GSG Conclusion

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Trevor,

You can win this argument by referencing just one statement saying that when the two pieces of apron were matched the apron was incomplete with a portion missing. This is the positive proof. Your insistence that it was incomplete because no-one said it was complete (or if they did they were unreliable) is the negative. If the apron were incomplete surely one person would have mentioned it?

Cheers, George

You would certainly have thought so George. There’s no mention of the police making a search for this ‘missing’ piece which would have been just as much of an important piece of evidence as the GS piece especially if the killer had dropped it further along his escape route.

[Trevor Marriott]

You would certainly have thought so George. There’s no mention of the police making a search for this ‘missing’ piece which would have been just as much of an important piece of evidence as the GS piece especially if the killer had dropped it further along his escape route.

There is no missing piece there were only two pieces which didnt make up a full apron, and could not have done how they were later matched. What part of this are you not getting and why introduce a third piece when you are one sugesting the two pieces when matched made up a full apron?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

Now before those eagle eyed researches say but she wasnt wearing any drawers so how could she have used a piece of apron in this way, The answer is that she was in possession of pins and needles and she was wearing a chemise and a mans vest which she could have easily affixed the apron piece to.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Have you any idea how ridiculous this sounds! You seriously expect people to believe this over the alternative that the killer dropped the apron piece to sign off the GSG. Barking, absolutely barking!

[FISHY1118]

Have you any idea how ridiculous this sounds! You seriously expect people to believe this over the alternative that the killer dropped the apron piece to sign off the GSG. Barking, absolutely barking!

I tried telling him .

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no missing piece there were only two pieces which didnt make up a full apron, and could not have done how they were later matched. What part of this are you not getting and why introduce a third piece when you are one sugesting the two pieces when matched made up a full apron?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are wrong. It’s just your interpretation which states that the GS piece and the mortuary piece didn’t make a full apron but, as usual, you think that every interpretation that you make should be regarded as fact.

Which part of this aren’t you understanding Trevor?

GS piece + mortuary piece = incomplete apron (according to your ‘theory’) means that there must have been a piece of apron missing.

The two pieces made a full apron. Get over this nonsense Trevor. Everyone on here is explaining to you how you are clearly wrong but you just won’t have it.

[GBinOz]

There is no missing piece there were only two pieces which didnt make up a full apron, and could not have done how they were later matched. What part of this are you not getting and why introduce a third piece when you are one sugesting the two pieces when matched made up a full apron?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have no idea how to respond to this reply without attracting the attention of a moderator and spending time in Purgatory.

[Abby Normal]

You are wrong. It’s just your interpretation which states that the GS piece and the mortuary piece didn’t make a full apron but, as usual, you think that every interpretation that you make should be regarded as fact.

Which part of this aren’t you understanding Trevor?

GS piece + mortuary piece = incomplete apron (according to your ‘theory’) means that there must have been a piece of apron missing.

The two pieces made a full apron. Get over this nonsense Trevor. Everyone on here is explaining to you how you are clearly wrong but you just won’t have it.

lol. I guess trevor dosnt understand basic math. but its even crazier than that. it dosnt even matter if the two made up a full apron-there could have been a piece missing from her apron before before the killer cut the piece off.

all that matters is they matched the piece from Goulston street to the one with eddowes. which they did. end of. its really that simple

[Trevor Marriott]

You are wrong. It’s just your interpretation which states that the GS piece and the mortuary piece didn’t make a full apron but, as usual, you think that every interpretation that you make should be regarded as fact.

Which part of this aren’t you understanding Trevor?

GS piece + mortuary piece = incomplete apron (according to your ‘theory’) means that there must have been a piece of apron missing.

The two pieces made a full apron. Get over this nonsense Trevor. Everyone on here is explaining to you how you are clearly wrong but you just won’t have it.

How can there be a piece missing if she was not wearing an apron but had been in possession ot two old pieces of an old apron which at some time in the past had both come from a full apron, but those two pieces did not make up a full apron because we dont know how the old apron that they came from was cut up or when it was cut up.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

Hi Caz,

That is your prerogative. From my reading there are many people who are unsure that MJK was a JtR victim.

Cheers, George

Yes, George. There are many people who are unsure about many things related to this case. From my own reading, those who doubt MJK was killed by JtR, or doubt that the GSG was written by him - to bring it back on topic - do so for many different reasons, none of which I find very persuasive. Too often there is an underlying theory influencing their thinking and creating those doubts, which should follow naturally from the evidence itself.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

lol. I guess trevor dosnt understand basic math. but its even crazier than that. it dosnt even matter if the two made up a full apron-there could have been a piece missing from her apron before before the killer cut the piece off.

all that matters is they matched the piece from Goulston street to the one with eddowes. which they did. end of. its really that simple

But there is no dispute that the GS and the mortuary piece matched but by how the two pieces were described and matched they could not have been physically matched so at to make a full apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Re-reading Brown, he said…

“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.”

So from this we can say that the blood spots were at the corner of the apron with the string attached and so near to the waistband.

He then said…

“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.”

From this it appears to me that he matched the two parts along the seams of a patch which had been sown on as a repair. So surely this means that it had been cut through the patch?


So why couldn’t one of these two be the case? With the red line area being the GS piece and the rest being the mortuary piece.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How can there be a piece missing if she was not wearing an apron but had been in possession ot two old pieces of an old apron which at some time in the past had both come from a full apron, but those two pieces did not make up a full apron because we dont know how the old apron that they came from was cut up or when it was cut up.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But she was wearing an apron. You appear to be the only person on the planet saying that she wasn’t. Hutt and Robinson….end of. No mention of an incomplete apron….end of. Apron being found in Mitre Square outside her clothing….end of.

So basically…..end of.

[Trevor Marriott]

Re-reading Brown, he said…

“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.”

So from this we can say that the blood spots were at the corner of the apron with the string attached and so near to the waistband.

We cannot say where the blood spots were on the apron

He then said…

“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.”

From this it appears to me that he matched the two parts along the seams of a patch which had been sown on as a repair. So surely this means that it had been cut through the patch?

Thats just you interpretation he is referring to the two pieces the mortuary piece and the GS piece why would he be concerned about a patch that had been sown onto one of the pieces? He was simply describing one of the pieces, and while on the subject of the patch does that not show that the apron pieces were from an old white apron that may have been cut into pieces?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But she was wearing an apron. You appear to be the only person on the planet saying that she wasn’t. Hutt and Robinson….end of. No mention of an incomplete apron….end of. Apron being found in Mitre Square outside her clothing….end of.

So basically…..end of.

I wish it was the end of you making up explantions, where does it say an apron was found outside her clothing in Mitre Square?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

But there is no dispute that the GS and the mortuary piece matched but by how the two pieces were described and matched they could not have been physically matched so at to make a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

all that matters is they matched the piece from Goulston street to the one with eddowes. which they did. end of. its really that simple