Apron placement as intimidation?

[Wickerman]

.... Brown mentions the wound going up but either he is mistaken or the killer was at an angle to the body whereby he was able to do that.

No Trevor, Dr. Brown is not wrong, it is Trevor who does not know what 'incision' means.
An incision is the beginning of a cut, where the knife first enters the body.
In laymans terms, the 'stab' (incision) went upwards into the chest directly under the arch of the ribs. The knife was then dragged down......as I've been saying ad-nauseam.

As to the clothes being thrown up and the knife then being used to make the cut then, this is not a plausible explanation. The clothes were affixed around the waist so simply throwing all the clothes up would cover the sternum area and make it almost impossible for the killer to gain free access to that area and to be able to draw a knife up or down through the thrown up clothing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There's nothing implausible about it.
Yes, the upper chest/ribcage was covered - so what?
It didn't take him 2 seconds to address that problem....

[Elamarna]

It's simple, really Trevor, do you agree the "cut" you have circled and I marked with a black arrow is NOT on the body? I never thought you were trying to mislead.

Jerry

All I have asked Trevor is the same you have asked him,
I assumed when first pointed out on the 23rd of June this year that Trevor would have simply replied something like: "sorry, my mistake".


Trevor

We all make mistakes, why could you just not agree this nearly 6 months ago and avoided the continuing raising of the question?

Instead you ignored the question when asked and indeed recently in post# 247 of this thread you attempted to defend the claim twice.

Its not personal or childish, its about the integrity we all must keep if any research is to be taken seriously by the outside world.

It seems from your posts that you tacitly agreeing it was a mistake, is that so?



Steve

[Wickerman]

Jerry

All I have asked Trevor is the same you have asked him,
I assumed when first pointed out on the 23rd of June this year that Trevor would have simply replied something like: "sorry, my mistake".

It wasn't on the body when the photograph was taken, but, like the lobe of her ear, it must have fallen off at some point.

[Pierre]

Jerry

All I have asked Trevor is the same you have asked him,
I assumed when first pointed out on the 23rd of June this year that Trevor would have simply replied something like: "sorry, my mistake".

Trevor

We all make mistakes, why could you just not agree this nearly 6 months ago and avoided the continuing raising of the question?

Instead you ignored the question when asked and indeed recently in post# 247 of this thread you attempted to defend the claim twice.

Its not personal or childish, its about the integrity we all must keep if any research is to be taken seriously by the outside world.

It seems from your posts that you tacitly agreeing it was a mistake, is that so?

Steve

Well, well.

I make mistakes all the time. I do it on purpose. I ask silly questions to sources and make funny interpretations.

It is called trial and error. It is called hypothesis testing.

Without this approach we will not generate any knew knowledge.

So now the hypothesis must be that Jack the Ripper owned that photograph and made a cut in it. Great.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Well, well.

I make mistakes all the time. I do it on purpose. I ask silly questions to sources and make funny interpretations.

It is called trial and error. It is called hypothesis testing.

Without this approach we will not generate any knew knowledge.

So now the hypothesis must be that Jack the Ripper owned that photograph and made a cut in it. Great.

Pierre

Pierre, i made a big one last week in my project, and it has set me back a week, in my case i was not doing it on purpose to test, but missed one small word.
However I take your point.



The point is how one reacts is it not?

Do we admit to it?
Do we just not mention it again?

Or

Do we continue to use it when we know it is wrong?


That is all I am interested in on this actual issue.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;403004]Pierre, i made a big one last week in my project, and it has set me back a week, in my case i was not doing it on purpose to test, but missed one small word.
However I take your point.

The point is how one reacts is it not?

Do we admit to it?
Do we just not mention it again?

Or

Do we continue to use it when we know it is wrong?

Hi Steve,

Well, I see it like this: if hypotheses are disproved then there is no meaning in not accepting it. If an event wasn´t there, it wasn´t there.

What we are looking for is events inside a black box called the past.

Exclusively speculating about the contents is not history.

And if it is not history it has no historical value.

And if it has no historical value it is useless.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;403010]

Pierre, i made a big one last week in my project, and it has set me back a week, in my case i was not doing it on purpose to test, but missed one small word.
However I take your point.



Hi Steve,

Well, I see it like this: if hypotheses are disproved then there is no meaning in not accepting it. If an event wasn´t there, it wasn´t there.

What we are looking for is events inside a black box called the past.

Exclusively speculating about the contents is not history.

And if it is not history it has no historical value.

And if it has no historical value it is useless.

Regards, Pierre

Agreed in the greater part.

However when the disproved ideas are still produced, they can be misleading and confusing to those who do not have the knowledge, that’s why I feel such must be challenged.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;403013]

Agreed in the greater part.

However when the disproved ideas are still produced, they can be misleading and confusing to those who do not have the knowledge, that’s why I feel such must be challenged.

Steve

Yes, indeed. Richard Dawkins is doing the same with the God hypothesis. The problem he has, according to the believers, is that he can not disprove God.

This is not a problem with Lechmere. It is easy to disprove the hypothesis that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, since it is a well established fact that Lechmere found the victim on his way to work, went to tell a PC about it, told the PC and also went to the inquest.

Pierre

[Pierre]

It's simple, really Trevor, do you agree the "cut" you have circled and I marked with a black arrow is NOT on the body? I never thought you were trying to mislead.

Everyone can see it. Can´t Trevor see it?

Pierre

[Joshua Rogan]

What on earth are you rambling on about?

How difficult is it to slip skirts and petticoats off a body when they are affixed around the waist you simply have to raise the body up slightly and pull them down. "CAREFULLY" as Dr Brown tells us !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The bodice was buttoned down the front so no problem there either

Mortuary attendant Robert Mann from the Polly Nichols inquest;

"[Coroner] How did you get the clothes off? - Hatfield had to cut them down the front.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;401294

Trevor,

If you actually read what was posted you would see I did not rule out the possibility of her heading in the direction of Goulston street, upon her release.
I however did ask about the timing involved in proceeding back to Mitre Square for 1.30am, which you of course basically ignore,your only comment being

"and then perhaps decided against going home and decided to go back to the Mitre Sq area thus meeting her killer."


Yes maybe she did, who knows?

However there is no attempt by you to look at the timings involved, to see what is possible? and what is probable?

Go on there is plenty of data out there to help.

Hi Steve,

I was reading this thread and found this very good post of yours.

And it struck me that here we have another research question (my green) which could be analyzed from the perspective of time, with the methods you are using now.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Yes Pierre I have actually done some groundwork on it since I posted that.

I have personally walked the probably routes involved and timed them. I am looking to move on to Mitre square after Bucks Row.

I have not yet done the mapping exercise but my own walking suggested that Trevor' s hypothesis was unlikely. I will however do the mapping this weekend and see the figures it suggests.

The big issue is We do not know Eddowes actually condition, nor how fast someone would walk in whatever condition she was in. Therefore it will be real guess work.i will probably go for the average speed of 3mph to see what we get to begin.


Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Just an idea floating through my head this morning --

Perhaps the placement of the bloody apron at the exact place it was left was meant to intimidate a specific person?

I mean if you want to drop off a bloody apron an hour after a murder, then a location 5 minutes away from the scene makes little sense or is hard to understand at the best of times.

The killer also had seemingly endless potential dump sites for the apron in the area.

Just got me wondering if there was someone in the building the killer wanted to scare or send a message to.

I mean, it could well be that the apron and graffiti have been terrible red herrings all these years -- the killer used the apron for some purpose and dumped it next to some graffiti. That's actually been my default assumption for years now.

But I think it's good to go back and look again and question...

I'm assuming the police probably checked out that property very thoroughly and spoke to residents there. So who was living there?

It could be just to unsettle the Jewish tenants there, but, I can imagine a killer getting his jollies dropping such an item at the doorstep of someone he had some personal direct beef against...

Hi Charles,

The occupancy at the Model Homes off Goulston was almost 100% Jewish, and there may be a link to the International Club on Berner hidden in there. The cloth as a message, or as a sample of proof of the authors authenticity, is something Ive considered for sometime now. And an interpretation of the GSG would support that idea..." The Jewes(on Berner St at the club) are not the ones who will be blamed for nothing (no good reason)". Or they should be blamed, for good reason.

The apron section would be the proof that the killer of Mitre Square left the message, and coupled with the message, proof that he claimed to have only killed one person that night. When looking at The Lusk Letter it seems to me to have that kind of message...one woman killed by the man everyone suspects was Jack on the night Kates kidney was taken.

I tend to support Longs assertion that "It was not there" when he first passed the entrance.

[Pierre]

Yes Pierre I have actually done some groundwork on it since I posted that.

I have personally walked the probably routes involved and timed them. I am looking to move on to Mitre square after Bucks Row.

I have not yet done the mapping exercise but my own walking suggested that Trevor' s hypothesis was unlikely. I will however do the mapping this weekend and see the figures it suggests.

The big issue is We do not know Eddowes actually condition, nor how fast someone would walk in whatever condition she was in. Therefore it will be real guess work.i will probably go for the average speed of 3mph to see what we get to begin.


Steve

Hi Steve,

That is interesting. You will probably produce some new knowledge from it.

Cheers, Pierre

[c.d.]

The apron as intimidation is certainly an interesting one and one not without its merits. But if the apron placement was meant to silence a particular individual doesn't that imply that that individual knew or strongly suspected the WM's identity? That would then bring up the idea of that individual collecting a very lucrative reward for passing on that information to the police and requesting police protection. So it doesn't seem like the killer holds all the cards in this scenario and intimidation could only go so far.

c.d.