GSG Conclusion

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no direct evidence to show that at the time she was murdered she was even wearing an apron which according to you and others she was wearing round her waist

If it happened as you say why is there no evidence to show that an apron with a piece missing was found on her person at the crime scene in that case it would have been mentioned that when they pulled her clothes back down to put her on the ambulance the remaing piece of the apron wasnt visible or fell off. No one at the mortuary mentions she was wearing a cut apron when the body was stripped and there is no sign of a cut apeon or any apron for that matter on Fosters body sketch.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Police at the time stated that the apron found in Goulston Street came from Eddowes apron. They were there. We weren’t. Why were they wrong? Of course it’s pointless for me to point out the fact that Hutt and Robinson, who both saw her and spent time on her company, both stated that she was wearing an apron, because you desperately try to discredit their evidence purely to prop up your own theory. That she was wearing an apron can be taken as a proven fact.

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you prove that the string hadn’t become untied Trevor? Can you prove that the apron was in a certain position and that it hadn’t become disarranged in the struggle? Can you prove that just because one method might appear more convenient then that must have been the method used? Why is it that you ‘conveniently’ harp on about the poor lighting and yet you dismiss it when it’s suggested that the killer might have missed a piece of string? More selective reasoning.

There is no direct evidence to show that at the time she was murdered she was even wearing an apron which according to you and others she was wearing round her waist

If it happened as you say why is there no evidence to show that an apron with a piece missing was found on her person at the crime scene in that case it would have been mentioned that when they pulled her clothes back down to put her on the ambulance the remaing piece of the apron wasnt visible or fell off. No one at the mortuary mentions she was wearing a cut apron when the body was stripped and there is no sign of a cut apeon or any apron for that matter on Fosters body sketch.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

And just for once Trevor it would be helpful if you didn’t continue to claim to know what isn’t known. This Forum could exist without conjecture. Why is it ok for you to do it but you’re quick to criticise others?



Do you know of some medical definition of what constitutes a ‘bad’ cut? I recently cut my hand whilst opening a tin. It was hardly a gaping wound but I still dropped blood onto the kitchen floor. It’s a bit staggering to say the least that you can ridicule the suggestion that he might have used a piece of cloth as a bandage. People bandage cuts. This is a fact. The possibility exists that the killer might have used a piece of cloth for this purpose. Any reasonable person would see clearly that this was at least a possibility but you are rigidly against this. Therefore, as ever, you are claiming your opinion as a fact.



And you are desperately trying to ’prop up’ your own theory. You do this all the time Trevor as you appear to believe that only your opinions are valid. Every single theory of yours is just as much ‘conjecture’ as any other theory whether old or new.



You are impervious to any opinion apart from your own Trevor. That the killer might have taken away a piece of cloth so that he could clean up away from the scene is entirely reasonable and possible. Of course it’s conjecture but the difference is that others don’t claim their ‘conjecture’ as a fact as you continue to do. So we don’t need to stop ‘peddling’ anything. This is a Forum for ideas, suggestions, conjecture and opinions. It’s not a place for you to simply make pronouncements followed by a sulk when people disagree with you.

And the fact that so many tend to disagree with you should at least give you a hint that you’re not The Oracle on this subject. But no, you accuse them of being rigidly attached to ‘old established theories’ which is about as nonsensical as it gets. How am I, for example, being ‘rigid,’ when I tell you that I don’t know why the piece of apron got there? I don’t know if the killer wrote the Graffito. I don’t know if Stride was a victim or not. I don’t know who the killer was. I don’t know who Anderson’s witness was. I don’t know if Hutchinson was genuine or not. I don’t know if Tabram or Mackenzie were victims. I’m struggling to recall you ever admitting to not knowing something though.

It would be a revelation if, for once Trevor, you could actually admit to being as much in the dark as the rest of us over events that occurred 134 years ago. And please don’t say “but my conjecture is based on……” because that just doesn’t work.

When i see a good post i will acknowedge it , this is a good post .


Personaly, im tired of reading how were all somehow sucked in the the old excepted theory, bout time that crap what called out .

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Didnt notice the string !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!you gotta be kidding if you are going to cut a piece of material from a garment how can you cut a piece from a garment that is supposedly tied around the waist, when the bottom half is more accessible, as was all the other outter clothing. Are you so desperate to prop up the old previously accepted theory? Cleary so

Can you prove that the string hadn’t become untied Trevor? Can you prove that the apron was in a certain position and that it hadn’t become disarranged in the struggle? Can you prove that just because one method might appear more convenient then that must have been the method used? Why is it that you ‘conveniently’ harp on about the poor lighting and yet you dismiss it when it’s suggested that the killer might have missed a piece of string? More selective reasoning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Simply baseless conjecture which you and others need to stop peddling

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And just for once Trevor it would be helpful if you didn’t continue to claim to know what isn’t known. This Forum could exist without conjecture. Why is it ok for you to do it but you’re quick to criticise others?

I don’t see why it would have needed to have been a really bad cut for him to have felt the need to bandage it with a piece of cloth from the scene? The desire not to have dripped blood through the streets would surely have been a good enough reason for this. I’m not saying that this is what happened but I think it’s difficult to discount the possibility.

If it wasnt a bad cut then it wouldnt be dripping blood

Do you know of some medical definition of what constitutes a ‘bad’ cut? I recently cut my hand whilst opening a tin. It was hardly a gaping wound but I still dropped blood onto the kitchen floor. It’s a bit staggering to say the least that you can ridicule the suggestion that he might have used a piece of cloth as a bandage. People bandage cuts. This is a fact. The possibility exists that the killer might have used a piece of cloth for this purpose. Any reasonable person would see clearly that this was at least a possibility but you are rigidly against this. Therefore, as ever, you are claiming your opinion as a fact.

Don’t you think that “physically impossible” is a bit of an exaggeration Trevor? If the apron had come loose during the attack then why couldn’t he have cut from the top part? Might he not even have considered using the string to tie the bandage in place? Also, if the apron had become ‘bunched up’ then, under those circumstances and under time pressure, would he have been that selective about where to cut? Perhaps he just cut at the first corner that came to hand? Additionally Trevor you often raise the subject of the lighting in Mitre Square so perhaps he just didn’t notice the string?

You are one of those who believe she was wearing an apron tied around her waist when she was murdered so just think about what you have just posted and you will see that your post doesent make sense, and again you are one of those desparately trying to prop up the old accpted theory when there is no evidence to support your suggestion

And you are desperately trying to ’prop up’ your own theory. You do this all the time Trevor as you appear to believe that only your opinions are valid. Every single theory of yours is just as much ‘conjecture’ as any other theory whether old or new.

The question has been asked ‘why would he have dropped it there?’ Isn’t it also possible that he took the piece of cloth so that he could check himself over for blood somewhere away from the crime scene? As he passed street lamps he might have seen blood on his shoes or trousers so what would have made more sense than to have ducked into a doorway for a quick clean up using the cloth which he then discarded? Although I’m far from certain, I tend to favour this explanation given the location and the three entrances/exits introducing the possibility of someone (possibly Constable) arriving at any time, especially when compared to Bucks Row, Hanbury Street and Miller’s so he was under greater time pressure (Berner Street is another argument of course) So wouldn’t it have been natural for the killer to have planned to check himself over and perform a bit of a clean up somewhere away from Mitre Square?

Simply baseless conjecture which you and others need to stop peddling

You are impervious to any opinion apart from your own Trevor. That the killer might have taken away a piece of cloth so that he could clean up away from the scene is entirely reasonable and possible. Of course it’s conjecture but the difference is that others don’t claim their ‘conjecture’ as a fact as you continue to do. So we don’t need to stop ‘peddling’ anything. This is a Forum for ideas, suggestions, conjecture and opinions. It’s not a place for you to simply make pronouncements followed by a sulk when people disagree with you.

And the fact that so many tend to disagree with you should at least give you a hint that you’re not The Oracle on this subject. But no, you accuse them of being rigidly attached to ‘old established theories’ which is about as nonsensical as it gets. How am I, for example, being ‘rigid,’ when I tell you that I don’t know why the piece of apron got there? I don’t know if the killer wrote the Graffito. I don’t know if Stride was a victim or not. I don’t know who the killer was. I don’t know who Anderson’s witness was. I don’t know if Hutchinson was genuine or not. I don’t know if Tabram or Mackenzie were victims. I’m struggling to recall you ever admitting to not knowing something though.

It would be a revelation if, for once Trevor, you could actually admit to being as much in the dark as the rest of us over events that occurred 134 years ago. And please don’t say “but my conjecture is based on……” because that just doesn’t work.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don’t see why it would have needed to have been a really bad cut for him to have felt the need to bandage it with a piece of cloth from the scene? The desire not to have dripped blood through the streets would surely have been a good enough reason for this. I’m not saying that this is what happened but I think it’s difficult to discount the possibility.

If it wasnt a bad cut then it wouldnt be dripping blood

Don’t you think that “physically impossible” is a bit of an exaggeration Trevor? If the apron had come loose during the attack then why couldn’t he have cut from the top part? Might he not even have considered using the string to tie the bandage in place? Also, if the apron had become ‘bunched up’ then, under those circumstances and under time pressure, would he have been that selective about where to cut? Perhaps he just cut at the first corner that came to hand? Additionally Trevor you often raise the subject of the lighting in Mitre Square so perhaps he just didn’t notice the string?

You are one of those who believe she was wearing an apron tied around her waist when she was murdered so just think about what you have just posted and you will see that your post doesent make sense, and again you are one of those desparately trying to prop up the old accpted theory when there is no evidence to support your suggestion.

The question has been asked ‘why would he have dropped it there?’ Isn’t it also possible that he took the piece of cloth so that he could check himself over for blood somewhere away from the crime scene? As he passed street lamps he might have seen blood on his shoes or trousers so what would have made more sense than to have ducked into a doorway for a quick clean up using the cloth which he then discarded? Although I’m far from certain, I tend to favour this explanation given the location and the three entrances/exits introducing the possibility of someone (possibly Constable) arriving at any time, especially when compared to Bucks Row, Hanbury Street and Miller’s so he was under greater time pressure (Berner Street is another argument of course) So wouldn’t it have been natural for the killer to have planned to check himself over and perform a bit of a clean up somewhere away from Mitre Square?

Simply baseless conjecture which you and others need to stop peddling

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It doesn't really matter why he took it. What matters is where he discarded it and the fact it shows us his direction of travel. He is heading back into Whitechapel. That is a key piece of evidence. This is someone who lives locally.

And how do you arrive at that conclusion there is no evidence to point to that, again its meaningless conjecture on both your part and the others who go with that theory. He could have easily have come into Whitechapel to kill and then walked out of Whitechapel afterwards. All the murders were committed with a short walk from the main thorougfares.

Didnt notice the string !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!you gotta be kidding if you are going to cut a piece of material from a garment how can you cut a piece from a garment that is supposedly tied around the waist, when the bottom half is more accessible, as was all the other outter clothing. Are you so desperate to prop up the old previously accepted theory? Cleary so

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

and if he had bandaged his hand as you suggest the apron piece would have been more heavily stained as was decsribed, a bad cut woud have seeped through the apron piece which was only described as having blood and faecal matter on one side which would suggest that if he had cut himslef it was clearly only a superficial cut and then he woud not have needed to cut a piece of apron which incidentally was a corner piece with a string attached so it woud have been physically impossibe for him to cut a piece as has been suggested, because if he had needed to he would have cut a piece from the lower half of the apron

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’t see why it would have needed to have been a really bad cut for him to have felt the need to bandage it with a piece of cloth from the scene? The desire not to have dripped blood through the streets would surely have been a good enough reason for this. I’m not saying that this is what happened but I think it’s difficult to discount the possibility.

Don’t you think that “physically impossible” is a bit of an exaggeration Trevor? If the apron had come loose during the attack then why couldn’t he have cut from the top part? Might he not even have considered using the string to tie the bandage in place? Also, if the apron had become ‘bunched up’ then, under those circumstances and under time pressure, would he have been that selective about where to cut? Perhaps he just cut at the first corner that came to hand? Additionally Trevor you often raise the subject of the lighting in Mitre Square so perhaps he just didn’t notice the string?

The question has been asked ‘why would he have dropped it there?’ Isn’t it also possible that he took the piece of cloth so that he could check himself over for blood somewhere away from the crime scene? As he passed street lamps he might have seen blood on his shoes or trousers so what would have made more sense than to have ducked into a doorway for a quick clean up using the cloth which he then discarded? Although I’m far from certain, I tend to favour this explanation given the location and the three entrances/exits introducing the possibility of someone (possibly Constable) arriving at any time, especially when compared to Bucks Row, Hanbury Street and Miller’s so he was under greater time pressure (Berner Street is another argument of course) So wouldn’t it have been natural for the killer to have planned to check himself over and perform a bit of a clean up somewhere away from Mitre Square?

[Iconoclast]

It doesn't really matter why he took it. What matters is where he discarded it and the fact it shows us his direction of travel. He is heading back into Whitechapel. That is a key piece of evidence. This is someone who lives locally.

Careful, Sunny D, you conclude too far: taking the large piece of Eddoes' apron (which he could have used and discarded in situ rather than invest critical time in cutting it out, so he clearly wanted to take it away) does show us that he headed into Whitechapel rather than away from it but it most certainly does not show that he 'lived locally'. It may well have been the case that he had a room locally which he could use.

This - of course - answers Trevor's question about why it would take the killer so long to discard the apron. Whether he 'lived locally' or had access to a room locally, he self-evidently could have gone there first, changed his clothes, hid his knife, waited an hour or so, and then went out with the apron in his pocket, written the GSG, and only then dropped the apron to flag the GSG up to the police, before walking calmly back to his room or his home.

This is a great deal more plausible than that the killer hung around the streets for an hour or so with his knife and Eddowes' bloodied apron and goodness only knows how much of her blood under his long coat

Ike

[Sunny Delight]

and if he had bandaged his hand as you suggest the apron piece would have been more heavily stained as was decsribed, a bad cut woud have seeped through the apron piece which was only described as having blood and faecal matter on one side which would suggest that if he had cut himslef it was clearly only a superficial cut and then he woud not have needed to cut a piece of apron which incidentally was a corner piece with a string attached so it woud have been physically impossibe for him to cut a piece as has been suggested, because if he had needed to he would have cut a piece from the lower half of the apron

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It doesn't really matter why he took it. What matters is where he discarded it and the fact it shows us his direction of travel. He is heading back into Whitechapel. That is a key piece of evidence. This is someone who lives locally.

[Sunny Delight]

But why would the killer wait so long before discarding it that doesnt make sense the longer he is in possession of incrimnating evidence the longer he faces detection!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We don't know why the killer discarded it where he did. But we do know he discarded it there. The evidence is fairly conclusive in that regard.

[Trevor Marriott]

-- Don't we have actual medical testimony about poor-quality knife-work in Eddowes' murder?

I forget the exact words; but I'm pretty sure I saw something somewhere...

M.

and if he had bandaged his hand as you suggest the apron piece would have been more heavily stained as was decsribed, a bad cut woud have seeped through the apron piece which was only described as having blood and faecal matter on one side which would suggest that if he had cut himslef it was clearly only a superficial cut and then he woud not have needed to cut a piece of apron which incidentally was a corner piece with a string attached so it woud have been physically impossibe for him to cut a piece as has been suggested, because if he had needed to he would have cut a piece from the lower half of the apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Mark J D]

... if it had been a bad cut he would likely as not have not been able to continue to the abdomen because if he were going to remove organs he would have needed two good hands to perform such intricate removals...

-- Don't we have actual medical testimony about poor-quality knife-work in Eddowes' murder?

I forget the exact words; but I'm pretty sure I saw something somewhere...

M.

[Trevor Marriott]

What if he had cut himself when inflicting the facial mutilations before taking to the abdomen?

Then if it had been a bad cut he would likely as not have not been able to continue to the abdomen because if he were going to remove organs he would have needed two good hands to perform such intricate removals

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

What if he had cut himself when inflicting the facial mutilations before taking to the abdomen?

Hi Harry
ive often wondered about this scenario: he had brought something to put organs in the night of the double event-but had to use it to wipe his hands/knife/ clean up after the botched stride attempt (the anon church st sighting of a peaked cap man acting suspicious and wiping his hands in between stride and eddowes murders). he discards that (never found) on his way to mitres square. now not having anything to put the organs in with eddowes he cuts a portion of her apron to do so, goes to his bolt hole and cleans up, stewing about all the interuptions by those pesky jews, realizes he has a perfect piece of evidence to tie them to the murder, grabs a piece of chalk and heads back out to write the GSG and "sign" it with the apron, implicating said jews.
It explains the time gap and is a narative that makes sense. to me anyway.