Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • Originally posted by harry View Post
    Well yes,she might have been wearing an apron the night she was killed,but Trevor's arguement is to whether she was wearing an apron at the time she was killed.
    That two pieces of apron were undoubtably pieces from the same apron,nowhere do I see it mentioned,by those at the mortuary,or who handled the clothes and belongings,that the two pieces made up a complete apron.Anyone who had a say that night only mention pieces.
    Brown's observation only shows that two parts matched,nothing else,and as to why he was he was engaging in what should have been police procedure is anyone's guess.It certainly cannot be classed as medical evidence.Yes i know his attention was called,but who callrd him?
    So the theory seems to be that Eddowes used apron pieces as makeshift sanitary devices yet she very likely was not menstruating to any great degree even if it was that time of month. She on release from a few hours in a Police cell turns right and goes in a completely different direction to where the apron piece is found. She would have had to do a u-turn for some unascertained reason. Then we would have to believe that Eddowes discards the piece of apron spotted or wet with blood on the street at the doorway to an apartment block. She then meets her killer and is murdered. The apron piece lies there until 2:55am. It is a bonkers theory.

    Why put such a convoluted theory forward when the evidence is so clear cut. Eddowes turns right coming out of the station and towards where she meets her killer. The killer takes a piece of apron for an unknown reason. He discards it in Goulston Street again for an unknown reason. The Police find it at 2:55am. PC Long and PC Halse either missing the piece at 2:20am or the killer re-emergence to plant it there. Again we don't know. But we do know the apron piece matched Eddowes at the mortuary and no one ever mentions other pieces now missing. All very straightforward. Trevor declare these old established theories. As if because they are old they should be discarded. That is some way to operate.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Hello George,

      I take that to mean that because the string had been cut and that her clothing was disarranged the remaining apron wasn’t in the ‘normal’ position that it would have been for wearing. If, as Trevor claims, she wasn’t actually wearing it I can’t see how it would have been ‘outside her clothing?’ Wouldn’t she have had it in one of her bags with her other items? Or in a pocket?

      So for me this means that the apron was on her body and outside her other clothing but as the string, attached to the Mortuary piece, would still have been tied beneath her body this pointed to the fact that she must have been wearing it just before she was killed, rather than carrying it.
      Hi Herlock,

      I can see what you are getting at but then Collard used the words "apparently wearing". I'm not in any way subscribing to Trevor's contention that she wasn't wearing an apron, but why use the word "apparently" if the remnant was actually on her body? My inference is that it was lying very close beside her. I'm sure she was actually wearing the apron, not carrying it or in one of her bags, when first attacked, I just wonder whether JtR cut it early in his procedure and left the remaining piece next to her body? This would eliminate Trevor's objections regarding the apron being under her raised skirts. Just an observation for discussion.

      Cheers, George
      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

      Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

        Hi Herlock,

        I can see what you are getting at but then Collard used the words "apparently wearing". I'm not in any way subscribing to Trevor's contention that she wasn't wearing an apron, but why use the word "apparently" if the remnant was actually on her body? My inference is that it was lying very close beside her. I'm sure she was actually wearing the apron, not carrying it or in one of her bags, when first attacked, I just wonder whether JtR cut it early in his procedure and left the remaining piece next to her body? This would eliminate Trevor's objections regarding the apron being under her raised skirts. Just an observation for discussion.

        Cheers, George
        You could be right George. I think we have 2 possibles. That it was at the side of her body with the string being underneath her, explaining why they believed that she’d been wearing it rather than carrying it. Or that it was lying on her body, crumpled up, but again the fact that the string was beneath her body showed them that she was wearing it when she was killed.

        Either way I’d suggest that the reason that ‘apparently’ was used by Collard was that it wasn’t actually attached to her body when she was found but it was clear to them that she’d been wearing it when she was attacked.
        Regards

        Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

          So the theory seems to be that Eddowes used apron pieces as makeshift sanitary devices yet she very likely was not menstruating to any great degree even if it was that time of month. She on release from a few hours in a Police cell turns right and goes in a completely different direction to where the apron piece is found. She would have had to do a u-turn for some unascertained reason. Then we would have to believe that Eddowes discards the piece of apron spotted or wet with blood on the street at the doorway to an apartment block. She then meets her killer and is murdered. The apron piece lies there until 2:55am. It is a bonkers theory.

          Why put such a convoluted theory forward when the evidence is so clear cut. Eddowes turns right coming out of the station and towards where she meets her killer. The killer takes a piece of apron for an unknown reason. He discards it in Goulston Street again for an unknown reason. The Police find it at 2:55am. PC Long and PC Halse either missing the piece at 2:20am or the killer re-emergence to plant it there. Again we don't know. But we do know the apron piece matched Eddowes at the mortuary and no one ever mentions other pieces now missing. All very straightforward. Trevor declare these old established theories. As if because they are old they should be discarded. That is some way to operate.
          Hi Sunny,

          I think that we would all agree that it’s good to explore all angles; even seemingly outlandish ones. The problem appears to me to be that some people (and Trevor is one I’m afraid) tend to prefer a bad ‘new’ theory to a good ‘old’ one. The wish to be the one to come up with a new theory tends sometimes to a ‘defend at all costs’ attitude rather than a ‘ok, we’ve explored that and the evidence tells us that we can safely dismiss it’ attitude imo. It becomes a kind of crusade and if you offer up criticism, no matter how valid or evidence-based you get accused of ‘defending the old established theories’ which I’ve always found the weakest of viewpoints. As if we have some kind of emotional attachment to certain viewpoints. And as you’ve, said it’s fairly straightforward on this point.
          Regards

          Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • Originally posted by harry View Post
            So what is your point Doctor Whatsit? I have not asserted there were more than two pieces,but supposing PC Robinson was correct,was he ever in a position that he could swear Eddowes was wearing the pieces when she was killed?
            Hi Harry,

            My observation wasn't aimed at your point of view, but at the general suggestion that the two pieces did not make up a whole apron. The evidence of the inquest appears to demonstate that they did.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
              This is curious, from The Times Oct 11th:

              “Two witnesses have also been found who state that they saw the deceased standing at the corner of Duke-street, Aldgate, a few minutes’ walk from Mitre-square. This was as near as they can recollect about half-past 1 o’clock, and she was then alone. They recognized her on account of the white apron she was wearing.”

              Sounds like Lawende, Levy and Harris of course. The fact that only 2 witnesses were mentioned sounds like the reporter had mixed them up with Hutt and Robinson as none of the three mentioned an apron?
              This is a very significant item of news which I think has previously been ignored by some. Shelton, the coroner's officer, reported these two new witnesses, and as the Times stated, they recognised Eddowes by the apron. This is a clear statement that the police believed that she was wearing the apron at the time she was murdered. I don't think the witnesses were Lawende and co, because she was apparently alone.
              Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 05-25-2022, 02:28 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

                So the theory seems to be that Eddowes used apron pieces as makeshift sanitary devices yet she very likely was not menstruating to any great degree even if it was that time of month.
                I find it insulting to the abilities of Doctors Sequeira, Saunders, Brown and Phillips that not one of them should be regarded as being capable of telling the difference between a makeshift sanitary towel, and a piece of cloth on which a knife or hand had been wiped.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                  I find it insulting to the abilities of Doctors Sequeira, Saunders, Brown and Phillips that not one of them should be regarded as being capable of telling the difference between a makeshift sanitary towel, and a piece of cloth on which a knife or hand had been wiped.
                  Quite. But along comes someone 130 years later without the piece of evidence to examine to tell us that these doctors didn't know what they were talking about. It is astounding in its arrogance.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Hi Sunny,

                    I think that we would all agree that it’s good to explore all angles; even seemingly outlandish ones. The problem appears to me to be that some people (and Trevor is one I’m afraid) tend to prefer a bad ‘new’ theory to a good ‘old’ one. The wish to be the one to come up with a new theory tends sometimes to a ‘defend at all costs’ attitude rather than a ‘ok, we’ve explored that and the evidence tells us that we can safely dismiss it’ attitude imo. It becomes a kind of crusade and if you offer up criticism, no matter how valid or evidence-based you get accused of ‘defending the old established theories’ which I’ve always found the weakest of viewpoints. As if we have some kind of emotional attachment to certain viewpoints. And as you’ve, said it’s fairly straightforward on this point.
                    I have no difficulty with theories. But theories that match the evidence. For instance some suggest the Ripper headed to a bolt hole after the double event only to re-emerge and plant the apron piece close to racist graffitti about the Jews almost as a marker. Now I don't agree with that scenario but the evidence suggests that it could have happened. Some think the Stride may have met her killer after BS man accosted and manhandled her. Again not something I agree with but the evidence leaves open the possibility.

                    This idea about Eddowes and the Apron being used as a sanitary device discarded by the victim in Goulston Street has no basis in fact. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the chances of it happening are extremely remote. And therefore it need not be entertained. Indeed it doesn't seem to be by anybody with an ounce of sense.

                    Comment


                    • i am not suggesting anything Herlock,and neither am I rejecting all of what Trevor proposes.If a situation exists that has more than one possble outcome,then all possibilities should be considered,and only rejected if an impossibility is established.
                      Lets take a couple of examples.How much of Eddowes clothing would have been visible.She was wearing a jacket as an outer garment,and that would have obscured,for the most part,what was worn underneath.So how could a person,no matter how close,refer with accuracy,what was beneath the jacket.So when PC Robinson,asks at the inquest to see a full apron,how does he know that the two pieces shown,made up a full apron,when he had not previously seen all of the apron he alledges she was wearing when arressted.It was a nonsensible request
                      Now secondly.When Eddowes departed the police station,she was not escorted to the door.She herself closed the door behind her,thereby preventig the officers present at the police station from observing which way she turned.So the suggestion by Trevor that she headed in a particular direction is a possibility.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        i am not suggesting anything Herlock,and neither am I rejecting all of what Trevor proposes.If a situation exists that has more than one possble outcome,then all possibilities should be considered,and only rejected if an impossibility is established.
                        Lets take a couple of examples.How much of Eddowes clothing would have been visible.She was wearing a jacket as an outer garment,and that would have obscured,for the most part,what was worn underneath.So how could a person,no matter how close,refer with accuracy,what was beneath the jacket.So when PC Robinson,asks at the inquest to see a full apron,how does he know that the two pieces shown,made up a full apron,when he had not previously seen all of the apron he alledges she was wearing when arressted.It was a nonsensible request
                        Now secondly.When Eddowes departed the police station,she was not escorted to the door.She herself closed the door behind her,thereby preventig the officers present at the police station from observing which way she turned.So the suggestion by Trevor that she headed in a particular direction is a possibility.
                        We are all, of course, making assumptions that seem appropriate based on the known evidence, and consequently our views of what is most likely will differ.

                        To me, it seems very likely, if not absolutely 100% certain, that a police officer directly involved in the case who was giving evidence at an inquest, would know what was available to him as evidence, and what was not available. So when PC Robinson asked for the full apron, he would surely have known that it existed. Otherwise he would not have specified this - he would have asked for as much of the apron as was found. As the apron seems to have been one with a distinctive repair, then it seems quite reasonable that he could recognise it.

                        As for the direction that Eddowes turned on leaving the police station, PC Hutt was quite specific when he said that she turned left towards Houndsditch. We must therefore feel reasonably confident that the door had a glass panel in it, otherwise such a statement under oath would be totally inappropriate and likely to be questioned.

                        Comment


                        • Eddowes' didn't close the door as asked, but left it somewhat ajar, enabling Hutt to see the direction she took;

                          Daily Telegraph

                          She passed along the passage to the outer door. I said to her, "Please, pull it to." She replied, "All right. Good night, old ****." (Laughter.) She pulled the door to within a foot of being close, and I saw her turn to the left.
                          The Coroner: That was leading towards Houndsditch? - Yes.

                          Last edited by Joshua Rogan; 05-26-2022, 08:32 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Lets just say,doctor,you have much more confidence in what law enforcement officers will say and do ,than i have,but then I admit my views are subjective, and shaped by my experience among them.

                            Comment


                            • A question Joshua.who closed the door?,and when?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                                I find it insulting to the abilities of Doctors Sequeira, Saunders, Brown and Phillips that not one of them should be regarded as being capable of telling the difference between a makeshift sanitary towel, and a piece of cloth on which a knife or hand had been wiped.
                                Apart from that, DW, what sticks out, too, is what Jeff Hamm said on another thread: if Eddowes was supposed to have used the apron piece as a sanitary device and discarded it in Goulston Street some time before she was murdered, why wasn't she wearing a 'new' one when she was killed/found? And why was there faecal matter on the apron piece but no faeces found in the entranceway to the Goulston Street building (while faecal matter was found on the crime scene)?
                                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X