Apron placement as intimidation?

[Jon Guy]

Dc Halse
"I saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing"

At the time he first went to the mortuary, there was no evidence to show that she was wearing an apron let alone the fact that a piece was missing.

Yes, the evidence is Halse`s testimony, which you have quoted above.

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you show where the doctors have mentioned this ?

Collards additional list of clothing shows the long cuts to the clothing around the waist and abdominal area, and blood staining, which indicates she was stabbed through the outer clothing several times.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Collards additional list of clothing shows the long cuts to the clothing around the waist and abdominal area, and blood staining, which indicates she was stabbed through the outer clothing several times.

Ah, so it`s only your theory and not based on a doctors report
So where are the corresponding wounds on the body ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, the evidence is Halse`s testimony, which you have quoted above.

At what point then does Halse notice the body stripped? Collard doesn't mention him as being present when the body was stripped and the lists made up, yet he says he was.

And what was so un-usual about the apron at that time to make him take note that a piece was missing. No one else who was present when the body was stripped makes any mention of this. The Gs piece had not yet been found.

I think the actions and evidence given by Dc Halse in relation to his involvement right from the start when he first went to Mitre Square leave a lot to be desired.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, so it`s only your theory and not based on a doctors report
So where are the corresponding wounds on the body ?

This has been gone through before many times on here. There are wounds to the abdomen and lower abdomen consistent with the cuts in the clothing. They may not be identical matches because we dont know the position of the clothing at the time the wounds were inflicted but they are as near as dam.

But if you have another explanation for the cuts to the clothing and the blood stains that accompany those cuts feel free to enlighten us, and of course the absence of cuts and bloodstains to the mortuary piece which would have been evident had she been wearing an apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

This has been gone through before many times on here.

Yes, because you keep bringing it up as a "fact" and when asked, never produce the evidence to support it.

There are wounds to the abdomen and lower abdomen consistent with the cuts in the clothing. They may not be identical matches because we dont know the position of the clothing at the time the wounds were inflicted but they are as near as dam.

Ripper victims had extreme injuries to the abdomen.
Please can you highlight the corresponding wounds from a doctors report

But if you have another explanation for the cuts to the clothing and the blood stains that accompany those cuts feel free to enlighten us

The killer cut through the items tied around her waist.
The items were cut through, and not stabbed (see descriptions), as you suggest

and of course the absence of cuts and bloodstains to the mortuary piece which would have been evident had she been wearing an apron.

There are many reasons why the apron may not have had blood stains on it.

[Jon Guy]

At what point then does Halse notice the body stripped? Collard doesn't mention him as being present when the body was stripped and the lists made up, yet he says he was.

Irrelevant
Whether Halse saw the body stripped, or he saw the body being stripped, he noticed that a piece of the apron was missing.

And what was so un-usual about the apron at that time to make him take note that a piece was missing. No one else who was present when the body was stripped makes any mention of this. The Gs piece had not yet been found.

I guess policeman have to notice things like that, as is their nature, and the fact that they would soon be trying to identify the victim, and having half an apron is something to go on.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, because you keep bringing it up as a "fact" and when asked, never produce the evidence to support it.

I have produced the evidence Collards list that is primary evidence which shows the cuts and the direction of cuts and the size of the cuts



Ripper victims had extreme injuries to the abdomen.
Please can you highlight the corresponding wounds from a doctors report

I have stated what i have stated if you disagree then you show why the cuts in the clothing are simply that cuts, and not where the knife had gone in and been drawn across and downwards.

The killer cut through the items tied around her waist.
The items were cut through, and not stabbed (see descriptions), as you suggest

Why would the killer do that ?

There are many reasons why the apron may not have had blood stains on it.

Yes the main one is that if she were not wearing one, and it had been amongst her possessions. It was described as having blood spots on it. The 12 pieces of rag in her possession also has blood stains on them. Coincidence or not ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

I have produced the evidence Collards list that is primary evidence which shows the cuts and the direction of cuts and the size of the cuts

Yes, but your conclusion is wrong, and easily explained as wrong because there are no corresponding wounds and the attending doctors make no mention of it.

I have stated what i have stated if you disagree then you show why the cuts in the clothing are simply that cuts, and not where the knife had gone in and been drawn across and downwards.

I am arguing that the killer cut through the items tied around her waist.
Which is exactly what the descriptions describe
All items tied around her waist are cut through

Why would the killer do that ?

Why would the killer cut through the items tied around her waist?
Obviously, so he could expose the torso.

Yes the main one is that if she were not wearing one, and it had been amongst her possessions. It was described as having blood spots on it. The 12 pieces of rag in her possession also has blood stains on them. Coincidence or not ?[/B]

We have numerous eye witness statements stating Eddowes was wearing an apron before and after death.
Even if I wanted to, an argument cannot be made to show that she was not wearing an apron.

[Fisherman]

What I fail to see is WHY Trevor argues against the evidence. To what end? Is there any purpose behind it?
If Eddowes did not wear an apron on her person on the murder night, and if the organs went lost during the morgue procedures instead of in Mitre Square, what possible implications is Trevor after?
We all know that the killer took out Kelly´s organs, unless somebody from the morgue sneaked in and did it inbetween the murder time and when Bowyer found her. We all know that the person/s who killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly cut their abdomens open.

Does anybody - Trevor included - have an idea where he is going with this? Or trying to go?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, but your conclusion is wrong, and easily explained as wrong because there are no corresponding wounds and the attending doctors make no mention of it.

The doctors do mention the wounds in the post mortem reports

I am arguing that the killer cut through the items tied around her waist.
Which is exactly what the descriptions describe
All items tied around her waist are cut through

Why would the killer do that? It would mean when the body was found the clothes would be separated in half and the abdomen exposed. The clothes were described as being up above her waist. Collards list doesnt state they were cut through he specifically mentions cut and mentions the sizes and directions of cuts. they are all different

We have numerous eye witness statements stating Eddowes was wearing apron before and after death.
Even if I wanted to, an argument cannot be made to show that she was not wearing an apron.

Of course an argument can be made, when it is clear that firstly the evidence you refer to was never tested, and secondly there are now obvious flaws to that questionable evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

What I fail to see is WHY Trevor argues against the evidence. To what end? Is there any purpose behind it?
If Eddowes did not wear an apron on her person on the murder night, and if the organs went lost during the morgue procedures instead of in Mitre Square, what possible implications is Trevor after?
We all know that the killer took out Kelly´s organs, unless somebody from the morgue sneaked in and did it inbetween the murder time and when Bowyer found her. We all know that the person/s who killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly cut their abdomens open.

Does anybody - Trevor included - have an idea where he is going with this? Or trying to go?

Is it attempting to disprove another part of this mystery that has been readily accepted as being fact all of these years. The question of the apron and whether or not she was wearing one, starts in Mitre Square with her murder. The two pieces of this apron are a major part of the ripper mystery in so many different ways. So it is important that if possible we get as near to the truth as is possible 128 years later.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Is it attempting to disprove another part of this mystery that has been readily accepted as being fact all of these years.

In a sense, Trevor, facts are to an extent matters agreed upon. It´s like conclusive circumstantial evidence, where doubt is eliminated. And in this case, people have an understanding of the facts that differs very much from yours. And it is based on the evidence as a whole, instead of picking out the bits and pieces that are suitable. Saying that it is all about some sort of imposed thinking that rules the day just isn´t true - every- and anybody has the right to make his own assessment, but even with this liberty of thought, the apron remains on the body of Eddowes and the organs remain the killer´s loot.
You sometimes accuse me of clinging to old school rules, but I can´t see the sense in such a thing - I differ very much from what most people say and I answer for it on an everyday basis. I rule out Kosminsi, Druitt, Bury, Tumblety etcetera - all of the ones contemporarily suspected, so I cannot be called a traditionalist in any meaning of the word. And nevertheless, I think you are as wrong as you can be on this.

The question of the apron and whether or not she was wearing one, starts in Mitre Square with her murder. The two pieces of this apron are a major part of the ripper mystery in so many different ways. So it is important that if possible we get as near to the truth as is possible 128 years later.

I agree. But I would not want you to guide me there, Trevor. It involves thinking that a corner only of the apron remained on the body of Eddowes, and it makes very little sense to me, for example. I use all the sources, I weigh them together, and when they offer a solution that makes a lot more sense, I opt for it. That does not mean that I do not look on other suggestions - I do, just like I said, I am somebody who offer a lot of suggestions that those you call traditionalists do not readily buy. But looking at your suggestions, I find they have so very little going for them that they must step aside for other, more viable interpretations.

[Jon Guy]

The doctors do mention the wounds in the post mortem reports

Instead of just telling me this, back up your claim and just cut and paste the relevant info?

Why would the killer do that?
It would mean when the body was found the clothes would be separated in half and the abdomen exposed. The clothes were described as being up above her waist.

See below sketch of the body in situ.

Collards list doesnt state they were cut through he specifically mentions cut and mentions the sizes and directions of cuts. they are all different

Are you saying they weren`t cut through ?
(Of course, I can clearly see where Collard mentions that waistbands were all cut through)

Of course an argument can be made, when it is clear that firstly the evidence you refer to was never tested,

It was witness testimony. Did the coroner, or journalists see any problem with it ?

and secondly there are now obvious flaws to that questionable evidence.

You alone think so.
I know you don`t care but your arguments have not convinced anyone.

But now you're arguing that Collard does not even mention cuts in his description of the clothing I have to go and do something else.

Have you caught that twat, the Croydon Cat Killer yet ?
As an animal lover I wish you would concentrate on that case.
There`s a reward, the killer is still out there, and witnesses are all alive and available for questioning.

[Elamarna]

This has been gone through before many times on here. There are wounds to the abdomen and lower abdomen consistent with the cuts in the clothing. They may not be identical matches because we dont know the position of the clothing at the time the wounds were inflicted but they are as near as dam.

But if you have another explanation for the cuts to the clothing and the blood stains that accompany those cuts feel free to enlighten us, and of course the absence of cuts and bloodstains to the mortuary piece which would have been evident had she been wearing an apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course in a previous post, "19th Century "anatomical skill"" post # 69, Trevor showed these corresponding wounds on a mortuary photograph.

Of course this could not work as he did not have details of the cuts to the clothing he claims can be compared.

However far more alarmingly from the point of good research and integrity, he includes on the photo one "wound" not on the body, it is some 6-8 inches from the side of Eddowes, and is no more than damage to the photo itself, yet Trevor is happy to post such and claim it shows an actual wound.

Worryingly he has still not explained why he was making this claim in that particular case.

Been here before, Trevor cannot prove his theory, in fact it falls apart very easily.

Trevor continues to post these now discredited new theories, the theories having been peer reviewed by many, and found to have serious failings, it seems he does not see the faults which are so glaring.


Of course Trevor now does not respond to me. All that I have done is ask very serious questions, this has been done over and over again, because he will not give answers to any of these questions.

One wonders why, if his theories are so strong, he finds it difficult to even attempt to answer?



Steve