Apron placement as intimidation?

[Trevor Marriott]

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;402888

Good Trevor, now I understand what you mean!
Pierre

Pierre
Time and time again you have proved you do not have the mental capacity to understand the simplest of things.

As to your attempt at humour, a piece of advice, dont give up on your school lessons.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;402888

As to the one issue with the photo you seem to want to eliminate it could quite easily be a small cut, it is only your opinion that it is a paper issue.

Grey Petticoat 1.5 inch cut on front.

Good Trevor, now I understand what you mean!

You claim that the mark to the left on the photograph outside of the body in the photograph is a real cut by Jack the Ripper and that Jack the Ripper therefore owned the photograph and cut it.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Lets be straight about this once again, because as usual you have twisted what i have said.

Dr Brown mentions a stab to the liver he is specific about that. So that means for the liver to be stabbed the knife must have entered the body via the point of the knife now in my books that process is called a "stab".

I do not suggest that any cuts to the clothing can be matched to the stab to the liver. I did mention the stab to the liver because it does not appear to show up on any of the photographs. The reason for that could be because that stab was where the knife first entered the body through the clothing and was then drawn down. 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.

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

Trevor

At last you make an argument and it's not a bad one to a degree.
Of course it is just one of many put forward.
Like Jon Guys it meets the medical needs of the data.

Why not do that in the first place rather than ignore points.

However back to the issue, you are playing semantics here over stab. However it is good to see you amend your position as I see it.
You say you have not; so be it guess it's back to how we interpret what we write.

I see no reply to you statement I had not answered your question and of course no reply to the other issue.

Don't worry it won't go away.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Wickerman,

you are right.

I was never talking about the cuts going through the clothing, my issue was on the location of a claimed stab wound.

Trevor then raised the issue of the clothing and the separate stab he claims to the liver.

Steve

Lets be straight about this once again, because as usual you have twisted what i have said.

Dr Brown mentions a stab to the liver he is specific about that. So that means for the liver to be stabbed the knife must have entered the body via the point of the knife now in my books that process is called a "stab".

I do not suggest that any cuts to the clothing can be matched to the stab to the liver. I did mention the stab to the liver because it does not appear to show up on any of the photographs. The reason for that could be because that stab was where the knife first entered the body through the clothing and was then drawn down. 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.

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

[Elamarna]

It isn't easy to follow the point of this argument.

The cuts in her skirts do indicate he cut through her clothing, but her skirts were upside down. Eddowes didn't appear to be wearing underclothes so once her skirts were lifted, and thrown over her chest, as sketched by Foster, then her abdomen & pubic area was exposed.

The knife was apparently thrust into her chest (at the enciform cartilage), through the upturned skirt(s), then dragged down towards the abdomen, which resulted in a 10"? long cut in her skirt(s), and dividing the waist band(s), and then continued across the exposed abdomen to the pubes.

If that is what is being debated here then, yes, this seems to be the case.
But, this is the traditional view, isn't it?, and I was under the impression that Trevor rejects the traditional view.
So, I'm not altogether sure what the plot is in debating these details.

Wickerman,

you are right.

I was never talking about the cuts going through the clothing, my issue was on the location of a claimed stab wound.

Trevor then raised the issue of the clothing and the separate stab he claims to the liver.

Steve

[Wickerman]

The fact remains that you are talking about stabs through the clothing, while the clothing shows cuts; not stabs.

It is a fact that there are wounds to the abdomen and cuts to the clothing which would indicate that the killer first stuck the knife into the victim and then drew it down or across thus making the cuts as described.

You proposal in essences is that the killer cut through the clothing, not being able to see what was doing.

That is not my proposal at all. If the killer inflicted wounds to the body through the clothing first, then that is the explantion for the above. To do that he would have to stab the victim first to be able to get sufficient leverage to draw the knife down or across.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It isn't easy to follow the point of this argument.

The cuts in her skirts do indicate he cut through her clothing, but her skirts were upside down. Eddowes didn't appear to be wearing underclothes so once her skirts were lifted, and thrown over her chest, as sketched by Foster, then her abdomen & pubic area was exposed.

The knife was apparently thrust into her chest (at the enciform cartilage), through the upturned skirt(s), then dragged down towards the abdomen, which resulted in a 10"? long cut in her skirt(s), and dividing the waist band(s), and then continued across the exposed abdomen to the pubes.

If that is what is being debated here then, yes, this seems to be the case.
But, this is the traditional view, isn't it?, and I was under the impression that Trevor rejects the traditional view.
So, I'm not altogether sure what the plot is in debating these details.

[Elamarna]

Delusional ?

Pardon?

Where does that come from?


I guess just more insults because one cannot debate.

You asked:

"Do you accept that the cuts as described by Collard in her clothing were as a direct result of her being stabbed through her outer clothing ? "



I replied:

"The cuts to the clothing, are just that, cuts. They are by no stretch of the imagination stabs."

That means I disagree with your view as they are not stabs in the clothing.

Do I really need to teach English Comprehension?

No but someone needs to teach you not to be so arrogant and supercilious

Certainly not you Mr Marriot, you appear not to have the qualifications, in history ,science or Good manners.


Arrogant and supercilious? not for me to say.



However as for the above issue, it seems clear that either you did not realize I had given a reply, which does call comprehension into question or you did not get the response you wanted?

Whichever it was, my answer was clear, so its tough

To claim I had not answered was not truthful was it?

It is a fact that there are wounds to the abdomen and cuts to the clothing which would indicate that the killer first stuck the knife into the victim and then drew it down or across thus making the cuts as described.[/B]


that is your opinion, others do not agree.


You proposal in essences is that the killer cut through the clothing, not being able to see what was doing.

That is not my proposal at all. If the killer inflicted wounds to the body through the clothing first, then that is the explantion for the above. To do that he would have to stab the victim first to be able to get sufficient leverage to draw the knife down or across.

But in that case he cannot see what he is doing can he?
And after cutting he must then lift the clothing to complete his work.

Your Suggestion does raise issues, but the above points appear counter that to a great degree.

Of course you need this to support your organ removal theory. Really very transparent.

No I dont need this to support that at all. This issue has nothing to do with that so please stay on track.

Actually the theory is desperate for any reliable support, there is none!

Sorry Trevor, it is clear to me that it related.

It is not for you to say what is on track and what is not, we are currently talking about the cuts and attack on Eddowes, which actually is somewhat off topic in itself.

Wonder who took it here?

Yet you have nothing to back these views other, than I assume sincere, personal belief and opinion.

What views are we talking about. I dont know, and it seems you dont either, again you are arguing for the sake of arguing, a sad trait with you on here.

Which views?

Well let me see, the ones churned out over and over again, with little or no support:

The the Apron, what this thread is meant to be about, but which has been highjacked.

Organ removal:

Light levels in Mitre Square;

You know all the "new" theories someone puts forward.


No it is not sad to argue against material that is either the result of faulty or incomplete research or which is just disingenuous.

Your repeated views sadly demonstrate little actual knowledge of Medicine or Natural Science.

That is right, that is why I used experts who do have that knowledge.

As I tell all one needs more than a single expert, of course it also helps if one knows a little of what one claims as fact,

You are of course fully entitled to present your interpretation of the data, however while it retains the same faults it will be challenged time and time again.

What faults are there in the above suggestion? If you are suggesting that the killer made the cuts to the clothing in a careful manner as described by Collard without penetrating the skin, then you are deluded. [/B]

You are arguing and have been for a long time, that there is a distinct individual stab to the liver and that this stab goes through the clothing and the body wall.


Lets look at that:


1. The Liver does have a stab wound.

2. There are indeed cuts to the clothing which could allow for a stab to the liver as you describe.

3. There is however no distinct individual stab wound to the corresponding area of the body( that is corresponding to the position of the Liver)


I have asked you at least twice to explain this apparent anomaly

Jon Guy has offered an opinion, which is sound from a medical point of view and which fits the medical data.

You have not attempted to give any explanation.



And of course just as you were informed, your claim that a mark on the photo is a stab, when it is clearly not on the body, as not been corrected and so this is raised again.

Such a denial of the basic readily available data/sources calls both the reliability and validity of other research and opinions into question.



Have a good evening




Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Delusional ?

[QUOTE=Elamarna;402930]

You asked:

"Do you accept that the cuts as described by Collard in her clothing were as a direct result of her being stabbed through her outer clothing ? "



I replied:

"The cuts to the clothing, are just that, cuts. They are by no stretch of the imagination stabs."

That means I disagree with your view as they are not stabs in the clothing.

Do I really need to teach English Comprehension?

No but someone needs to teach you not to be so arrogant and supercilious

The fact remains that you are talking about stabs through the clothing, while the clothing shows cuts; not stabs.

It is a fact that there are wounds to the abdomen and cuts to the clothing which would indicate that the killer first stuck the knife into the victim and then drew it down or across thus making the cuts as described.

You proposal in essences is that the killer cut through the clothing, not being able to see what was doing.

That is not my proposal at all. If the killer inflicted wounds to the body through the clothing first, then that is the explantion for the above. To do that he would have to stab the victim first to be able to get sufficient leverage to draw the knife down or across.

Of course you need this to support your organ removal theory. Really very transparent.

No I dont need this to support that at all. This issue has nothing to do with that so please stay on track.

Yet you have nothing to back these views other, than I assume sincere, personal belief and opinion.

What views are we talking about. I dont know, and it seems you dont either, again you are arguing for the sake of arguing, a sad trait with you on here.

Your repeated views sadly demonstrate little actual knowledge of Medicine or Natural Science.

That is right, that is why I used experts who do have that knowledge.

You are of course fully entitled to present your interpretation of the data, however while it retains the same faults it will be challenged time and time again.

What faults are there in the above suggestion? If you are suggesting that the killer made the cuts to the clothing in a careful manner as described by Collard without penetrating the skin, then you are deluded. [/B] /QUOTE]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

I have no intention of ignoring you

I notice you didn't answer my question !

I mentioned in a previous post that it would be near on impossible for the killer to have made those cuts to the clothing without penetrating the skin. The fact that the cuts in the clothing were bloodstained is testimony to that fact.

As to stabbing, and cuts to clothing, for the cuts and wounds referred to, to have been made the killer would have to have first stabbed her and then drawn the knife down or across as i have suggested from day one and is corroborated by the cuts as described by collard.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

When I saw the copy of the photograph published here by Steve, I immediately saw that the "cut" (which is no cut) to the left on the photo was outside of the body in the photo. Are you actually not capable of seing it? Look again and tell me if you can see it!

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

I have no intention of ignoring you

Well that is certainly news because you ignore everything which means you have to give an answer which does not match your theories.

Good if you really mean it

I notice you didn't answer my question !

Pardon Trevor, I certainly did, can you not read?

You asked:


"Do you accept that the cuts as described by Collard in her clothing were as a direct result of her being stabbed through her outer clothing ? "



I replied:

"The cuts to the clothing, are just that, cuts. They are by no stretch of the imagination stabs."



That means I disagree with your view as they are not stabs in the clothing.

Do I really need to teach English Comprehension?




Why would one be anxious?, I have no agenda, I am not producing theories for other than historical reasons.

Some of us want this research to progress scientifically, not in a form that will be ridiculed.

I mentioned in a previous post that it would be near on impossible for the killer to have made those cuts to the clothing without penetrating the skin. The fact that the cuts in the clothing were bloodstained is testimony to that fact.

Yes of course, but there is no corresponding wound for a distinct individual stab to the liver on the body, as you claim, is there?

Explain that please?

Of course I asked that in my last post, YOU have so far ignored that point, not only that, but claims have then made that I am not answering your questions, to distract one assumes from the failure to answer yourself.

Of course if you just "forgot" I apologize for the suggestion, but then give an answer please?

As to stabbing, and cuts to clothing, for the cuts and wounds referred to, to have been made the killer would have to have first stabbed her and then drawn the knife down or across as i have suggested from day one and is corroborated by the cuts as described by collard.

At last we finally arrive at your viewpoint.

The fact remains that you are talking about stabs through the clothing, while the clothing shows cuts; not stabs.

yes your view is possible, almost anything is; but you are very far from making that probably.

You proposal in essences is that the killer cut through the clothing, not being able to see what was doing.

Of course you need this to support your organ removal theory. Really very transparent.

Yet you have nothing to back these views other, than I assume sincere, personal belief and opinion.

Your repeated views sadly demonstrate little actual knowledge of Medicine or Natural Science.

You are of course fully entitled to present your interpretation of the data, however while it retains the same faults it will be challenged time and time again


And of course it is still beyond you to say: "sorry my view of that particular mark was wrong", so very sad.

Note Trevor, that I have the good manners to address you by name, and do not insult for the sake of it, or seek to belittle you, there is no need to!
All who look here can see and judge.


yours



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Firstly it will not conclude the issue because you refuse to acknowledge that on a photo you posted and on which you highlighted and claimed as stabs a selection of wounds and marks; One of these was clear not a wound to the body!.

Until such time as you show some humility and say "that particular mark was a mistake" the subject is not concluded.


However unlike some I answer questions when ask , its the polite thing to do. and I say thank you too!!


The cuts to the clothing, are just that, cuts. They are by no stretch of the imagination stabs.


Answer here, or ignore like normal, makes no difference.

The questioning will continue until a relevant and reasonable response is given.


All the best


Steve

I have no intention of ignoring you

I notice you didn't answer my question !

I mentioned in a previous post that it would be near on impossible for the killer to have made those cuts to the clothing without penetrating the skin. The fact that the cuts in the clothing were bloodstained is testimony to that fact.

As to stabbing, and cuts to clothing, for the cuts and wounds referred to, to have been made the killer would have to have first stabbed her and then drawn the knife down or across as i have suggested from day one and is corroborated by the cuts as described by collard.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

No, your post to Trevor was clear, Steve.
I just needed to get in my point about how the damage to the liver occurred, and Trevor won`t play with me anymore :-(
I may still be wrong about how the liver was stabbed and sliced, but I really don`t mind being corrected.

Jon,

no problem.

I just wish some would say "yes made an honest mistake" rather than carry on defending that which cannot be defended.

Your view seems perfectly sensible from the medical evidence, yes you may be wrong, but it will need some real evidence to convince that is the case.



Steve

[Jon Guy]

.Maybe I could have worded my post better.

No, your post to Trevor was clear, Steve.
I just needed to get in my point about how the damage to the liver occurred, and Trevor won`t play with me anymore :-(
I may still be wrong about how the liver was stabbed and sliced, but I really don`t mind being corrected.

[Elamarna]

In concluding let me ask you one question, which should bring this issue of the cuts and the wounds to a close.

Do you accept that the cuts as described by Collard in her clothing were as a direct result of her being stabbed through her outer clothing ?

Firstly it will not conclude the issue because you refuse to acknowledge that on a photo you posted and on which you highlighted and claimed as stabs a selection of wounds and marks; One of these was clear not a wound to the body!.

Until such time as you show some humility and say "that particular mark was a mistake" the subject is not concluded.


However unlike some I answer questions when ask , its the polite thing to do. and I say thank you too!!


The cuts to the clothing, are just that, cuts. They are by no stretch of the imagination stabs.


Answer here, or ignore like normal, makes no difference.

The questioning will continue until a relevant and reasonable response is given.


All the best


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

The liver was stabbed, but this was done as the knife was inserted and drawn down from the breast bone down to the pubes, as Dr Brown noted at the p.m.

We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.

Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut.

Yes Jon, it seems clear from the medical evidence, that the damage to the liver was due to the other cut, it was collateral damage, not a distinct separate wound.



I was just trying to make the point there is on obvious individual stab wound which would be te case, if this was done by stabling through her clothing.Maybe I could have worded my post better.

This is something Trevor highlighted himself in a post yesterday.

I find his response to the issue regarding the mark not on te photo you published to be truly incredulous.


Steve