GSG Conclusion

[caz]

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

Thank you, Sunny D.

I have no intention of trying to educate Trevor further on either subject. It would be a total waste of time.

He doesn't even seem to know the difference between a woman in 1888, poor as a church mouse, carrying all her worldly possessions around with her, and one a century later, carrying a small handbag with just what she needs for a day or night out.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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?

But that's not why Trev needs the two pieces to form only part of an apron, harry. He doesn't want Eddowes to have been wearing this apron, because his theory depends on the killer not taking part of it from the scene.

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Dr Brown ''My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street.''

[caz]

Hi FISHY,

I will have one last attempt to explain to Trevor what Dr Brown's words actually mean, and then I'll give up.

Dr Brown ''My attention was called to the apron [found on Eddowes and now in the mortuary], particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots [on that corner of the apron] were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron [from Goulston Street], which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have [so both pieces have a new piece of material sewn onto them]), the seams of the borders of the two [new pieces of material] actually corresponding [proving this was one new piece sewn onto the apron when it was in one piece]. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street.''

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Dr Brown ''My attention was called to ''THE'' apron, particularly the corner of ''THE'' apron with a string attached.


What else can one say except ''THE APRON''

[GBinOz]

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?

Hi Harry,

Daily News 5 Oct 1888 - Inquest - Dr Brown:
My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent. Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.

I would think that if the apron were incomplete at least one person would have mentioned that fact, and nobody did mention it.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi FISHY,

I will have one last attempt to explain to Trevor what Dr Brown's words actually mean, and then I'll give up.

Dr Brown ''My attention was called to the apron [found on Eddowes and now in the mortuary], particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots [on that corner of the apron] were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron [from Goulston Street], which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have [so both pieces have a new piece of material sewn onto them]), the seams of the borders of the two [new pieces of material] actually corresponding [proving this was one new piece sewn onto the apron when it was in one piece]. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street.''

Love,

Caz
X

But there is no dispute that the two pieces were matched, and how they were matched is also irrlevant. the point is that the two pieces did not and could not have made up a full apron .why is it so difficult for people to grasp that, there is no evidence that they made up a full apron. The evidence is there for all to see that she was not wearing a full apon at the time of her murder. The Mortuary list of her possessions shows she had a piece in and among her possessions. There were only two pieces there was never a third missing piece as some suggest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Harry,

Daily News 5 Oct 1888 - Inquest - Dr Brown:
My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent. Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.

I would think that if the apron were incomplete at least one person would have mentioned that fact, and nobody did mention it.

Cheers, George

You like others keep quoting newspaper articles which conflcit with the signed witness testimony, newspaper articles are unsafe to rely on as can be seen.

Jesus some of you are hard work

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr Brown ''My attention was called to ''THE'' apron, particularly the corner of ''THE'' apron with a string attached.


What else can one say except ''THE APRON''

But that couldnt have meant a full apron because Brown had to match the GS piece which Dr Phillips had in his possession until later the following day when the post mortem was condcuted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

It’s very noticeable that the apron piece wasn’t just listing within the part of the list which contained objects rather than clothing but right at the very end. It’s the very last item mentioned. We don’t know what time Collard compiled his list or how he went about it but it’s entirely possible and plausible that this piece had been put to one side (perhaps awaiting the match up?) You’re investing far too much significance in its position on the list whilst at the same time completely ignoring this:

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

Of course you pointlessly focus on the word ‘apparently’ in a weak attempt to muddy the waters but the meaning is absolutely clear. Collard and the others were convinced that she had been wearing the apron at the time. This of course was an entirely logic assumption given that the it was found ‘outside her dress.’ Not in the 2 tick bags, not concealed in some way under her clothing but ‘outside her clothing.’ So unless you’re suggesting that she walked through Mitre Square carrying a piece of apron in her hand then there’s only one conclusion….that she was wearing it at the time. As 2 serving Police Officers both testified under oath, which you try to dismiss with no legitimate reason.

…..

Trevor you have repeatedly claimed that the 2 pieces could not have made up a complete apron. You’ve provided no evidence or even an explanation for this ridiculous deduction. I’ve produced 3 diagrams (one being Wickerman’s of course) that all conform to the evidence that we have and all result in the 2 pieces making up a full piece. To keep claiming that this isn’t possible, without evidence or explanation, is simply not an honest way of debating. Your argument doesn’t even approach making sense.

The patch is entirely relevant, though inconvenient to you, because Brown is very specific about mentioning it in his deposition:

“I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it (so there’s the mention of a patch) which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have (so the patch had clearly being originally down onto both pieces meaning that the patch had either been cut through or had come away from the other part leaving a visible seam) . The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding.” ( he’s clearly talking about the seams of the borders of the patch)

I fail to see how you can keep trying to manipulate this away.

Eddowes was without a solitary shadow of a doubt wearing an apron on the night that she was killed and the 2 pieces very obviously made up a full apron. The Police knew it, the Doctor knew it, I know it and every single poster on here knows it except for you yet you still desperately cling on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi FISHY,

I will have one last attempt to explain to Trevor what Dr Brown's words actually mean, and then I'll give up.

Dr Brown ''My attention was called to the apron [found on Eddowes and now in the mortuary], particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots [on that corner of the apron] were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron [from Goulston Street], which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have [so both pieces have a new piece of material sewn onto them]), the seams of the borders of the two [new pieces of material] actually corresponding [proving this was one new piece sewn onto the apron when it was in one piece]. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street.''

Love,

Caz
X

It can’t be put clearer than that Caz

He’s still wriggling though. Black and white evidence written in English means nothing to Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The point is that the two pieces did not and could not have made up a full apron .

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Stop wriggling and explain this one in clear English because it’s absolutely proven nonsense.

[FISHY1118]

But that couldnt have meant a full apron because Brown had to match the GS piece which Dr Phillips had in his possession until later the following day when the post mortem was condcuted

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So there was a piece missing when Dr Brown said 'the apron'', so does that mean Dr Brown Couldn,t say it was a full apron till Dr Phillips gave him the G.S piece that matched ,making it a full apron again ,?

Your trying to get off on the most ridiculous technicality ive ever seen. If that be the case .

[GBinOz]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

If you read Collard's sworn deposition you will see that he says: I produce a list of items found on her...she had no money whatever on her - I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which was cut through and found outside her dress. The piece listed in her possessions was not the piece found outside her dress, which was listed separately. Collard's deposition also stated that 3 buttons used for women's boots, a thimble and a mustard tin with two pawn tickets were picked up on the left side of the deceased, but they were not included in the list of possessions because they, like the portion of the apron, were not found on her body and were listed separately. Hence the use of the words "apparently wearing".

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s very noticeable that the apron piece wasn’t just listing within the part of the list which contained objects rather than clothing but right at the very end. It’s the very last item mentioned. We don’t know what time Collard compiled his list or how he went about it but it’s entirely possible and plausible that this piece had been put to one side (perhaps awaiting the match up?) You’re investing far too much significance in its position on the list whilst at the same time completely ignoring this:

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

Of course you pointlessly focus on the word ‘apparently’ in a weak attempt to muddy the waters but the meaning is absolutely clear. Collard and the others were convinced that she had been wearing the apron at the time. This of course was an entirely logic assumption given that the it was found ‘outside her dress.’ Not in the 2 tick bags, not concealed in some way under her clothing but ‘outside her clothing.’ So unless you’re suggesting that she walked through Mitre Square carrying a piece of apron in her hand then there’s only one conclusion….that she was wearing it at the time. As 2 serving Police Officers both testified under oath, which you try to dismiss with no legitimate reason.

…..

Trevor you have repeatedly claimed that the 2 pieces could not have made up a complete apron. You’ve provided no evidence or even an explanation for this ridiculous deduction. I’ve produced 3 diagrams (one being Wickerman’s of course) that all conform to the evidence that we have and all result in the 2 pieces making up a full piece. To keep claiming that this isn’t possible, without evidence or explanation, is simply not an honest way of debating. Your argument doesn’t even approach making sense.

The patch is entirely relevant, though inconvenient to you, because Brown is very specific about mentioning it in his deposition:

“I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it (so there’s the mention of a patch) which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have (so the patch had clearly being originally down onto both pieces meaning that the patch had either been cut through or had come away from the other part leaving a visible seam) . The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding.” ( he’s clearly talking about the seams of the borders of the patch)

I fail to see how you can keep trying to manipulate this away.

Eddowes was without a solitary shadow of a doubt wearing an apron on the night that she was killed and the 2 pieces very obviously made up a full apron. The Police knew it, the Doctor knew it, I know it and every single poster on here knows it except for you yet you still desperately cling on.:shakehead

For the final time

The evidence I seek to rely on is that the GS piece was a corner piece with a string attcahed, so that had to be the top left/right, the mortuary piece when fitted to the GS piece had to be the bottom left/right for them to match up as decsribed by Brown. This is the evidence that shows the two could not have made a full apron becasue they were form the same side of the apron.

The patch is irrelevant as Brown simply mentions that a new piece of material had been sown onto the piece that he had in his possession. He is referring to the Gs piece which had the new material sown on it, The matching of the two pieces was via the seams and the borders of the two pieces of apron when put together

How the list is formulated suggests that the clothing was removed from top to bottom starting with the bonnett and ending with the boots and listed as it came off the body, as is still the same procedure today in murder cases. If she had been wearing an apron it would have been visble and would have been described as one old white apron with piece missing under the list of clothing.

The term referenced "Found on the body" is ambiguos because it could suggest as I do that it was found on her body amongst her posessions which the list confirms.

The finding of the GS pieces was without a doubt what led to what I would decsribe as a blinkered approach to the police investigation which clouded their evaluation of the facts surrounding the two pieces of apron which was hindered by the two police officers swearing that she was wearing an apron leading the invstigation off at a tangent.

We cannot blame the police too much they were ill equipped to deal with a serial killer they did the best they could but were led by those at the top who had no proper investigative experience or expertise in criminal investigation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk