Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
    Click image for larger version

Name:	J7PfVaD.jpg
Views:	138
Size:	197.1 KB
ID:	786314 I quite like Wickermans interpretation.
    This drawing has been discussed before and although I agree that it was possible, the evidence and the facts doesnt support that explanation for the reasons stated below

    But even by accepting that drawing it does not show that the two pieces of apron both had strings attached as Herlock suggests, the evidence states "a string attached" had it been cut in the way suggested in the drawing I would have expected it to have been described as "With the strings still attached" after all the list made at the mortuary was in great detailin every sense, and why would the killer be so precise in cutting the apron at that precise part of the apron when his knife entered the abdomen midline and was drawn downwards, and therefore if she was wearing an apron it would have almost cut it in halfand we would have two halves and two strings attachedwhich would have been decsribed accordingly.

    And if the cutting of the apron at the crime scene as is suggested I have to ask how the piece of apron found its way into her possessions, after all she had her possessions contained in two tick bags and after all a detailed list of her clothing and her possessions was made, and if the killer had cut the apron as suggested I would have expected the list to show the remaining piece of her apron among the list of her clothing because it would have been easily visible and would have been described as one old white apron with piece missing and bearing in mind how the abdomen was stabbed through her outer clothing, if she was wearing an apron, why do we not see any evidence of cuts to either pieces of the apron consistent with the outer clothing being stabbed and cut through as decsribed in other clothing from the mortuary clothing list?

    The sizes of this apron pieces have never been fully established but they are mainly referred to as portions or pieces. So that might suggest that they were not of significant sizes to make up a full apron, and there is not one scrap of evidence to show that the two piecs when matched made up a full apron, if that had have been the case I would have expected Brown to say that when he matched the two pieces he would have said that "When matched they made up a full apron" but nothing of that is mentioned by anyone past or present,

    Several different newspaper report have been referred to which are in direct conflcit with the signed inquest depositions by witnesses one such conflict is set out below and goes to show how unsafe newaspaper reports are,

    Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:
    “Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston- street?
    “Dr Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

    Note he refers to strings suggesting that the apron was still fixed to the body. This press report is incorrect and misleading. As has been previously stated the body arrived at the mortuary at 3.15 am and was then stripped. The Goulston Street apron piece was at that time in the hands of Dr Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving it, later on, took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till after 5.20 am so Dr. Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was still affixed to the body.


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk






    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      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 - We have no evidence that Eddowes was menstruating...

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

      I don't understand Trevor's motivation for disputing any of the above facts.

      The apron I had to make at primary school used a very basic pattern. Why Trevor thinks an apron would require two pieces of material, joined together by a seam, is beyond me.

      The seams and borders mentioned by Brown could only have referred to where the new piece of material, or patch, was sewn onto the old, to effect a repair. The tear or cut made by the killer went through this new piece of material, enabling Brown to match up the two pieces exactly, proving they came from the same garment.

      Given Eddowes's age, low weight and poor nutrition, and the fact that women in general tended to go through the menopause earlier back then, she would either have stopped menstruating by the time she was murdered, or been well into the menopause. The twelve pieces of cloth would have been the equivalent of a modern pack of a dozen sanitary towels, or panty liners, which she would have kept among her possessions for a few months after her last period. I have explained all this to Trevor many times over the years, but he apparently knows better. If she needed a piece of cloth for hygiene purposes, the twelve pieces already cut to size would have been used before cutting an apron - or if Trev insists, a larger piece of cloth originally from an apron - which she had repaired with a new piece of material, into two pieces.

      As this is so clearly nonsensical, Trevor's motivation for not ditching the whole notion - as the killer ditched the whole apron - remains the only real mystery.

      Love,

      Caz
      X






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


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        This drawing has been discussed before and although I agree that it was possible, the evidence and the facts doesnt support that explanation for the reasons stated below

        But even by accepting that drawing it does not show that the two pieces of apron both had strings attached as Herlock suggests, the evidence states "a string attached" had it been cut in the way suggested in the drawing I would have expected it to have been described as "With the strings still attached" after all the list made at the mortuary was in great detailin every sense, and why would the killer be so precise in cutting the apron at that precise part of the apron when his knife entered the abdomen midline and was drawn downwards, and therefore if she was wearing an apron it would have almost cut it in halfand we would have two halves and two strings attachedwhich would have been decsribed accordingly.

        Where are you getting this from Trevor? I haven’t suggested that both pieces had string attached. I’ve simply gone with the evidence in that only the Mortuary piece had string attached. Why do you keep repeating that I’ve said something that I haven’t?

        And if the cutting of the apron at the crime scene as is suggested I have to ask how the piece of apron found its way into her possessions, after all she had her possessions contained in two tick bags and after all a detailed list of her clothing and her possessions was made, and if the killer had cut the apron as suggested I would have expected the list to show the remaining piece of her apron among the list of her clothing because it would have been easily visible and would have been described as one old white apron with piece missing and bearing in mind how the abdomen was stabbed through her outer clothing, if she was wearing an apron, why do we not see any evidence of cuts to either pieces of the apron consistent with the outer clothing being stabbed and cut through as decsribed in other clothing from the mortuary clothing list?

        So if you suggest that she wasn’t actually wearing an apron but carrying it, and that you said that she was carrying her possessions in two tick bags then why was that apron found outside her clothing? Why wasn’t in in the tick bags with the rest of her stuff?

        The sizes of this apron pieces have never been fully established but they are mainly referred to as portions or pieces. So that might suggest that they were not of significant sizes to make up a full apron,

        Nonsense. You can’t say - we don’t know the size BUT IF they were small they MIGHT NOT have been big enough to have made a complete apron. How can you cram so much that’s an offence to reason into one short piece?

        and there is not one scrap of evidence to show that the two piecs when matched made up a full apron, if that had have been the case I would have expected Brown to say that when he matched the two pieces he would have said that "When matched they made up a full apron" but nothing of that is mentioned by anyone past or present,

        And no one mentioned the apron being incomplete. And as the Police believed that she was wearing an apron when she died they would definitely have concluded that a piece was missing and that missing piece would have been just as much a piece of evidence as the GS piece. Keep digging Trevor.

        Several different newspaper report have been referred to which are in direct conflcit with the signed inquest depositions by witnesses one such conflict is set out below and goes to show how unsafe newaspaper reports are,

        Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:
        “Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston- street?
        “Dr Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

        Note he refers to strings suggesting that the apron was still fixed to the body. This press report is incorrect and misleading. As has been previously stated the body arrived at the mortuary at 3.15 am and was then stripped. The Goulston Street apron piece was at that time in the hands of Dr Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving it, later on, took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till after 5.20 am so Dr. Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was still affixed to the body.


        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        I’ve genuinely never heard as much drivel as I’ve heard you come up with on this topic Trevor. Nothing that you say makes sense or holds water in relation to the evidence so your left floundering around making things up.

        Brown, in his deposition, states that the Mortuary piece had strings attached which you were denying. He also mentions the patch and it’s seams where he matched the 2 pieces. And two officers saw Eddowes wearing an apron.

        I don’t care how much desperate twisting you keep attempting but it’s game absolutely over. Eddowes was wearing an apron and the killer cut a piece away and left it in Goulston Street. That’s what the Police were convinced of in 1888. That’s what the Doctors were convinced of in 1888. And that’s what everyone else except for you accepts in 2022. I’m afraid that your out on the furthest fringes. You’re 100% wrong on this Trevor. And the worst part is that I think that you realise this but can’t admit it. I just can’t believe that anyone would believe your version. It makes no sense at all. It’s just nonsense.

        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:
          “Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston- street?
          “Dr Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

          Note he refers to strings suggesting that the apron was still fixed to the body. This press report is incorrect and misleading. As has been previously stated the body arrived at the mortuary at 3.15 am and was then stripped. The Goulston Street apron piece was at that time in the hands of Dr Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving it, later on, took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till after 5.20 am so Dr. Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was still affixed to the body.
          Hi Trev,

          Does Dr Brown not simply mean that when the body was discovered, the 'remaining' portion of the apron was still attached to it by the strings? What difference does it make if Brown only fitted the two pieces together at the mortuary after the body had been stripped of all its clothing and other possessions? He had a tongue in his head and would have been able to ascertain if this 'remaining' portion [implying it made up the whole apron] had been found among the possessions or was being worn by the deceased.

          Love,

          Caz
          X

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


          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post

            Hi Herlock,

            I don't understand Trevor's motivation for disputing any of the above facts.

            The apron I had to make at primary school used a very basic pattern. Why Trevor thinks an apron would require two pieces of material, joined together by a seam, is beyond me.

            The seams and borders mentioned by Brown could only have referred to where the new piece of material, or patch, was sewn onto the old, to effect a repair. The tear or cut made by the killer went through this new piece of material, enabling Brown to match up the two pieces exactly, proving they came from the same garment.

            Given Eddowes's age, low weight and poor nutrition, and the fact that women in general tended to go through the menopause earlier back then, she would either have stopped menstruating by the time she was murdered, or been well into the menopause. The twelve pieces of cloth would have been the equivalent of a modern pack of a dozen sanitary towels, or panty liners, which she would have kept among her possessions for a few months after her last period. I have explained all this to Trevor many times over the years, but he apparently knows better. If she needed a piece of cloth for hygiene purposes, the twelve pieces already cut to size would have been used before cutting an apron - or if Trev insists, a larger piece of cloth originally from an apron - which she had repaired with a new piece of material, into two pieces.

            As this is so clearly nonsensical, Trevor's motivation for not ditching the whole notion - as the killer ditched the whole apron - remains the only real mystery.

            Love,

            Caz
            X





            Hi Caz,

            I don’t understand it either but I just can’t believe that he doesn’t get it. I’m convinced that by now he must have realised how wide of the mark he is on this one but he just can’t bring himself to admit it. So he’s an expert on menstruation too? I can’t for the life of me see why he ignores what Brown deposed about the patch and the seams. He’s even been saying that I’ve said that there must have been strings on both pieces when I’ve said no such thing.

            Im waiting for his ‘Annie Chapman was actually a man’ theory next or that body parts were only missing from the victims when the ripper took his dog with him. Welcome to the weird world of ripperology. At least we consolation in the fact that in 50 years time Trevor’s apron theory won’t be considered an ‘old established theory’ by anyone.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post

              Hi Trev,

              Does Dr Brown not simply mean that when the body was discovered, the 'remaining' portion of the apron was still attached to it by the strings? What difference does it make if Brown only fitted the two pieces together at the mortuary after the body had been stripped of all its clothing and other possessions? He had a tongue in his head and would have been able to ascertain if this 'remaining' portion [implying it made up the whole apron] had been found among the possessions or was being worn by the deceased.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              How can an error in a Press report reflect badly on Brown? He actually said at the Inquest:

              “My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached.”

              So where Brown said “with a string attached” the reporter wrote it from his notes as “ which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

              Its unimportant except to Trevor’s strange way of thinking.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • Actually Herlock, Trevor has been hawking his apron theory around for so long, I was wondering when it would become another 'old established theory' in his own mind, and therefore 'unsafe'.

                He may as well theorise that Feigenbaum came over on HMS Pinafore.

                Love,

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


                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post

                  Hi Herlock,

                  I don't understand Trevor's motivation for disputing any of the above facts.

                  The apron I had to make at primary school used a very basic pattern. Why Trevor thinks an apron would require two pieces of material, joined together by a seam, is beyond me.

                  The seams and borders mentioned by Brown could only have referred to where the new piece of material, or patch, was sewn onto the old, to effect a repair. The tear or cut made by the killer went through this new piece of material, enabling Brown to match up the two pieces exactly, proving they came from the same garment.

                  Given Eddowes's age, low weight and poor nutrition, and the fact that women in general tended to go through the menopause earlier back then, she would either have stopped menstruating by the time she was murdered, or been well into the menopause. The twelve pieces of cloth would have been the equivalent of a modern pack of a dozen sanitary towels, or panty liners, which she would have kept among her possessions for a few months after her last period. I have explained all this to Trevor many times over the years, but he apparently knows better. If she needed a piece of cloth for hygiene purposes, the twelve pieces already cut to size would have been used before cutting an apron - or if Trev insists, a larger piece of cloth originally from an apron - which she had repaired with a new piece of material, into two pieces.

                  As this is so clearly nonsensical, Trevor's motivation for not ditching the whole notion - as the killer ditched the whole apron - remains the only real mystery.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  Its nonsensical its called exploring the facts and the evidence in much greater detail than you and others who clearly readily and without question are prepared to accept the old accpted theories.

                  Even if the apron had not been made in two pieces there would still have to have a seam overlapped with a border to stop the edges coming apart and fraying if you dont know that then you need to go back to needlework school.

                  And as previoulsy stated she was decsribed as a hawker so if the 12 pieces had not been cut from an old apron, and if they were better quality who is to say she was not keeping them to sell them? We have no idea as to the size of the apron pieces so you should not discount other possibilites.

                  and 12 pieces for someone to use for menstruation I bet you have never gone out with 12 in your handbag?

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    How can an error in a Press report reflect badly on Brown? He actually said at the Inquest:

                    “My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached.”

                    So where Brown said “with a string attached” the reporter wrote it from his notes as “ which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

                    Its unimportant except to Trevor’s strange way of thinking.
                    When are you going to listen? the newspaper report is unsafe because it contradicts with the signed inquest testiomony where only one string is mentioned

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      Actually Herlock, Trevor has been hawking his apron theory around for so long, I was wondering when it would become another 'old established theory' in his own mind, and therefore 'unsafe'.

                      He may as well theorise that Feigenbaum came over on HMS Pinafore.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      yes, and while he wasnt killing prostitutes he wrote the Maybrick diary,

                      and while on the subject of fairy tales didnt your Maybrick book get elevated to fairy tale status by a certain DB?

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-23-2022, 04:25 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Click image for larger version

Name:	C2DBC65A-4415-4354-AF40-814927E0A004.jpeg
Views:	76
Size:	12.3 KB
ID:	786343

                        So aprons.

                        A - Wickerman’s version ( I just added the patch)

                        So we have the MP with strings (as per Brown) a patch with seams (as per Brown) and 2 pieces making up a whole apron.

                        B - We have a version with the killer cutting from the bottom up. We have a patch with seams (as per Brown) the MP were strings and 2 pieces making up a whole apron.

                        C - We have a version with the killer cutting from the waistband down. We have a patch with seams (as per Brown) and at the point of cutting through the waistband there would also have been a string on the GSP but…..of course when he pulled the piece to take it away the string would have slid through the waistband hem (as it would have been tied behind her back plus her body weight would have been on it. And this also gives us 2 pieces that made up a complete apron.

                        And yet Trevor tells us that the Goulston Street piece and the Mortuary piece couldn’t possibly have made up a complete apron! On what planet? This is so obvious. We have 3 possibilities all of which give us a complete apron.

                        And let’s remember, not one single person at the time mentions the apron being incomplete. And as they absolutely believed that Kate was wearing an apron that night that would have meant them believing that there was a piece missing! A missing piece of evidence! But there’s not a word of this. Why? Because the 2 pieces very obviously made up a complete apron.

                        And we should also remember that 2 Police Officers with absolutely no reason at all to have perpetuated an untruth both were 100% sure that she wa wearing an apron.

                        This is just game over. It’s overwhelmingly obvious.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          When are you going to listen? the newspaper report is unsafe because it contradicts with the signed inquest testiomony where only one string is mentioned

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          And that string was on the mortuary piece which you denied.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            And that string was on the mortuary piece which you denied.
                            It doesnt matter what piece it was on, the fact is that there was only one string attached to one piece of apron

                            Do you accept that fact or not ?

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Question: if a string is cut, does it become two strings, or is it two portions of the same string?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                                Question: if a string is cut, does it become two strings, or is it two portions of the same string?
                                In quantum mechanics it would be called "entanglement".

                                (Sorry, I couldn't resist it)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X