GSG Conclusion

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

As far as I’m aware there is no mention anywhere of the Goulston Street piece having any string attached so yes, the evidence points to the fact that only the Mortuary piece had string attached. And all 3 of the diagrams that I put up in post#461 conformed to this. In each one only the MP had string attached.

And in each one of them they not only had just one part with string attached they also had the patch (mentioned by Brown) and they also made up a whole apron (which you [for some reason that no one appears to be able to fathom] claimed was somehow impossible)

So where is the issue?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Trevor will probably say three.

[Sunny Delight]

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

Ignorance particularly of women's fashion and menstrual cycles is apparantly the reason.

[Abby Normal]

In quantum mechanics it would be called "entanglement".

(Sorry, I couldn't resist it)

lol. good one. and to the question of which apron piece had the string attached-it would be a superpositon!

[barnflatwyngarde]

lol. good one. and to the question of which apron piece had the string attached-it would be a superpositon!

Nice one Abby!

I thought that I had set it up beautifully for someone to mention string theory, but no one took the bait.

Oh well, back to the graffiti I suppose.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nice one Abby!

I thought that I had set it up beautifully for someone to mention string theory, but no one took the bait.

Oh well, back to the graffiti I suppose.

Good to see you and Abby raising the levels here with string theory-related humour. I bet they don’t get that on the Zodiac Forums.

[harry]

While I do not agree with the idea thay the piece of apron found in Goulstan Street was usd as a sanitary cloth,the notion that there was not a complete apron when the two pieces were produced at the mortuary,is quite sound.What if the killer had not only taken part of the apron,but had also divided the part taken,into two pieces?

[Trevor Marriott]

As far as I’m aware there is no mention anywhere of the Goulston Street piece having any string attached so yes, the evidence points to the fact that only the Mortuary piece had string attached. And all 3 of the diagrams that I put up in post#461 conformed to this. In each one only the MP had string attached.

And in each one of them they not only had just one part with string attached they also had the patch (mentioned by Brown) and they also made up a whole apron (which you [for some reason that no one appears to be able to fathom] claimed was somehow impossible)

So where is the issue?

The issue yet again is your misleading posts and you not understanding the evidence

There was only one piece of apron with a string attached

There is no indication of the sizes of each of the two pieces of apron

There is no indication as to the size of the new material or where it was located

The two pieces of apron were matched by the seams and the border which were corresponding, it matters not whether the apon was made in two pieces or one there would have had to have been a join, that join would have been made as a seam and a border overlapped to stop the stitching from coming undone and it fraying, so with that being said I still stand by the drawing that I made and my interpretation of the evidence that the two pieces had to have come from the same side of the apron i.e top left/right-bottom left/right

There is no evidence to show that when the two pieces were matched they made up a full apron

And no one has offerred any sensible explantion as to how one of the pieces of an apron she was supposedly wearing finished up in her possessions. when had she been wearing an apron and the killer had cut a piece from it the rest of the apron woud be clearly visible when her clothing was removed at the mortuary and would have been listed among her possessions.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

From the testimony of Inspector Collard at the Inquest of Eddowes (bold my emphasis):

[Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased.

That seems pretty unambiguous to me.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

The issue yet again is your misleading posts and you not understanding the evidence

Pot. Kettle. Black.

There was only one piece of apron with a string attached.

I haven’t said otherwise yet you keep posting as if I have.

There is no indication of the sizes of each of the two pieces of apron.

Ive never claimed that there was.

There is no indication as to the size of the new material or where it was located

I’ve never claimed that I know either of those things. All that we know, from Brown, is that it was on both pieces.

The two pieces of apron were matched by the seams and the border which were corresponding, it matters not whether the apon was made in two pieces or one there would have had to have been a join, that join would have been made as a seam and a border overlapped to stop the stitching from coming undone and it fraying,

No, but you claimed that it was made in 2 pieces, so it’s you that doing the inventing here Trevor.

You call that area a ‘join’ or a ‘border’ to avoid using the correct term ‘hem’ rather than the incorrect one ‘seam.’ Your manipulating the terminology to try and bolster your point.

so with that being said I still stand by the drawing that I made and my interpretation of the evidence that the two pieces had to have come from the same side of the apron i.e top left/right-bottom left/right.

This makes no logical sense at all. If the piece was cut from the bottom left or bottom right or top left or top right this still gives us 2 pieces.

QUESTION FOR ANYONE: This is a genuine request, can some pleeeeeese explain to me Trevor’s thinking here. I honestly can’t understand why he thinks that this would preclude the 2 pieces making up a whole one.

There is no evidence to show that when the two pieces were matched they made up a full apron

Firstly, when you cut one piece from a whole apron that we know for a fact that she was wearing (Hutt and Robinson 100%) then that gives 2 pieces. It’s called maths.

Secondly, you keep repeating this. So no one actually said “it was a complete apron” but equally no one said that “it was an incomplete apron” either. So your point is a complete non-point.

Which of the two would have been a bigger issue? The Police were convinced that the GS piece was from Eddowes apron so it was taken as read that these two pieces made up a whole. So the fact that it wasn’t specifically stated is not an issue at all. But what about them not mentioning that it was incomplete? Now that would have been a different kettle of fish. As I said, the Police 100% believed that the GS piece came from Eddowes apron and so your point about it being cut up at some point earlier is irrelevant. The POINT is that the Police wouldn’t have considered that for a second and so, to them, an incomplete apron would have meant categorically that there was a piece missing somewhere. The GS piece was evidence and so this missing piece would have been missing evidence but there’s no record of this being mentioned or no record of a search for it.

Not explicitly stating that the apron was complete is just an understandable assumption made at the time Isomething so obvious that it didn’t require mentioning) but this wouldn’t have been the case for a missing piece. So the fact that no one mentioned a missing piece of evidence is more strong evidence that the 2 pieces made a complete apron.

And no one has offerred any sensible explantion as to how one of the pieces of an apron she was supposedly wearing finished up in her possessions. when had she been wearing an apron and the killer had cut a piece from it the rest of the apron woud be clearly visible when her clothing was removed at the mortuary and would have been listed among her possessions.

Because of its importance and because it would have been separated so that it could be matched up with the GS piece.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You really are floundering here Trevor.

[FISHY1118]

From the testimony of Inspector Collard at the Inquest of Eddowes (bold my emphasis):

[Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased.

That seems pretty unambiguous to me.

- Jeff

No arguement from me there either . Inspector Collard may just have stumbled on ''The Real Truth'' after all, guess well have to stick with the old accepted theory a little longer .

[FISHY1118]

You really are f... Read more »
Posted by Herlock Sholmes 37 minutes ago.


Phew, a second there it thought Herlock had dropped the ''F'' word on Trevor

[Trevor Marriott]

You really are floundering here Trevor.

There is only one floundering here and that is you I keep cringing at your attempts to negate that facts and the evidence as I have explained it, you do nothing but keep mispresenting the facts and the evidence to suit you own misguided belief. Look at your reply to one of my questions

Question - And no one has offerred any sensible explantion as to how one of the pieces of an apron she was supposedly wearing finished up in her possessions. when had she been wearing an apron and the killer had cut a piece from it the rest of the apron would be clearly visible when her clothing was removed at the mortuary and would have been listed among her clothing not her possessions !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Herlocks A- Because of its importance and because it would have been separated so that it could be matched up with the GS piece.

What a rubbish answer if it was that important it would have been listed as one old white apron with piece missing and listed in her clothing. You have to remember that when her body was stripped at the mortuary and the lists made up the GS piece had not yet been found. So those lists of clothing and her possessions are even more credible becasue the lists were made at the time so that is prime evidence.

You are the one that keeps stating the two pieces when matched made up a full apron not me and it matters not how the two pieces were matched if they didnt make up a full apron the top left and bottom left could be matched as stated by Brown and still not made up a full apron. The patch you keep referring to is irrelevant

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

From the testimony of Inspector Collard at the Inquest of Eddowes (bold my emphasis):

[Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased.

That seems pretty unambiguous to me.

- Jeff

In his signed inquest testimony he states "Apparently worn"
In the Times report he states "A portion found on her" consistent with it being found in her possessions

Where does the truth lie? in my book that makes his testimony unsafe to totally rely on. But of course you seem to want to rely on the part which suggests she was wearing an apron, take the blinkers off !!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Oh, are you guys still doing this?