GSG Conclusion

[Trevor Marriott]

You are wrong Trevor. It’s in black and white. I can’t believe that all of this time has been wasted because you misread a piece of evidence.[/B][/COLOR]

You cant leave it you can you?. You have to keep coming back having the last say with pathetic explanations which you are clearly making up, which are not in line with the facts or the evidence

There is no evidence that the mortuary piece also had a string attached to it?

My advice is to withdraw from this thread as I am going to now, before you make yourself look even sillier than you have already

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You cant leave it you can you?. You have to keep coming back having the last say with pathetic explanations which you are clearly making up, which are not in line with the facts or the evidence

There is no evidence that the mortuary piece also had a string attached to it?

My advice is to withdraw from this thread as I am going to now, before you make yourself look even sillier than you have already

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s there in black and white. You’re just in terminal denial. It’s noticeable that you want to ‘withdraw’ now that I’ve pointed out your misreading of the evidence for which you have no response.

From The Telegraph:

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? -Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

From The Times:

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

To deny what’s in black and white is simply embarrassing

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s there in black and white. You’re just in terminal denial. It’s noticeable that you want to ‘withdraw’ now that I’ve pointed out your misreading of the evidence for which you have no response.

From The Telegraph:

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? -Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

From The Times:

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

To deny what’s in black and white is simply embarrassing

You are quoting from The Telegraph newspaper report which is not in line with Browns signed deposition and is cleary incorrcet

The Times report is in line with the official inquest testimony the GS piece is the only pices that had a string attached

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are quoting from The Telegraph newspaper report which is not in line with Browns signed deposition and is cleary incorrcet

The Times report is in line with the official inquest testimony the GS piece is the only pices that had a string attached

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Learn to read Trevor. It’s impossible to discus the case reasonably with someone that willing to stoop so low.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is from Brown’s deposition:

“My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street.”

What could be clearer? He attention was called to the apron (the corner with the string attached) The books spots were recent, he’d also seen the piece of apron, produced by Phillips, that had been found in Goulston Street.

How can you read this any other way than Brown explicitly stating that the Mortuary piece had string attached to it? It’s as clear as day.

……

There’s also a report in The Daily Chronicle, Oct 5th 1888, with the questions being asked by Crawford:

Was your attention called to the portion of the apron which the deceased was wearing? Yes; it was the corner of the apron which had been cut out with the string attached to it, and which I now produce.

The piece of apron that she had been wearing had string attached.

Can you say whether the blood spots on it are of recent origin? Yes, they are. Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of the apron which had been found in Goulston Street by a policeman.

Then he mentions the GS piece (no string mentioned of course)

I believe it is impossible to assert that it is human blood on it? Yes; it is blood but that is all I can say at present. On the piece brought in there were [smears] of blood on one side as if the hands of a knife had been wiped upon it. I fitted the piece of the apron, which had a new piece of material attached. This part had evidently been sewn on to the part I have in my hand from the corresponding [piece] that had been left, the seams of the border of the two corresponding accurately. Blood was on the piece found in Goulston Street, but it has not been examined microscopically.

He then fitted the 2 pieces together using the seams of the patch that had been sown on.

……..

Crystal clear and (in the deposition) from Brown’s own lips. Get the white flag out and do us all a favour Trevor. It’s absolutely game over.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is from Brown’s deposition:

“My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street.”

What could be clearer? He attention was called to the apron (the corner with the string attached) The books spots were recent, he’d also seen the piece of apron, produced by Phillips, that had been found in Goulston Street.

How can you read this any other way than Brown explicitly stating that the Mortuary piece had string attached to it? It’s as clear as day.

……

There’s also a report in The Daily Chronicle, Oct 5th 1888, with the questions being asked by Crawford:

Was your attention called to the portion of the apron which the deceased was wearing? Yes; it was the corner of the apron which had been cut out with the string attached to it, and which I now produce.

The piece of apron that she had been wearing had string attached.

Can you say whether the blood spots on it are of recent origin? Yes, they are. Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of the apron which had been found in Goulston Street by a policeman.

Then he mentions the GS piece (no string mentioned of course)

I believe it is impossible to assert that it is human blood on it? Yes; it is blood but that is all I can say at present. On the piece brought in there were [smears] of blood on one side as if the hands of a knife had been wiped upon it. I fitted the piece of the apron, which had a new piece of material attached. This part had evidently been sewn on to the part I have in my hand from the corresponding [piece] that had been left, the seams of the border of the two corresponding accurately. Blood was on the piece found in Goulston Street, but it has not been examined microscopically.

He then fitted the 2 pieces together using the seams of the patch that had been sown on.

……..

Crystal clear and (in the deposition) from Brown’s own lips. Get the white flag out and do us all a favour Trevor. It’s absolutely game over.

Give it a rest please, you are fighting a losing battle, there was only ever one piece with a string attached, accept it, get over it and stop being a complete numpty

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Give it a rest please, you are fighting a losing battle, there was only ever one piece with a string attached, accept it, get over it and stop being a complete numpty

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Amazing! You’re still denying what’s written in black and white in Brown’s deposition. There’s only one numpty on here and it’s you. Show a bit of integrity for once.

My back’s aching from constantly trying to stoop down to your level. Your out and out denial of the facts simply to bolster your baseless ‘theory’ is a disgrace. If it doesn’t bother you then carry on. I prefer to discuss the case with those that can read and those that won’t resort to absolutely anything in utter desperation.

[FISHY1118]

Based on the arguments of the last 2 weeks on this topic ,it easy to see which side cleary has the correct information and has proven beyond doubt (for me anyway), what actually transpired regarding the Eddowes apron . I wonder what others think who may have been following this thread .? Perhaps a poll could be set up for members to post yes/ no ,Trevor/ Herlock ,as it would certainly be interesting to see the results and what others think.... Anyone?

[Trevor Marriott]

Based on the arguments of the last 2 weeks on this topic ,it easy to see which side cleary has the correct information and has proven beyond doubt (for me anyway), what actually transpired regarding the Eddowes apron . I wonder what others think who may have been following this thread .? Perhaps a poll could be set up for members to post yes/ no ,Trevor/ Herlock ,as it would certainly be interesting to see the results and what others think.... Anyone?

There is no need for a poll it is quiet clear from all the evidence that the two pieces of apron did not both have strings attached and could not have made up a full apron as Herlock keeps suggesting

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I quite like Wickermans interpretation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no need for a poll it is quiet clear from all the evidence that the two pieces of apron did not both have strings attached and could not have made up a full apron as Herlock keeps suggesting

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Who has suggested that they both had strings? I’ve only seen it mentioned that one piece (the Mortuary Piece) had string attached. Could you show me the quote where it says that the Goulston Street piece had string attached too please? Perhaps I just haven’t come across it?

You should at least ask yourself why no one agrees with you on this subject Trevor? It should at least make you pause and think. It’s because they’ve read the evidence and have drawn the only conclusion possible but you want a ‘new theory’ to be true so badly that you’re willing to argue that a deposition written in black and white has some strange interpretation that no one else can see, you conjecture whilst criticising everyone else for doing the same, you try to dismiss 2 perfectly good, reliable witnesses, and you keep stating your opinion as if it’s a proven fact and then you speak as if you were actually there in Mitre Square and saw everything happen or that you have some way of knowing how the killer would have thought or acted.

A while ago you pointed out a mistake that I made. I immediately held my hands up and admitted my error. You should try admitting that you’re wrong occasionally Trevor because you clearly are in this case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I quite like Wickermans interpretation.

Wick’s suggestion is perfectly possible Al and could well be correct. Then again, you can always rely on sense from him. The only thing that I’d add would be the patch. And as we can see, Wick has the string attached to the Mortuary Piece.

[FISHY1118]

There is no need for a poll it is quiet clear from all the evidence that the two pieces of apron did not both have strings attached and could not have made up a full apron as Herlock keeps suggesting

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That would be ''Quite'' clear i take it

'Quite clear /The Evidence''.... These two phases are something you definitely shy away from .


Cmon Pollsters.

[Joshua Rogan]

Would it be confusing to point out that Trevor's own illustration in post #348 had the string attached to the mortuary piece?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would it be confusing to point out that Trevor's own illustration in post #348 had the string attached to the mortuary piece?

Well spotted Joshua. The string is on the apron but it’s Trevor that’s tying himself up in knots.