GSG Conclusion

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor has derided the fact that Robinson had claimed that the apron that he saw was the one that Eddowes had been wearing and this does seem over confident (an apron is an apron, after all) but as ever we are at the mercy of wording. If we look at The Times version we get:

Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron. - Yes, she was.
Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it? - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.

So ‘to the best of his knowledge.’ And is an apron really just an apron? Yes, unless it has a patch on it of course. Which there was. So he’d have been shown an apron with a patch in the same place as the patch on the one that Eddowes was wearing so I’d say that he was being entirely reasonable to suggest that it appeared to have been the same one.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

I can’t believe I missed that point. It’s a good job that you were paying attention Joshua.

Two pieces = whole apron Trevor.

[Joshua Rogan]

Trevor has derided the fact that Robinson had claimed that the apron that he saw was the one that Eddowes had been wearing and this does seem over confident (an apron is an apron, after all) but as ever we are at the mercy of wording. If we look at The Times version we get:

Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron. - Yes, she was.
Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it? - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor has derided the fact that Robinson had claimed that the apron that he saw was the one that Eddowes had been wearing and this does seem over confident (an apron is an apron, after all) but as ever we are at the mercy of wording. If we look at The Times version we get:

Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron. - Yes, she was.
Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it? - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.

So ‘to the best of his knowledge.’ And is an apron really just an apron? Yes, unless it has a patch on it of course. Which there was. So he’d have been shown an apron with a patch in the same place as the patch on the one that Eddowes was wearing so I’d say that he was being entirely reasonable to suggest that it appeared to have been the same one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If thats what you want to believe but it just goes to show that you do not have the abiltiy to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence in an unbiased fashion,

As to myself I peronally dont care one way or the other I have assessed and evaluated all the facts and the evidence and the results are full documented and I stand by them implicity.

There is a saying which applies "out with the old in with the new"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You have assessed and evaluated incorrectly as per usual. Then you’ve very obviously seen that you’re wide of the mark but you just can’t bring yourself to admit it so you continue to wriggle and distort.

No problem though. I’m quite happy to stand by the facts and to point out that no one agrees with you. Then again, you should be used to everyone telling you that you’re wrong by now. That Eddowes was wearing an apron is a proven fact.

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolute nonsense. You’re deliberately misinterpreting the evidence just to prop up your dead duck theory.

Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she was murdered.

This has been proven.

If thats what you want to believe but it just goes to show that you do not have the abiltiy to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence in an unbiased fashion,

As to myself I peronally dont care one way or the other I have assessed and evaluated all the facts and the evidence and the results are full documented and I stand by them implicity.

There is a saying which applies "out with the old in with the new"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are making up the points you keep seeking to rely on to suit yourself, you may have nothing better to do that sit here all day but I am not afforded that luxury and I see no point in continuing to make you see and understand the facts surrounding the apron and the signed inquest testimony which you continually ignore both of which cast a major doubt that at the time she was murdered she was wearing an apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Absolute nonsense. You’re deliberately misinterpreting the evidence just to prop up your dead duck theory.

Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she was murdered.

This has been proven.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

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

There is no evidence the mortuary piece was found on the body had it have been it would have been listed in her clothing

I know that you hate inconvenient witnesses Trevor but again you try and sideline Collard who was actually in Mitre Square. I’ll remind you what he said although all that you can resort to is focus on one word which can easily be explained.

“I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress”

Found ‘outside her dress.’ So not concealed beneath her clothing or in a pocket note. And the word ‘apparently’ very clearly and very obviously means that as it had become unattached during the struggle but was in such a position as to have left him no doubt that she’d originally been wearing it. Only you can’t see this. If it wasn’t in a position that led him to believe that she had been wearing it why would he have said it.

Hutt and Robinson then prove absolutely and without a shadow of a doubt that she was wearing an apron that night. You have to persist in scraping the bottom of the barrel in your attempt to dismiss them. It’s pitiful to be totally honest.


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

The seams and the borders of the two pieces corresponding, the patch referred to was part of the apron piece found in GS as I interpret his testimony and not part of the matching process. I thnk you also have to look at the patch issue and the reason for adding the patch to what was an old white apron in any event all the more reason to suggest she was simply in possession of two old pieces of white apron!

And you are deliberately misinterpreting this to try and bolster your theory because it’s impossible that you can’t understand this. This is no simple error on your part. It’s ‘defend at all costs.’

Can you really be serious in the underlined part? You’re saying that because it was patched it proves that she wasn’t using it as an apron! Get real Trevor. You are trying to suggest that she’d have taken the time to repair an apron by patching it only to then cut it up! People repair things so that they can continue using them. A desperately poor woman would hardly chop up a perfectly good apron (and it was you that said pretty much all women wore them) So would she have chopped up a perfectly serviceable apron, leaving her without one, when she already had pieces of cloth in her possession.

Nothing that you say holds water Trevor. You’re clearly wrong.



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

That could noy have happened because there is no mention of the mortuay piece having a patch

Bloody hell Trevor it’s in black and white. Brown…

“I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have.”

The ‘piece of apron’ was the one that was produced by Phillips (which had a new piece of material on it [ie a patch]) which had been sown on the piece that “I have.” The piece that Brown had was the mortuary piece. This cannot be interpreted any other way if we are being honest.


By definition this would have meant that it had seams.

It probably did have seams but the patch has no relevance in how the two apron pieces were matched you making that scenario up

And you are very clearly, very deliberately and utterly desperately ignoring the facts that are there in black and white.

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

No he didnt

The facts tell us that he did. Absolutely no doubt.
try to make you
Therefore, quite clearly and obviously for all but you, the two pieces as described could have made up a whole apron.
There is no evidnce of that and no one from back then has never referred to the two pieces making up a full apron they have always been described as pieces

Its 100% game over Trevor. You’ll carry on of course, standing alone with no one agreeing with you. With everyone being able to see the truth and trying to explain it to you but there’s no point. It’s not about truth with you. It’s about ego. You are simply incapable of admitting that your wrong. And you clearly are 100% wrong. Totally proven.

You are making up the points you keep seeking to rely on to suit yourself, you may have nothing better to do that sit here all day but I am not afforded that luxury and I see no point in continuing to make you see and understand the facts surrounding the apron and the signed inquest testimony which you continually ignore both of which cast a major doubt that at the time she was murdered she was wearing an apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Right, Trev, you give me no choice but to make a citizen's arrest. That double negative is clear evidence that you wrote the GSG and are now trying every trick in the book to argue your way out of it.

Love,

Special Constable Caz to be
X

Dont get me started on the GSG I have wasted enough time with the apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The seams and the borders of the patch corresponded, Trev, when the cut or torn edges of the two pieces of apron were placed together. There would have been no other 'seams' to match up if it was originally a single piece of material which had been cut or torn into two separate pieces. That would apply, regardless of who did the cutting/tearing, and whether or not the original piece made up a full apron.

Love,

Caz
X

I am not disputing that because that is what Brown said, and that is why I say that the two pieces were from the same side of the apron as I showed in the pictures I posted one piece with the string attcahed from the top left/right and the second piece as matched from the bottom left/right and as such when matched could not have made up a full apron. half of an apron at best

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

There is no evidence the mortuary piece was found on the body had it have been it would have been listed in her clothing

I know that you hate inconvenient witnesses Trevor but again you try and sideline Collard who was actually in Mitre Square. I’ll remind you what he said although all that you can resort to is focus on one word which can easily be explained.

“I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress”

Found ‘outside her dress.’ So not concealed beneath her clothing or in a pocket note. And the word ‘apparently’ very clearly and very obviously means that as it had become unattached during the struggle but was in such a position as to have left him no doubt that she’d originally been wearing it. Only you can’t see this. If it wasn’t in a position that led him to believe that she had been wearing it why would he have said it.

Hutt and Robinson then prove absolutely and without a shadow of a doubt that she was wearing an apron that night. You have to persist in scraping the bottom of the barrel in your attempt to dismiss them. It’s pitiful to be totally honest.


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

The seams and the borders of the two pieces corresponding, the patch referred to was part of the apron piece found in GS as I interpret his testimony and not part of the matching process. I thnk you also have to look at the patch issue and the reason for adding the patch to what was an old white apron in any event all the more reason to suggest she was simply in possession of two old pieces of white apron!

And you are deliberately misinterpreting this to try and bolster your theory because it’s impossible that you can’t understand this. This is no simple error on your part. It’s ‘defend at all costs.’

Can you really be serious in the underlined part? You’re saying that because it was patched it proves that she wasn’t using it as an apron! Get real Trevor. You are trying to suggest that she’d have taken the time to repair an apron by patching it only to then cut it up! People repair things so that they can continue using them. A desperately poor woman would hardly chop up a perfectly good apron (and it was you that said pretty much all women wore them) So would she have chopped up a perfectly serviceable apron, leaving her without one, when she already had pieces of cloth in her possession.

Nothing that you say holds water Trevor. You’re clearly wrong.



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

That could noy have happened because there is no mention of the mortuay piece having a patch

Bloody hell Trevor it’s in black and white. Brown…

“I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have.”

The ‘piece of apron’ was the one that was produced by Phillips (which had a new piece of material on it [ie a patch]) which had been sown on the piece that “I have.” The piece that Brown had was the mortuary piece. This cannot be interpreted any other way if we are being honest.


By definition this would have meant that it had seams.

It probably did have seams but the patch has no relevance in how the two apron pieces were matched you making that scenario up

And you are very clearly, very deliberately and utterly desperately ignoring the facts that are there in black and white.

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

No he didnt

The facts tell us that he did. Absolutely no doubt.

Therefore, quite clearly and obviously for all but you, the two pieces as described could have made up a whole apron.
There is no evidnce of that and no one from back then has never referred to the two pieces making up a full apron they have always been described as pieces

Its 100% game over Trevor. You’ll carry on of course, standing alone with no one agreeing with you. With everyone being able to see the truth and trying to explain it to you but there’s no point. It’s not about truth with you. It’s about ego. You are simply incapable of admitting that your wrong. And you clearly are 100% wrong. Totally proven.

[Aethelwulf]

There is no evidnce of that and no one from back then has never referred to the two pieces making up a full apron they have always been described as pieces

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Groundhog Day again for Trevor

[caz]

There is no evidnce of that and no one from back then has never referred to the two pieces making up a full apron they have always been described as pieces

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Right, Trev, you give me no choice but to make a citizen's arrest. That double negative is clear evidence that you wrote the GSG and are now trying every trick in the book to argue your way out of it.

Love,

Special Constable Caz to be
X

[caz]

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

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

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The seams and the borders of the patch corresponded, Trev, when the cut or torn edges of the two pieces of apron were placed together. There would have been no other 'seams' to match up if it was originally a single piece of material which had been cut or torn into two separate pieces. That would apply, regardless of who did the cutting/tearing, and whether or not the original piece made up a full apron.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

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

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

There is no evidence the mortuary piece was found on the body had it have been it would have been listed in her clothing

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

The seams and the borders of the two pieces corresponding, the patch referred to was part of the apron piece found in GS as I interpret his testimony and not part of the matching process. I thnk you also have to look at the patch issue and the reason for adding the patch to what was an old white apron in any event all the more reason to suggest she was simply in possession of two old pieces of white apron!

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

That could noy have happened because there is no mention of the mortuay piece having a patch

By definition this would have meant that it had seams.

It probably did have seams but the patch has no relevance in how the two apron pieces were matched you making that scenario up

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

No he didnt

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

There is no evidnce of that and no one from back then has never referred to the two pieces making up a full apron they have always been described as pieces

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk