the case of an apron, it could have been folded over and stitched down the side - which would be a hem. In most clothing for example, yes, a hem would be at the bottom, but a hem isn’t defined by its location but by what it actually is. So wherever a piece is folded over and sown….that is a hem.

So if Eddowes apron had been folded over and sown down the edge, hardly unlikely considering how these items would have been regularly repaired or altered when going from owner to owner, it would have been called a hem.

You keep on finding different ways of being wrong Trevor.

No you keep on finding the wrong information, when an apron is made it is made in two pieces and the two pieces are joined together at the seams which go down each side of the garment

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

I wish it was the end of you making up explantions, where does it say an apron was found outside her clothing in Mitre Square?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From signed depositions:

Inspector Edward Collard: I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which was cut through and found outside her dress.

And your claim in post #327:
we have PC Long who in his signed deposition makes no mention of examaning the apron

Alfred Long: I found a portion of a woman's apron which I produce. There appear bloodstains on it, one portion was wet...

[Herlock Sholmes]

No you keep on finding the wrong information, when an apron is made it is made in two pieces and the two pieces are joined together at the seams which go down each side of the garment

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Although I’m loath to argue with an expert in needlework like yourself I’d like to ask you to use your eyes and look at this….

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seam_(sewing)

Three examples of a seam and, inconveniently for you, none of them are down the side of the piece. Of course a seam can be down the sides but they can also be elsewhere. As I said before, seams are not defined by their location but by what they are.

Again we need to look at what Brown said, he wasn’t using conjecture or speculation of course. Firstly, he says:

“My attention was called to the apron [found on the body]. It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin”

So he described the location of the blood spots by specifically mentioning the corner of the apron with the string as a guide. In my two diagrams I marked this with an ‘x’ though of course it could have been on the left side rather than the right. Then he said:

“I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street . . . I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have, the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding.”

Again he, very clearly, when describing how he matched up the two pieces mentions a patch which was on both the Goulston Street piece and the Mortuary piece. I don’t see how you could disagree with this piece of black and white but you undoubtedly will.

So again, very clearly, whoever had separated the two pieces had cut through this patch. Did he mention this for no reason?

A patch is a piece that has been sown onto another.

By definition this would have meant that it had seams.

Therefore he matched the two pieces by the seams of the two parts of the patch.

The other cut, if the GS piece wasn’t removed by one diagonal or curved cut, would have been either through the waistband (where the string was) or through the hem at the bottom. See my two diagrams in post #386.

Therefore, quite clearly and obviously for all but you, the two pieces as described could have made up a whole apron.

And we don’t have a single person claiming that the apron wasn’t complete.

And we have two Constable with absolutely no reason to have made things up and who both saw her at close quarters and both spent time in her company who were both absolutely certain that she was wearing an apron.

…….

Conclusion: It’s absolutely obvious and beyond all reasonable doubt that Catharine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she met her death in Mitre Square. It’s equally obvious that the Goulston Street piece and the Mortuary piece made up a whole apron.

It really is time to put this ‘theory’ to bed once and for all. It’s a complete waste of time and effort.

[caz]

I beg to differ but a hem on a garment of clothing is located at the bottom of the garment and the red line on the image does indicate a seam

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm not sure you know the difference between a hem and a seam, Trev.

A hem stops the fabric from fraying and therefore can be on any edge of a garment, not just the bottom edge.

A seam is where two pieces of fabric are joined.

Any apron skirt which does not go right round the body, as a frock or skirt would, will have a hem at the bottom and on both sides, but only a seam where it is joined to a waistband. I know, because I had to make one at primary school and hated needlework lessons with a passion.

Where the fabric has to be patched, there will be a seam running round the patch where it has been sewn onto the original fabric. When the cut/torn edges of the two pieces of apron were placed together, they were matched by the patch which went across both.

By the look of poor Eddowes in the mortuary photograph, all skin and bone, I would be very surprised if she was still able to menstruate, so you might want to rethink this too, when you get your rejection letter from The Great British Sewing Bee.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not sure you know the difference between a hem and a seam, Trev.

A hem stops the fabric from fraying and therefore can be on any edge of a garment, not just the bottom edge.

A seam is where two pieces of fabric are joined.

Any apron skirt which does not go right round the body, as a frock or skirt would, will have a hem at the bottom and on both sides, but only a seam where it is joined to a waistband. I know, because I had to make one at primary school and hated needlework lessons with a passion.

Where the fabric has to be patched, there will be a seam running round the patch where it has been sewn onto the original fabric.

By the look of poor Eddowes in the mortuary photograph, all skin and bone, I would be very surprised if she was still able to menstruate, so you might want to rethink this too, when you get your rejection letter from The Great British Sewing Bee.

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you for that but it doesnt change the fact that the two pieces when matched could not have made up a full apron

and the seams and the borders corresponded so they must have come from the same side of the apron so we have two pieces, a corner piece with a string attached, and second piece in her possessions which was matched by the seams and the borders to the GS piece

My consultant gynecoloist is inclined to agree and that is why he has stated that the spotting of blood is consistent with a malnourished person who will still menstruate.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk