GSG Conclusion

[Trevor Marriott]

So he saw the whole of the apron. In two pieces.

So from being shown two pieces of apron he was able to state catergorically that those two pieces he was shown made up a full apon and the one she was apparently wearing. It beggars believe how you and Herlock interpret the facts and the evidence. In a trial these police officers testimony would be torn to shreds

The police evidence is unsafe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

No witness mentions any specific patch other than Dr Brown who refers to a new piece of material sown on one of the pieces. There is no evidence to show it was a patch. It clearly was another piece of another apron which had been sown to one of the pieces not necessarily making a patch more of a repair

And you are wrong again on another point, in his signed inquest deposition Robinson says "I believe the apron produced is the one she was wearing" and even that is incorrect because there was no apron produced as full apron apron, he was shown two pieces of apron there is no evidence to show that those two pieces made up a full apron,

The we have Pc Hutt who says "I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the station" There was no apron produced, what was produced was two cut pieces of apron.

The police evidence you seek to rely on is unsafe.

There were only two pieces, the GS piece produced by Dr Phillips and the mortuary piece which was in the possession of Dr Brown according to Browns signed testimony None of these mention a full apron and no mention in court of the two pieces being shown to the witnesses as a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your just parroting the same old self-serving manipulations.

Its here in bloody black and white. What’s wrong with you? Surely you understand that other people can read this and see your evasions?

.” 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.”

A piece sowed onto both pieces. Therefore….a patch. Brown matched the 2 pieces along the seams of the patch which clearly made up a complete apron. The apron that everyone but you knows that Eddowes was wearing.

Hutt and Robinson are ideal witnesses who can’t be doubted. You’re doing what you always do. Any witness that you don’t like you try and discredit them as unsafe. It’s a well known tactic of yours when you’re trying to defend one of your dodgy theories. It just illustrates that your not interested in truth; all you’re interested in is promoting your theories and you’ll stoop to anything to do so. Everything that you say is ‘unsafe to rely on’ because of this.

Catharine Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she was killed. The killer cut away a part of the apron and dumped it in Goulston Street. The two parts of the apron were matched along the seams of a patch, which the killer had cut through, to make a complete apron. Anything else is just a biased manipulation.

Please stop having ‘theories’ Trevor. They never work.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So from being shown two pieces of apron he was able to state catergorically that those two pieces he was shown made up a full apon and the one she was apparently wearing. It beggars believe how you and Herlock interpret the facts and the evidence. In a trial these police officers testimony would be torn to shreds

The police evidence is unsafe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If someone puts two pieces together and there’s no missing piece piece that means that it was a whole apron. Kindergarten stuff.

Which Police Force did you work for? Trumpton or Camberwick Green?

[Trevor Marriott]

If someone puts two pieces together and there’s no missing piece piece that means that it was a whole apron. Kindergarten stuff.

Which Police Force did you work for? Trumpton or Camberwick Green?

It was a force where I had to deal with numpties like you

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[C. F. Leon]

Um, isn't this supposed to be a GSG thread?

Just asking. For, you know, Science!

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was a force where I had to deal with numpties like you

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So if you got two witnesses, both police officers, who saw a woman at close hand and spent time in her company and saw that she was wearing such a large, clearly noticeable item like an apron, you would dismiss them as ‘too good to be true?” If Hutt and Robinson are ‘unsafe’ then every witness is ‘unsafe.’

Is there a single person/witness in this case whose testimony you don’t find ‘unsafe?’ I think you’re confusing the word ‘unsafe’ for the word ‘inconvenient.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

Brown:

“The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding.”

A seam is:

“…a line where two pieces of fabric are sewn together in a garment or other article.”

As Joshua pointed out, the area that Trevor noted with a red line in his diagrams was a hem, not a seam.

The only area that could have had a seam was the area where the patch was sown on. Did Brown refer to this piece specifically when he was describing the matching up of the two pieces? Yes he did. Could anything be clearer?

So this tells us that the patch had been cut through and was present on both the GS piece and the Mortuary piece and was used by Brown to check that the GS piece came from the MP. And if this is the case then very obviously we have two pieces. I’ve never understood how it could be claimed that it couldn’t have been two pieces. The GS piece was probably removed by a vertical and then a horizontal cut taking out a corner piece (whether at the top or the bottom) Alternatively it could have been a more uneven diagonal cut. This is about as straightforward as it gets imo.

And, as we know that the apron had been repaired, we have to ask why Kate would have repaired it and then chopped it into pieces leaving her without an apron? (according to Trevor, pretty much every woman wore one) Especially when she was already carrying numerous pieces of cloth. None of this remotely makes sense. As Caz pointed out, Eddowes was about as poor as it gets. Woman like her didn’t casually destroy perfectly good items of clothing. They repaired them until they were beyond repair. Everything points to the proven fact that Kate was wearing an apron and the piece got to Goulston Street via the killer. Why did he take it? We can’t know for certain but I think the best bet is for a clean up when he was away from the danger area.

None of this requires any leaps of faith like Kate menstruating, or arriving back at her lodgings unseen, or her trudging all the way back to Mitre Square or Hutt and Robinson inventing the fact that she was wearing an apron when this in no way benefitted the police (giving them no motive for lying)

There’s nothing wrong with exploring new ideas but there comes a time when the ship has to be abandoned and the ship sailed long ago on this theory.

[FISHY1118]

Im loving the way this theorys been put throught the proverbial ringer and has come out all shredded .Glad to see it .

After all whats good for one Author should be good for another .

[Trevor Marriott]

The only area that could have had a seam was the area where the patch was sown on. Did Brown refer to this piece specifically when he was describing the matching up of the two pieces? Yes he did. Could anything be clearer?

Thats not correct an apron is made in two sections which are sown together by the seams and there is no evidence to show the patch was cut through or used to make a match

So this tells us that the patch had been cut through and was present on both the GS piece and the Mortuary piece and was used by Brown to check that the GS piece came from the MP. And if this is the case then very obviously we have two pieces. I’ve never understood how it could be claimed that it couldn’t have been two pieces. The GS piece was probably removed by a vertical and then a horizontal cut taking out a corner piece (whether at the top or the bottom) Alternatively it could have been a more uneven diagonal cut. This is about as straightforward as it gets imo.

And why would the killer complicate his actions by cutting a piece of apron from the top when he could easily have cut a piece of apron from the bottom half of the apron or from any other piece of her outer clothing.

And, as we know that the apron had been repaired, we have to ask why Kate would have repaired it and then chopped it into pieces leaving her without an apron? (according to Trevor, pretty much every woman wore one) Especially when she was already carrying numerous pieces of cloth. None of this remotely makes sense. As Caz pointed out, Eddowes was about as poor as it gets. Woman like her didn’t casually destroy perfectly good items of clothing. They repaired them until they were beyond repair. Everything points to the proven fact that Kate was wearing an apron and the piece got to Goulston Street via the killer. Why did he take it? We can’t know for certain but I think the best bet is for a clean up when he was away from the danger area.

We dont know if Kate replaced the new piece she might have acquired the original apron from another source with the new piece of material still attached, the item of clothing was described as "old" and cut it up herself and how do we know that the 12 pieces of white rag were not remants of the rest of the original apron.

Again if the killer after murdering and mutilating decided he needed something to take and clean himslf up on, how did he come to take a piece of the apron when he had lifted her clothes up above her waist making the apron the furthest item of clothing acccessible to him that doesnt make any sense

None of this requires any leaps of faith like Kate menstruating, or arriving back at her lodgings unseen, or her trudging all the way back to Mitre Square or Hutt and Robinson inventing the fact that she was wearing an apron when this in no way benefitted the police (giving them no motive for lying)

She had the time and the opportunity to go back in the direction of Flower and dean street passing GS on her way

In criminal investigations there is usually a lot of facts that on the face of it dont make sense. but when the evidence is carefully scrutinzed it all becomes clear

There’s nothing wrong with exploring new ideas but there comes a time when the ship has to be abandoned and the ship sailed long ago on this theory.

The problem is that you and others are not prepared to consider new ideas because you are so fixated with the old accpted theories.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
The only area that could have had a seam was the area where the patch was sown on. Did Brown refer to this piece specifically when he was describing the matching up of the two pieces? Yes he did. Could anything be clearer?

Thats not correct an apron is made in two sections which are sown together by the seams and there is no evidence to show the patch was cut through or used to make a match

So according to you, every single apron is made the exact same way? Why would an apron have to have Ben made that way? How can you possibly keep making these sweeping statements? No one, apart from those that were there (who you dismiss and ignore anyway) actually saw the apron. I’m fairly sure that Eddowes wouldn’t have popped into Selfridges to buy one in the sales.

This is the first “How to make an apron” that came up via Google. No mention of sowing 2 pieces together. I looked at 2 others too and neither mention sowing 2 pieces together so you’re clearly reduced to making things up to bolster your theory.

https://www.papernstitchblog.com/how...in-10-minutes/

So this tells us that the patch had been cut through and was present on both the GS piece and the Mortuary piece and was used by Brown to check that the GS piece came from the MP. And if this is the case then very obviously we have two pieces. I’ve never understood how it could be claimed that it couldn’t have been two pieces. The GS piece was probably removed by a vertical and then a horizontal cut taking out a corner piece (whether at the top or the bottom) Alternatively it could have been a more uneven diagonal cut. This is about as straightforward as it gets imo.

And why would the killer complicate his actions by cutting a piece of apron from the top when he could easily have cut a piece of apron from the bottom half of the apron or from any other piece of her outer clothing.

Top or bottom, it makes no difference. The piece was still cut through a patch where the seams were matched up and it still meant that 2 pieces made up a complete apron unlike your baseless assumption that it couldn’t have (which still makes not an ounce of sense) From the bottom or the top - 2 pieces = complete apron.

And cutting from the top is no more complicated that cutting from the bottom. He could easily have grabbed the waistband and cut downwards. Simple.

And, as we know that the apron had been repaired, we have to ask why Kate would have repaired it and then chopped it into pieces leaving her without an apron? (according to Trevor, pretty much every woman wore one) Especially when she was already carrying numerous pieces of cloth. None of this remotely makes sense. As Caz pointed out, Eddowes was about as poor as it gets. Woman like her didn’t casually destroy perfectly good items of clothing. They repaired them until they were beyond repair. Everything points to the proven fact that Kate was wearing an apron and the piece got to Goulston Street via the killer. Why did he take it? We can’t know for certain but I think the best bet is for a clean up when he was away from the danger area.

We dont know if Kate replaced the new piece she might have acquired the original apron from another source with the new piece of material still attached, the item of clothing was described as "old" and cut it up herself and how do we know that the 12 pieces of white rag were not remants of the rest of the original apron.

We know that the 12 pieces weren’t a part of the apron because we know for a fact that the 2 pieces made up a complete apron. And how much of an apron could it have been with 12 pieces missing? Be serious.

We know how poor Eddowes was and how precious items of clothing were. She already had 12 pieces of rag so why cut up a perfectly serviceable apron. So unless she had a secret clothes cupboard somewhere why would she have left herself with no apron? Nothing you say is remotely logical.

Again if the killer after murdering and mutilating decided he needed something to take and clean himslf up on, how did he come to take a piece of the apron when he had lifted her clothes up above her waist making the apron the furthest item of clothing acccessible to him that doesnt make any sense

Errrrr….he did it before the clothes were lifted. Or it got cut loose and protruded at the side of the body.

None of this requires any leaps of faith like Kate menstruating, or arriving back at her lodgings unseen, or her trudging all the way back to Mitre Square or Hutt and Robinson inventing the fact that she was wearing an apron when this in no way benefitted the police (giving them no motive for lying)

She had the time and the opportunity to go back in the direction of Flower and dean street passing GS on her way

And she had the time and the opportunity to put a bucket on her head and sing Rule Britannia but I wouldn’t put money on it. And of course not one single person saw her at her lodgings. But on you go.

In criminal investigations there is usually a lot of facts that on the face of it dont make sense. but when the evidence is carefully scrutinzed it all becomes clear

A pity that you don’t scrutinise the fact then isn’t it? You just make up a scenario, assume that it’s correct just because you came up with it, then you wriggle, twist and flounder to try and defend it at all costs.

There’s nothing wrong with exploring new ideas but there comes a time when the ship has to be abandoned and the ship sailed long ago on this theory.
The problem is that you and others are not prepared to consider new ideas because you are so fixated with the old accpted theories.

No Trevor, the problem is that you simply can’t countenance the idea that you might be wrong. You come up with an idea then expect everyone to give you round of applause and accept your theory and when that doesn’t happen (which is most of the time) you throw a strop.

We have considered the theory as these threads prove. They’ve been discussed, debated, analysed, assessed, then discussed and debated again and everyone is telling you that you’re wrong. So we have no problem in looking at new theories but, unlike you, we don’t just accept them because they are new. You prefer a nonsense new theory to a reasonable old one purely because you want to be the one that comes up with a new theory.

Your theory simply doesn’t hold water no matter how much bluster you come out with and no matter how many times you state your own opinion as fact.

If you come up with a new theory that makes sense I’ll be the first to agree with it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
The only area that could have had a seam was the area where the patch was sown on. Did Brown refer to this piece specifically when he was describing the matching up of the two pieces? Yes he did. Could anything be clearer?

Thats not correct an apron is made in two sections which are sown together by the seams and there is no evidence to show the patch was cut through or used to make a match

So according to you, every single apron is made the exact same way? Why would an apron have to have Ben made that way? How can you possibly keep making these sweeping statements? No one, apart from those that were there (who you dismiss and ignore anyway) actually saw the apron. I’m fairly sure that Eddowes wouldn’t have popped into Selfridges to buy one in the sales.

This is the first “How to make an apron” that came up via Google. No mention of sowing 2 pieces together. I looked at 2 others too and neither mention sowing 2 pieces together so you’re clearly reduced to making things up to bolster your theory.

https://www.papernstitchblog.com/how...in-10-minutes/

So this tells us that the patch had been cut through and was present on both the GS piece and the Mortuary piece and was used by Brown to check that the GS piece came from the MP. And if this is the case then very obviously we have two pieces. I’ve never understood how it could be claimed that it couldn’t have been two pieces. The GS piece was probably removed by a vertical and then a horizontal cut taking out a corner piece (whether at the top or the bottom) Alternatively it could have been a more uneven diagonal cut. This is about as straightforward as it gets imo.

And why would the killer complicate his actions by cutting a piece of apron from the top when he could easily have cut a piece of apron from the bottom half of the apron or from any other piece of her outer clothing.

Top or bottom, it makes no difference. The piece was still cut through a patch where the seams were matched up and it still meant that 2 pieces made up a complete apron unlike your baseless assumption that it couldn’t have (which still makes not an ounce of sense) From the bottom or the top - 2 pieces = complete apron.

And cutting from the top is no more complicated that cutting from the bottom. He could easily have grabbed the waistband and cut downwards. Simple.

And, as we know that the apron had been repaired, we have to ask why Kate would have repaired it and then chopped it into pieces leaving her without an apron? (according to Trevor, pretty much every woman wore one) Especially when she was already carrying numerous pieces of cloth. None of this remotely makes sense. As Caz pointed out, Eddowes was about as poor as it gets. Woman like her didn’t casually destroy perfectly good items of clothing. They repaired them until they were beyond repair. Everything points to the proven fact that Kate was wearing an apron and the piece got to Goulston Street via the killer. Why did he take it? We can’t know for certain but I think the best bet is for a clean up when he was away from the danger area.

We dont know if Kate replaced the new piece she might have acquired the original apron from another source with the new piece of material still attached, the item of clothing was described as "old" and cut it up herself and how do we know that the 12 pieces of white rag were not remants of the rest of the original apron.

We know that the 12 pieces weren’t a part of the apron because we know for a fact that the 2 pieces made up a complete apron. And how much of an apron could it have been with 12 pieces missing? Be serious.

We know how poor Eddowes was and how precious items of clothing were. She already had 12 pieces of rag so why cut up a perfectly serviceable apron. So unless she had a secret clothes cupboard somewhere why would she have left herself with no apron? Nothing you say is remotely logical.

Again if the killer after murdering and mutilating decided he needed something to take and clean himslf up on, how did he come to take a piece of the apron when he had lifted her clothes up above her waist making the apron the furthest item of clothing acccessible to him that doesnt make any sense

Errrrr….he did it before the clothes were lifted. Or it got cut loose and protruded at the side of the body.

None of this requires any leaps of faith like Kate menstruating, or arriving back at her lodgings unseen, or her trudging all the way back to Mitre Square or Hutt and Robinson inventing the fact that she was wearing an apron when this in no way benefitted the police (giving them no motive for lying)

She had the time and the opportunity to go back in the direction of Flower and dean street passing GS on her way

And she had the time and the opportunity to put a bucket on her head and sing Rule Britannia but I wouldn’t put money on it. And of course not one single person saw her at her lodgings. But on you go.

In criminal investigations there is usually a lot of facts that on the face of it dont make sense. but when the evidence is carefully scrutinzed it all becomes clear

A pity that you don’t scrutinise the fact then isn’t it? You just make up a scenario, assume that it’s correct just because you came up with it, then you wriggle, twist and flounder to try and defend it at all costs.

There’s nothing wrong with exploring new ideas but there comes a time when the ship has to be abandoned and the ship sailed long ago on this theory.
The problem is that you and others are not prepared to consider new ideas because you are so fixated with the old accpted theories.

No Trevor, the problem is that you simply can’t countenance the idea that you might be wrong. You come up with an idea then expect everyone to give you round of applause and accept your theory and when that doesn’t happen (which is most of the time) you throw a strop.

We have considered the theory as these threads prove. They’ve been discussed, debated, analysed, assessed, then discussed and debated again and everyone is telling you that you’re wrong. So we have no problem in looking at new theories but, unlike you, we don’t just accept them because they are new. You prefer a nonsense new theory to a reasonable old one purely because you want to be the one that comes up with a new theory.

Your theory simply doesn’t hold water no matter how much bluster you come out with and no matter how many times you state your own opinion as fact.

If you come up with a new theory that makes sense I’ll be the first to agree with it.

I am done with you on this thread, you keep ignoring the real facts and making scenarios up to suit and I neither have the time or the inclination to keep trying to point out to where your scenarios are flawed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am done with you on this thread, you keep ignoring the real facts and making scenarios up to suit and I neither have the time or the inclination to keep trying to point out to where your scenarios are flawed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m tired of listening to your utter desperation Trevor. No matter how many times or by how many posters your ‘theories’ are shredded you keep coming back with them. Why don’t you for once in your life admit that you’re wrong instead of embarrassingly floundering around making things up?

FACT - Two Police Officers who saw Eddowes at close quarters and over a period of time were 100% certain that she was wearing an apron on the night that she was killed (this alone is enough to rubbish your fantasy) Your attempt to discredit them is possibly the most embarrassing piece of desperation I’ve ever heard on the subject.

FACT - Dr. Brown saw and described, in black and white and in English, that the Goulston Street piece and the Mortuary Piece both had a peace of a patch attached to it.

FACT - The edge of the apron was a hem and not a seam.

FACT - When he mentioned the patch Brown mentioned matching up the seams. The only seams that were there were the seams of the patch, therefore he matched up the two pieces by the seams of the patch. Obvious.

FACT - If the killer cut through the patch, and he most certainly did, then whether he cut from the top down or from the bottom up this still gives us 2 pieces of apron making up a full piece. So your nonsensical piece of twisting about it being impossible to have been a whole apron is just a baseless piece of nonsense which no one can make head nor tail of.

FACT - Not one single Police Officer or Doctor at the time mentioned the apron being incomplete. That they didn’t specifically mention it being whole was because it was such an obvious assumption that wasn’t questioned by anyone (although Robinson did mention seeing ‘the whole of it’ at the Inquest)

FACT - We have no evidence that Eddowes was menstruating.

FACT - No one mentions seeing Eddowes returning to her lodgings.

FACT - Eddowes had a dozen pieces of cloth in her possession which she could have used if she was menstruating.

FACT - We can think of no logical reason why Eddowes, after being released at 12.55 would have made a journey back to her lodgings and then almost immediately turned around and trudged all the way back to Mitre Square, an area that, as far as we know, she had no connection to.

FACT - Not one single Police Officer or Doctor (or anyone) at the time even hinted or suggested that the killer hadn’t deposited the apron at Goulston Street. It was treated as an absolute certainty not even worth questioning. Why, because they had 2 parts of a whole apron, one piece in Mitre Square and one in Goulston Street.

FACT - We have an entirely reasonable, plausible and sane reason why the killer would have taken away a piece of apron.

……

Some theories become ‘old established theories’ because they fit the known facts. Very little in this case fits the known facts as well as this. Ripperology is polluted with convoluted, wacko, discredited theories that some people just won’t let go of because it would mean admitting that they were wrong. I think that many are fed up with ripperologists being seen as loonies who come up with increasingly bizarre suspects and implausible theories and ripperology itself a breeding ground for conspiracy theorists. There should be no shame in saying “well, I explored this possibility but the facts are totally against it,” but for some it’s just a step too far to admit that they’re wrong so they get backed into a corner and then defend at all costs with increasingly desperate arguments and this is exactly what Trevor is doing here… yet again.

Im happy to let the facts stand as they are. We can all see that the evidence tells us that Catharine Eddowes was definitely wearing an apron on the night that she was murdered and that the killer took a piece of it away before discarding it in the Goulston Street doorway. Place the above facts in front of any jury and it would take them no time at all to vote 100% in favour of it. Because that’s what happened. The evidence tells us.

[Trevor Marriott]

FACT - Two Police Officers who saw Eddowes at close quarters and over a period of time were 100% certain that she was wearing an apron on the night that she was killed (this alone is enough to rubbish your fantasy) Your attempt to discredit them is possibly the most embarrassing piece of desperation I’ve ever heard on the subject.

FACT-Those police officers gave their evidence 4 days after the event how were they able to remember if she was wearing an apron or not, but of course their testimony was tainted by reason of the fact that by the time they gave their evidence the GS piece had been matched to the mortuary piece and it had been accepted by senior officers that the killer had cut the two pieces and had deposited one piece in GS.

Then looking at the rest of their inquest testimony which again is all over the place in his signed inquest deposition Robinson says "I believe the apron produced is the one she was wearing" and even that is incorrect because there was no apron produced as full apron apron, he was shown two pieces of apron there is no evidence to show that those two pieces made up a full apron,

The we have Pc Hutt who says "I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the station" There was no full apron produced, what was produced was two cut pieces of apron.

Then we have Sgt Byfield the station Sgt who makes no mention of seeing her wearing an aprom

FACT - Dr. Brown saw and described, in black and white and in English, that the Goulston Street piece and the Mortuary Piece both had a peace of a patch attached to it.

FACT- It makes no difference how they were matched the fact is that there were two pieces one from the top left/right which was the GS piece and the mortuary piece which had no string attached so how could they have made up a full apron? If she had been wearing an apron and the killer cut through it when stabbing her in the abdomen there would have been two pieces both with pieces of string attached.

Why would the killer after lifting her clothes up above her waist then go and cut a piece of her apron from the top corner of the apron which was the most inaccesible piece of clothing to reach

FACT - Not one single Police Officer or Doctor at the time mentioned the apron being incomplete. That they didn’t specifically mention it being whole was because it was such an obvious assumption that wasn’t questioned by anyone (although Robinson did mention seeing ‘the whole of it’ at the Inquest)

FACT- Conversley no one mentions that when the two pieces were matched they made up a full apron

FACT - We have no evidence that Eddowes was menstruating.

FACT-We have no evidence she wasnt, and blood spotting is conistent with that process and the facts that the blood spots and faceal matter were only on one side suggests that is what that piece could have been used for Dr Brown even describes smearing and is wholly consitent with it being between her legs.

FACT - No one mentions seeing Eddowes returning to her lodgings.

FACT-Just because no one saw her that doesnt mean to say she didnt, she had the time and the opportunity to do so

FACT - Eddowes had a dozen pieces of cloth in her possession which she could have used if she was menstruating.

FACT-We dont know if theses piece of cloth had come from an old apron that had been cut up, and we dont know the quality of them, Eddowes was described as a hawker and so she could have had these with a view to selling or exchanging them for goods

FACT - We can think of no logical reason why Eddowes, after being released at 12.55 would have made a journey back to her lodgings and then almost immediately turned around and trudged all the way back to Mitre Square, an area that, as far as we know, she had no connection to.

FACT-If she had done that and couldnt get it in, or couldnt wake the keeper then what alternative was open to her?

FACT - Not one single Police Officer or Doctor (or anyone) at the time even hinted or suggested that the killer hadn’t deposited the apron at Goulston Street. It was treated as an absolute certainty not even worth questioning. Why, because they had 2 parts of a whole apron, one piece in Mitre Square and one in Goulston Street.

FACT- Not proven

FACT - We have an entirely reasonable, plausible and sane reason why the killer would have taken away a piece of apron.

FACT-What reasons? Nothing is sane and logical with your interpretation of the evidence - to wipe his hands or knife- he could have done that on her clothing before leaving the crime scene and even leaving the crime scene he would have the opportunity of disposing of it long before he got to GS. Cutting himself and using a piece to stem the blood flow the decsription of the aprno piece is not consitent with that. If he had done that the blood transferred would be more localised on the apron piece.

I have stated my case in great detail as have you, it is best now that the issues discussed are left for each invidual to assess and evaluate and come to their own conclusions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just in case anyone else is reading this. - my original posts are in black, Trevor’s responses are in red then my responses are in blue.

FACT - Two Police Officers who saw Eddowes at close quarters and over a period of time were 100% certain that she was wearing an apron on the night that she was killed (this alone is enough to rubbish your fantasy) Your attempt to discredit them is possibly the most embarrassing piece of desperation I’ve ever heard on the subject.

FACT-Those police officers gave their evidence 4 days after the event how were they able to remember if she was wearing an apron or not, but of course their testimony was tainted by reason of the fact that by the time they gave their evidence the GS piece had been matched to the mortuary piece and it had been accepted by senior officers that the killer had cut the two pieces and had deposited one piece in GS.

Reid’s newspaper statement about the Kelly crime scene was given 8 years later but you appear to allow him perfect recall. Hutt and Robinson’s evidence wasn’t tainted at all. They simply saw and spent time with her and retained a mental image of her wearing an apron. It’s called ‘memory.’

Hypothetical - a man , who was making an escape from a robbery wearing a blue jacket, bumped into someone on the street before disappearing. The item was on the news for four days with the Police asking for the passerby to come forward. The passerby, not knowing that the guy had committed a robbery at the time, sees the news item and comes forward saying, “I was coming out of Sainsbury’s when a bloke bumped into me then ran off. He was wearing a blue jacket.” Would you call his evidence ‘discredited’ because it had been mentioned on the news that he’d been wearing a blue accent?

The attempt to discredit Hutt and Robinson is a very obvious tactic on your part to try and bolster your theory.

Then looking at the rest of their inquest testimony which again is all over the place in his signed inquest deposition Robinson says "I believe the apron produced is the one she was wearing" and even that is incorrect because there was no apron produced as full apron apron, he was shown two pieces of apron there is no evidence to show that those two pieces made up a full apron,

The we have Pc Hutt who says "I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the station" There was no full apron produced, what was produced was two cut pieces of apron.

These officers were shown to pieces of apron. It’s reasonable to ask was there anything to distinguish those pieces from any other apron? Yes there was. Both pieces had parts of a patch on them (as per Brown, who you appear to ignore)

Then we have Sgt Byfield the station Sgt who makes no mention of seeing her wearing an apron.

Not quite correct. It appears that he was asked but he couldn’t remember. There’s nothing mysterious about that. He obvious wasn’t paying much attention. Plus, as Sergeant, when he was talking to Eddowes (and no doubt making notes) she would have been standing behind a desk hiding the bottom half of her body. Byfield just gave an honest answer like Hutt and Robinson. If the Police were simply parroting the ‘company line’ about Eddoes wearing an apron, why didn’t Byfield do it too? Because, like the other two, he simply gave an honest reply to a question.

FACT - Dr. Brown saw and described, in black and white and in English, that the Goulston Street piece and the Mortuary Piece both had a peace of a patch attached to it.

FACT- It makes no difference how they were matched the fact is that there were two pieces one from the top left/right which was the GS piece and the mortuary piece which had no string attached so how could they have made up a full apron? If she had been wearing an apron and the killer cut through it when stabbing her in the abdomen there would have been two pieces both with pieces of string attached.

At last!! I can now see why you keep getting this wrong. You have been thinking that the Mortuary piece had no string attached. But it did, as per Dr. Brown:

My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street.

Very clearly, to everyone but you apparently, Brown is talking about the Mortuary piece with string attached. In this piece he clearly talks first about the MP and then the GS piece (produced by Phillips) Because Brown talks about a corner you’ve mistakenly interpreted this as the GS piece when he was actually talking about the corner because, as he says, his attention was drawn to the corner because that’s where the blood spots were.

Another way of writing this, as a way of making it clearer to you, would be “my attention was drawn to the corner of the apron (with string attached) in the mortuary where the blood spots were. Doctor Phillips then produced a piece that was found in Goulston Street.

Its even clearer in The Telegraph:

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

If you continue to deny this then there’s no hope for you Trevor. You’ve very obviously misread the evidence.


Why would the killer after lifting her clothes up above her waist then go and cut a piece of her apron from the top corner of the apron which was the most inaccesible piece of clothing to reach.

Firstly, that he did it after lifting the skirts is an invention on your part to make it look less likely. Secondly, he could have either cut from the waistband down (through the patch) or from the bottom up (through the patch) either way w have 2 pieces making up a whole apron. I can’t believe that I’m having to explain this to an ex-copper!

FACT - Not one single Police Officer or Doctor at the time mentioned the apron being incomplete. That they didn’t specifically mention it being whole was because it was such an obvious assumption that wasn’t questioned by anyone (although Robinson did mention seeing ‘the whole of it’ at the Inquest)

FACT- Conversley no one mentions that when the two pieces were matched they made up a full apron

There was no need to mention the glaringly obvious. The fact that no one mentioned that it wasn’t complete is a far more serious omission as you well know.

FACT - We have no evidence that Eddowes was menstruating.

FACT-We have no evidence she wasnt, and blood spotting is conistent with that process and the facts that the blood spots and faceal matter were only on one side suggests that is what that piece could have been used for Dr Brown even describes smearing and is wholly consitent with it being between her legs.

I didn’t think that conjecture was allowed Trevor as you tend to come down hard on it. Oh yeah, I remember now, it’s perfectly legitimate when you do it.

FACT - No one mentions seeing Eddowes returning to her lodgings.

FACT-Just because no one saw her that doesnt mean to say she didnt, she had the time and the opportunity to do so

She had time and opportunity to lots of things that she didn’t actually do but she didn’t actually do them.

FACT - Eddowes had a dozen pieces of cloth in her possession which she could have used if she was menstruating.

FACT-We dont know if theses piece of cloth had come from an old apron that had been cut up, and we dont know the quality of them, Eddowes was described as a hawker and so she could have had these with a view to selling or exchanging them for goods

I can’t see the relevance of this comment.

FACT - We can think of no logical reason why Eddowes, after being released at 12.55 would have made a journey back to her lodgings and then almost immediately turned around and trudged all the way back to Mitre Square, an area that, as far as we know, she had no connection to.

FACT-If she had done that and couldnt get it in, or couldnt wake the keeper then what alternative was open to her?

So if she was resigned to sleeping rough she’d have gone all the way to Mitre Square because the City had more comfortable pavements?

FACT - Not one single Police Officer or Doctor (or anyone) at the time even hinted or suggested that the killer hadn’t deposited the apron at Goulston Street. It was treated as an absolute certainty not even worth questioning. Why, because they had 2 parts of a whole apron, one piece in Mitre Square and one in Goulston Street.

FACT- Not proven

Fair enough, I’ll re-phrase. Not one single police man, Doctor or indeed anyone connected to the case has ever, in print anywhere, ever suggested, hinted, implied or stated that the apron hadn’t been dropped by the killer.

FACT - We have an entirely reasonable, plausible and sane reason why the killer would have taken away a piece of apron.

FACT-What reasons? Nothing is sane and logical with your interpretation of the evidence - to wipe his hands or knife- he could have done that on her clothing before leaving the crime scene

Yes but he’d have felt under time pressure due to the location and there’s also the fact that in poor lighting he might have missed some blood on his person that might have drawn attention to himself as he walked the streets. Taking a piece of cloth would have allowed him the opportunity of a further clean up if required somewhere much safer that Mitre Square. If you can’t see that this I reasonable and logic then you don’t know what reason and logic are.

and even leaving the crime scene he would have the opportunity of disposing of it long before he got to GS.

So what. The doorway might have been the first place that he saw to have an clean up out of sight? Or he might have spotted some blood on his shoes for example just before he got to the doorway. The fact that he ‘could’ have disposed of it earlier is about as weak an argument as it’s possible to come up with. I genuinely can’t believe that you say some of these things.

Cutting himself and using a piece to stem the blood flow the decsription of the aprno piece is not consitent with that. If he had done that the blood transferred would be more localised on the apron piece.

I haven’t suggested that.

…….

At least I now sort of understand why you’ve stuck to this strange argument that the 2 pieces couldn’t have made up a full apron. You’ve mistakenly taken it that the Mortuary Piece had no string when, from the 2 quotes, we see that it very obviously did. I’m now going to wait to see how you could possibly try a wriggle out of this one. Surely even you have to, for once, admit that you’ve been mistaken. Part of me is saying “he must admit that he’s wrong,” but another part of me is saying “Trevor never admits that he’s wrong.”

You are wrong Trevor. It’s in black and white. I can’t believe that all of this time has been wasted because you misread a piece of evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve never understood why these images come up like this but that’s technology for you.