Apron placement as intimidation?

[Wickerman]

A wise observation, and you will note it is not I that made the cutting of the clothes suggestion !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

All this exchange is concerned with is how a tied piece of apron could be removed without untying the knot.
And, the removed piece has one string still attached.

There isn't a wide range of solutions.

[Trevor Marriott]

forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9989&page=15

See the sketch in post #149 in this thread for the answer.

The clothing in front was already cut or torn open completely, to judge from the drawing of the body in situ.

I'd think that the lower body clothing could be pulled downwards and off by lifting the body slightly and pulling on the back waistbands of the skirts. As for the bodice, again, lifting the body might allow the remains of the bodice to be pulled down and a slit made to remove it in halves.

The bodice would be unbuttoned from the front !

That drawing is questionable as Dr Brown states that "the clothes were drawn up above the abdomen- the upper part of the dress was pulled open a little way"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

The bodice would be unbuttoned from the front !

That drawing is questionable as Dr Brown states that "the clothes were drawn up above the abdomen- the upper part of the dress was pulled open a little way"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The drawing is questionable? Dr. Brown sketched it.

[Trevor Marriott]

The drawing is questionable? Dr. Brown sketched it.

Another poster suggested that the clothes were cut down the front and referred to the sketch. Dr Brown clearly states that was not the case in his testimony.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;402448]

And you are missing the point in as much as had she been wearing an apron with a piece missing, it would have been clearly visible as such and would have had to have been removed before any of the other clothing came off the body and would have been recorded as an item of clothing she was wearing and not a piece of old white apron listed amongst her possessions.

So the apron was not in her possession but it was left there by the killer?

[Wickerman]

Hi Trevor

I don`t think they cut the clothing off Eddowes body because it would have confused matters when making a note of the condition of the clothing.

Chandlers lists the cuts to the clothing, which would be pointless if the clothes had been cut off the body at the mortuary.

Hi Jon.

The only item I suggest was cut from the body was the piece of apron.

Today, when a pathologist needs to remove the clothes from a body, but is concerned about disturbing wounds, the clothes are cut from the body.
In some cases it may be just a pants leg, or a shirt sleeve. Much depends on what the clothing is.
When a pathologist makes cuts in the clothes, the cuts are marked to alert investigators that those cuts are not evidence.

Obviously, forensics have progressed in leaps and bounds in the last century so I am not suggesting that what is done today was always the case.
Though I don't believe a high IQ is needed to determine that cutting away some of Eddowes under clothes would be the best option, while running the least chance of disturbing those abdominal wounds.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jon.

The only item I suggest was cut from the body was the piece of apron.

Today, when a pathologist needs to remove the clothes from a body, but is concerned about disturbing wounds, the clothes are cut from the body.
In some cases it may be just a pants leg, or a shirt sleeve. Much depends on what the clothing is.
When a pathologist makes cuts in the clothes, the cuts are marked to alert investigators that those cuts are not evidence.

Obviously, forensics have progressed in leaps and bounds in the last century so I am not suggesting that what is done today was always the case.
Though I don't believe a high IQ is needed to determine that cutting away some of Eddowes under clothes would be the best option, while running the least chance of disturbing those abdominal wounds.

The body had been taken on a handcart do you not think all that bouncing and shaking around, the body would have been subjected to en route might have as you suggested disturbed the abdominal wounds in any event. So a slight movement of the body at the mortuary would be nothing in comparison

Of course all that shaking about may have caused the kidney and the uterus to be lost on transit !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Another poster suggested that the clothes were cut down the front and referred to the sketch. Dr Brown clearly states that was not the case in his testimony.

Well, he actually said:
"The clothes were thrown up. The upper part of the dress had been torn open."

Which is pretty much what we are seeing in the in situ sketch

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, he actually said:
"The clothes were thrown up. The upper part of the dress had been torn open."

Which is pretty much what we are seeing in the in situ sketch

No he doesnt say that. In his official signed inquest testimomy he says
"The clothes were drawn up above the abdomen- The upper part of the dress was pulled open a little way"

lets stick to the official testimony, or is someone going to suggest the court recorder got this part also wrong

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

No he doesnt say that. In his official signed inquest testimomy he says
"The clothes were drawn up above the abdomen- The upper part of the dress was pulled open a little way"

lets stick to the official testimony, or is some going to suggest the court recorder got this part also wrong

They have described the same thing.

[Trevor Marriott]

They have described the same thing.

There is an obvious difference in the grand scheme of things between pulled open and cut open.

The whole ripper mystery is full of conflicting newspaper reports. In the case of Eddowes we have the original signed inquest testimonies, which should not be disregarded in favour of a newspaper article or articles, which may not even have been written by a reporter who was even present at the inquest, just because a particular article sits better with someones personal theory or opinion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

There is an obvious difference in the grand scheme of things between pulled open and cut open.

Who said "cut open" ?

The court recorder wrote pulled open and the journalist wrote torn open.

The whole ripper mystery is full of conflicting newspaper reports. In the case of Eddowes we have the original signed inquest testimonies, which should not be disregarded in favour of a newspaper article or articles, which may not even have been written by a reporter who was even present at the inquest, just because a particular article sits better with someones personal theory or opinion.

Who is disregarding testimony, Trevor ?

The court recorder didn`t record what the witnesses were wearing, or the banter between the coroner and a difficult witness.
I look at all the inquest reports for the full picture.

But anyway, the Ripper tore open Eddowes coat, hence the buttons found by her side, he pushed up her clothes as far as he could, then cut through the items and clothes tied around her waist, pushing them up even further, and pulling open the top of her dress exposed the whole of her torso, as seen in in the in situ sketch.

[Trevor Marriott]

Who said "cut open" ?

The court recorder wrote pulled open and the journalist wrote torn open.



Who is disregarding testimony, Trevor ?

The court recorder didn`t record what the witnesses were wearing, or the banter between the coroner and a difficult witness.
I look at all the inquest reports for the full picture.

But you or anyone else cannot disregard the official signed depositions even if they did not contain all the dialogue of that particular witnesses testimony. You have to accept that what is in the official signed deposition is correct, because each witness signed it, and we know that because the originals are still available.

But anyway, the Ripper tore open Eddowes coat, hence the buttons found by her side, he pushed up her clothes as far as he could, then cut through the items and clothes tied around her waist, pushing them up even further, and pulling open the top of her dress exposed the whole of her torso, as seen in in the in situ sketch.

How do you know the buttons didnt come from her bodice? Does it say buttons were found missing from her coat?

I have told you before that the cuts in her clothing are not consistent with your theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

But you or anyone else cannot disregard the official signed depositions even if they did not contain all the dialogue of that particular witnesses testimony. You have to accept that what is in the official signed deposition is correct, because each witness signed it, and we know that because the originals are still available.

Who is disregarding the official signed depositions ?

I have told you before that the cuts in her clothing are not consistent with your theory.

You have, but your alternative theory has no support from the evidence.
Why would all the items tied around her waist be cut through - because of random stabs ?!?

edit: Forget the button thing ;-)
the buttons on her jacket and bodice were all accounted for:
Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front

[Trevor Marriott]

Who is disregarding the official signed depositions ?

You have, but your alternative theory has no support from the evidence.
Why would all the items tied around her waist be cut through - because of random stabs ?!?

They weren't all cut through they were stabbed through and the knife drawn down and across at least several times the cuts in the clothing tell us this. If you lump all the clothes togther in a pile as you suggest you are not going to get clean cuts for a start and as you have been told before if it was as you suggest then all the items of clothing would surely have identical cuts.

edit: Forget the button thing ;-)
the buttons on her jacket and bodice were all accounted for:
Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front

Those descriptions are not what the official list shows. !!!!!!!!!! Where did you get them from, another newspaper ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk