Apron placement as intimidation?

[Jon Guy]

Jon,

It is unlikely you will get any response to this point, I have been pointing out Trevor since June when he posted the below.



He has never responded to this, not to even to defend his position, however despite this Trevor continues to post view.



Steve

Thanks for that, Steve.
Have you seen a cleaner version of this photo without the stab wounds ?

[Elamarna]

Have you tried a cleaner picture of Eddowes.
Some of your "wounds" are just marks on a dirty copy of a photo

Jon,

It is unlikely you will get any response to this point, I have been pointing out Trevor since June when he posted the below.



He has never responded to this, not to even to defend his position, however despite this Trevor continues to post view.



Steve

[Jon Guy]

Collards role was to document or oversee the documenting of the clothing, and because it was known at that time that the victim had been stabbed and mutilated he was obliged to note down the cuts in the clothing relevant to the aforementioned. There is no way at that time he could have determined how or what caused the cuts in the clothing, so they were simply described as cuts.

.. and not just because they were simply cut ?

You`re missing the point, Trevor, and my theory is totally logical because:
1. We know the killer wanted access to the torso
2. The items tied around her waist prevented access to the torso
3. the items around her waist were described as cut through

As has been said before the "cuts" in the clothing are a good match the "stab" wounds on the body and those described by Brown at the post mortem

Have you tried a cleaner picture of Eddowes.
Some of your "wounds" are just marks on a dirty copy of a photo

Your suggestion is illogical but you cant see it. If all the clothes were lifted up above, or around the abdomen and then the killer stabbed her through that clothing, where are the wounds around the waist area to corroborate that? The majority of wounds were around the lower abdominal area from the waist down.

Please stop saying stabbed through her clothing, or at least stop attributing it to me. The items were cut not stabbed.

The killer bunched up the clothing together, as they would not rise any further (once again.. due to the things tied around her waist) and cut through the lot.

Was it simply fortuitous that the killer cut through all the items tied around her waist with random stabs ?

There is no reason to simply make a series of cuts to the clothing, all of different lengths and all going of in different directions,

Exactly, there is no reason but if the clothing is bunched up and pulled about when it`s cut through with one or two sweeps of the knife, then yes !!!

[Fisherman]

On a par with your Lechmere theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Isnīt it "on par with"? Iīve never seen "on a par with" before.

[Trevor Marriott]

"Your suggestion is illogical but you cant see it."

Trevor Marriott, Casebook, 2016-12-08

On a par with your Lechmere theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

"Your suggestion is illogical but you cant see it."

Trevor Marriott, Casebook, 2016-12-08

[Trevor Marriott]

Which word did Collard use. Was it cut or stab ?

Collards role was to document or oversee the documenting of the clothing, and because it was known at that time that the victim had been stabbed and mutilated he was obliged to note down the cuts in the clothing relevant to the aforementioned. There is no way at that time he could have determined how or what caused the cuts in the clothing, so they were simply described as cuts.

As has been said before the "cuts" in the clothing are a good match the "stab" wounds on the body and those described by Brown at the post mortem

Your suggestion is illogical but you cant see it. If all the clothes were lifted up above, or around the abdomen and then the killer stabbed her through that clothing, where are the wounds around the waist area to corroborate that? The majority of wounds were around the lower abdominal area from the waist down.

There is no reason to simply make a series of cuts to the clothing, all of different lengths and all going of in different directions, unless you are the killer and stabbing a victim in a frenzy drawing the knife downwards and across which is what the cuts indicate the killer did and not as you suggest cut the clothing to access the abdomen.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

They weren't all cut through they were stabbed through

Which word did Collard use. Was it cut or stab ?

[Jon Guy]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

YES !!! .and do you notice the extra info they furnished about the buttons ?

[Joshua Rogan]

Three of the buttons were boot buttons according to Collard, the other was a small metal button.

[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 ?

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 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.

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]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk