The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Elamarna]

Thats my take with Pc Robinson and Hutts testimony, and why we have Collard who doesn't go along with the lie when he says apparently wearing. He was an Inspector and probably thought he was not going to risk his pension by perjuring himself

The issue is you have no evidence to support this, it a hunch based on semantic interpretation of a source.

You happily admit there are no sources which back your view and it therefore is just another unsupported idea along with so many others.

On the issue of "Apparently" the good inspector does not deny an apron was worn or even say " I don't think so"

Therefore on a very strong level of probability she was wearing an apron.

Your semantic attempt to suggest the inspector is really saying no fails!

And I see you have still not addressed the issue that Brown DID NOT say Eddowes was not wearing an apron in his official signed statement.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear here we go again

The issue is you have no evidence to support this, it a hunch based on semantic interpretation of a source.

You happily admit there are no sources which back your view and it therefore is just another unsupported idea along with so many others.

But you cant avoid the fact that they were shown a piece of old white apron, which in reality could have been any old white piece of apron and they stated that they believed it was from the apron she was wearing.They were never asked how could they be so sure. What was special about the apron they saw her wearing to be able to identify the pieces they were shown.

On the issue of "Apparently" the good inspector does not deny an apron was worn or even say " I don't think so"

Therefore on a very strong level of probability she was wearing an apron.

And a very strong level of probability to show she wasnt

Your semantic attempt to suggest the inspector is really saying no fails!

And I see you have still not addressed the issue that Brown DID NOT say Eddowes was not wearing an apron in his official signed statement.

But he didnt say she was did he?

Steve

Note the matching of the two pieces was done via the seams of the borders so that means the two pieces must have come from the same side of the apron. Do you not think that is strange, if she was wearing an apron? Because that means that the mortuary piece must have been the top right or left of the apron, and if that be so would still have been attached to the body and would have been recorded as her wearing it.

www.trevormarriott.co,uk

[Sam Flynn]

Doesnt matter who would have found it how would a resident have connected it to a murder or the graffiti ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In the same way that Long did. Or, for that matter, in the same way that other members of the public connected other artefacts, albeit spuriously, to the murders.

[Elamarna]

apparently definition

"You have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true"

"apparent -used to describe something that appears to be true based on what is known"

What can be taken from all of this. My interpretation is that the list was made up in good faith at the time, and clearly she was not wearing an apron when it was made. At the time the Gs piece had not been found.

After it had been found and the two pieces later matched there was a wrong inference made by some that in fact she was wearing an apron and the killer cut ot tore the GS piece all to make the pieces fit (no pun intended)

And that is why Collard used the term apparently.He had to use that term because he had just produced lists which showed she was not wearing one.

I suggest you read the second definition again and the ones below

" —used to describe something that appears to be true based on what is known

an apparently happy marriage

The window had apparently been forced open.

Apparently, we're supposed to wait here."

And

"As far as one knows or can see."


Such do not fit what you are suggesting.

What Collard is saying is that there is evidence to suggest she was wearing the Apron, which by definition means he has placed it in the wrong list. It can be read, if one is so minded, that this way he avoids actually saying that.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Therefore on a very strong level of probability she was wearing an apron

That's the annoying thing about aprons. Women tend to wear them.

[John G]

That's the annoying thing about aprons. Women tend to wear them.

Ah, but didn't Issenschmidt wear a leather apron?

[Sam Flynn]

Ah, but didn't Issenschmidt wear a leather apron?

OK, people tend to wear them

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, but didn't Issenschmidt wear a leather apron?

So did Pizer but the police believed he left it at the crime scene. Another example of the failings of the police back then

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Oh dear here we go again

Ah an attempt at sarcasm, we both know who will give up first Trevor,

And a very strong level of probability to show she wasnt

Not at all. No actual evidence for that suggestion, just interpretation which is used to dismiss that one does not like

But he didnt say she was did he?

Thank you so much Trevor, so there is an omission either way is there not?

In a signed deposition he does not say if the Apron was attached or not!

Therefore such a source tells us nothing with regards to the presence of the Apron and so cannot be used to form an hypothesis either way, the information needed is not included.
Any hypothesis with regards to the apron and Brown's view on it can only be made from other sources if it is to hold any validity


Steve

[Elamarna]

So did Pizer but the police believed he left it at the crime scene. Another example of the failings of the police back then

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes the police often make mistakes even in the late 20th century

The Birmingham six and Colin Stagg to name but 2 cases.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah an attempt at sarcasm, we both know who will give up first Trevor,




Not at all. No actual evidence for that suggestion, just interpretation which is used to dismiss that one does not like





Thank you so much Trevor, so there is an omission either way is there not?

In a signed deposition he does not say if the Apron was attached or not!

Therefore such a source tells us nothing with regards to the presence of the Apron and so cannot be used to form an hypothesis either way, the information needed is not included.
Any hypothesis with regards to the apron and Brown's view on it can only be made from other sources if it is to hold any validity


Steve

But there is evidence from both sides of the argument. So that in itself creates a doubt, which then needs to be explored, and all the facts and evidence carefully considered, and evaluated and sensible conclusions then drawn. But you seem to not want to do that. All you keep banging on about is what you yourself interpret from the facts and the evidence disregarding the flaws in the evidence and facts you seek to rely on.

So where does this apron issue lead us in the grand scheme of things, if she was wearing an apron why did the killer cut or tear it. With the taking away of the organs in it firmly sunk without trace, what is left.

Wiping bloody hands or a knife, well there is a multitude of plausible explanations for not believing either of these. So that brings us back to the suggestion that she was not wearing an apron and so the killer could not have cut it or torn it, and that there are other plausible explanation as to how it got to GS.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

Was Chapman wearing an apron? This is from James Kent's testimony in the Daily Telegraph 13th Sept;

"Deceased's clothes were disarranged, and her apron was thrown over them."

[Elamarna]

But there is evidence from both sides of the argument. So that in itself creates a doubt, which then needs to be explored, and all the facts and evidence carefully considered, and evaluated and sensible conclusions then drawn. But you seem to not want to do that. All you keep banging on about is what you yourself interpret from the facts and the evidence disregarding the flaws in the evidence and facts you seek to rely on.

There is no report which says she was not wearing an apron, there are many which say she was.
Find a valid source which definitively says no apron was worn and then one can debate the subject seriously. All we have at present is an argument based on belief.

So where does this apron issue lead us in the grand scheme of things, if she was wearing an apron why did the killer cut or tear it. With the taking away of the organs in it firmly sunk without trace, what is left.

Wiping bloody hands or a knife, well there is a multitude of plausible explanations for not believing either of these. So that brings us back to the suggestion that she was not wearing an apron and so the killer could not have cut it or torn it, and that there are other plausible explanation as to how it got to GS.

Nothing you have posted counters the point that the source you have been using to back the hypothesis that she was not wearing an apron - Brown official inquest report, does not actually contain the data/information required for the hypothesis to be tested.
The hypothesis is based on wishful thinking, and as such it cannot be proven.
Provide an hypothesis based on fact and you may find people are prepared to consider it.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Wiping bloody hands or a knife, well there is a multitude of plausible explanations for not believing either of these.

The corpse of a women lies bloodied and eviscerated in Mitre Square and a bloodstained piece of fabric, shown to be a missing portion of her apron, is found in a doorway a sort distance away, within an hour of her death. What on earth could be more plausible than that the blood got on the apron as a direct consequence of the murder?

[Trevor Marriott]

The corpse of a women lies bloodied and eviscerated in Mitre Square and a bloodstained piece of fabric, shown to be a missing portion of her apron, is found in a doorway a sort distance away, within an hour of her death. What on earth could be more plausible than that the blood got on the apron as a direct consequence of the murder?

Well if you took the blinkers off you might be able to answer your own question.

And your wording is wrong, it should surely read "a blood stained piece of fabric which was matched to another piece of fabric.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk