Apron placement as intimidation?

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear

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

See below sketch of the body in situ.

Dr Browns Official inquest testimony
"The Clothes were drawn up above the abdomen"
No where does it say they were cut and pulled across

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

And he mention the cuts in sizes and directions, not just waistbands

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

Why should there be a problem? It was quite clear that she had been attacked and mutilated with a long bladed knife. What difference would it have made if she had been stabbed through her clothing or directly through her open skin. We are now discussing it in relation to whether or not she was wearing an apron.

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

I think they have convinced a lot more than you think

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.

Do you have difficulty in understanding what you read? The cuts in the clothing match up with the wounds which were described by the doctor.

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.

I would love to concentrate on that case for the same reasons as you

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

[B]

The deciding factor in determining where the truth lies comes from the matching of the two pieces which were matched by the seams. We know that the mortuary piece was a corner and so for the two pieces to have been matched in the way described they must both have come from the same side of the apron. So how could effectively half and apron turn into a full apron?

Trevor,

Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that the pieces were matched by the edge seams, that is not what the inquest testimony says:


"I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding –"


That to me suggests he is matching the new material on the two apron pieces, not the original seams.

That is how it reads Trevor, if not, there is no reason to mention the NEW Material (patch?)at all in this context.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

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

I never said that the wounds would match the cuts exactly because a lot would depend on the position of the clothing when the knife entered the body, and as is known much of the clothing was loose fitting in any event.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

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

At least get that right please!

The mortuary piece had blood on it.

It is what drew Browns attention to the apron.


"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 –"



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that the pieces were matched by the edge seams, that is not what the inquest testimony says:


"I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding –"


That to me suggests he is matching the new material on the two apron pieces, not the original seams.

That is how it reads Trevor, if not, there is no reason to mention the NEW Material (patch?)at all in this context.



Steve

I asked you previous if you argued for the sake of arguing on here well its clear you do.

What you suggest is a matter for you and not a matter of fact.

As I have said before the seams of an apron go down the outside of an apron how else could they be matched to identify the two pieces as having come from the same apron?

He is fact mentioning matching the mortuary piece and the gs piece by the seams to show they came from the same apron.

Nice try and keep trying !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I never said that the wounds would match the cuts exactly because a lot would depend on the position of the clothing when the knife entered the body, and as is known much of the clothing was loose fitting in any event.

You are just saying there are cuts to the clothing and cuts to the body, so they must match, that is not research or fact, or even a theory, it is just wishful thinking.


You have not proved they match at all Trevor!!



And of course still no apology to the forum for the highly misleading photo in the post mentioned above.

Sorry would more than suffice.


Steve

[Jon Guy]

I would love to concentrate on that case for the same reasons as you

I noticed your name mentioned, so I hoped you were going to investigate.

[Elamarna]

I asked you previous if you argued for the sake of arguing on here well its clear you do.

What you suggest is a matter for you and not a matter of fact.

As I have said before the seams of an apron go down the outside of an apron how else could they be matched to identify the two pieces as having come from the same apron?

He is fact mentioning matching the mortuary piece and the gs piece by the seams to show they came from the same apron.

Nice try and keep trying !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor


How is it a matter for me?

It is what Brown is recorded by the court reporter has saying.

Is that document not the primary source?

It is not even about interpretation, it is what he says.




Why not read what Brown says.



"I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding –"


Yes you are correct he is matching seams, however he does not say he is matching the outside seam of the original apron, rather the testimony implies he is matching the seams of the new material which has been added to the apron, that is what the inquest testimony says.

You know the document which you say was signed by those giving the testimony to confirm it is true and accurate.


Therefore you theory is based on a faulty interpretation, not even a nice try from you, just a closed view.




Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

I noticed your name mentioned, so I hoped you were going to investigate.

No sadly not I was asked to comment on the sickening crimes and the police investigation or the lack of it as it seems.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

An apron with a bib is put on by tying it around the neck and around the waist.

Hi Fish,

In actuality there are examples of Victorian era aprons that show the neck string is not tied, it is attached to both upper sides...the wearer slips the neck portion over their head, and then fastens the waist by tying the strings that are attached individually to each side of the apron.


This is why I believe "attached" refers to the neck portion being intact and that string still round her neck. She is not wearing it, but it is attached to her.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

In actuality there are examples of Victorian era aprons that show the neck string is not tied, it is attached to both upper sides...the wearer slips the neck portion over their head, and then fastens the waist by tying the strings that are attached individually to each side of the apron.


This is why I believe "attached" refers to the neck portion being intact and that string still round her neck. She is not wearing it, but it is attached to her.

Yes, I know this, Michael - you put your head through sort of a noose. But that does not mean that the waist strings go away, other than - apparently - in the written record.

One must ask oneself what happened to them.

[Pierre]

Yes, I know this, Michael - you put your head through sort of a noose. But that does not mean that the waist strings go away, other than - apparently - in the written record.

One must ask oneself what happened to them.

Yes, do ask yourself some questions about it. For example:

Do you agree with me that, whatever the construction of the apron, it was an apron, and it was not a skirt or a shirt or a jacket or a shawl - why was it an apron and not another item?

Do you also agree with me that someone cut off a piece from the apron and the strings, and if you do, do you know any symbolic language connected to such an act?

How can this act be connected to Lechmere?

Regards, Pierre

[Wickerman]

Lets stick with what was produced as evidence Collards list of clothing she was wearing and what she had as her possessions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Let's use all the evidence at our disposal, you know, as if we were real policemen conducting an investigation....

[Pierre]

Trevor,

Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that the pieces were matched by the edge seams, that is not what the inquest testimony says:


"I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding –"
[/B]

That to me suggests he is matching the new material on the two apron pieces, not the original seams.

That is how it reads Trevor, if not, there is no reason to mention the NEW Material (patch?)at all in this context.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Trying to analyze this.

I fitted

A) the piece of apron which

A 1) had (still A, belonging to A)

B) a new piece of material

on it (it = A)

B1) which (new piece of material) had been evidently sewn on to (history of it, its provenance)

C) the piece I have (another piece) or A (the same piece) ?

D) The seams of

E) the borders of

A + C the two (the piece of apron which) + (the piece I have) ?

/ OR the seems of the borders on the patch / material

actually corresponding

and therefore B) is the link to the correspondence?

Steve - is there any way can we exclude that we are not talking about the seems of A and C instead of, as in your hypothesis, B?

Regards, Pierre

[Wickerman]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

These cuts in the clothing make sense to me if you visualize her clothes thrown up over her chest/head.
Take for instance the last item, the blue skirt.
If this skirt was thrown up over her head and the knife plunged into the upper chest, then dragged down. The cut will begin in the skirt, and run down through the waist band - because the skirt(s) were all upside down.

The bodice was on her body in its normal position, but the three skirts (above) were just upside-down when the killer began slicing her chest/abdomen.
So, what you have is not evidence of extra wounds, just her clothing is showing evidence of where he applied the knife in making the mutilations that are well known to everyone.
The point being, she was clothed when he plunged the knife into her, its just that her skirts were upside down.