Apron placement as intimidation?

[Trevor Marriott]

I think you are missing the point Trevor, a piece of apron was removed from her body which had a string attached. Because it takes two strings to attach the piece to the body, then clearly it had two strings - and they were tied together.
As it only takes the cutting of one of these strings, to both preserve the knot and, to loosen the piece of apron, then this piece as it was entered into evidence still had a string attached.
It's really that simple.

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.

You are yet again changing your explanation to fit what you want it to fit. In one breath you are saying the clothes were cut off including the apron, now you are just plumping for the apron.

The desperation shown in your posts to preserve the old status quo is priceless !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

I wasn't there nor were you, but if the clothes had been cut off Dr Brown would not have said they were carefully removed. Look at her clothes she was wearing very easy to remove them, no need to cut at all.

Accept it and move on !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think you are missing the point Trevor, a piece of apron was removed from her body which had a string attached. Because it takes two strings to attach the piece to the body, then clearly it had two strings - and they were tied together.
As it only takes the cutting of one of these strings, to both preserve the knot and, to loosen the piece of apron, then this piece as it was entered into evidence still had a string attached.
It's really that simple.

[Trevor Marriott]

That was not a normal body, Trevor. It was a disembowelled body with very large wounds. This made the process of taking off the clothes without destroying evidence risky and difficult.

Brown also stated the consequences of removing the body and the clothes. He did it for the purpose I have explained to you.

But then again, you should be the one explaining such things to us. You were a policeman.

Regards, Pierre

You haven't a clue do you? What evidence do you think would have been found on the body in 1888 that might have been destroyed by taking the clothes off in a careful way, as against cutting them off?

If there had have been any evidence to be found, careful would be a better way of preservation than the forceful approach you and another seem to suggest they adopted.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That was not a normal body, Trevor. It was a disembowelled body with very large wounds. This made the process of taking off the clothes without destroying evidence risky and difficult.

Brown also stated the consequences of removing the body and the clothes. He did it for the purpose I have explained to you.

But then again, you should be the one explaining such things to us. You were a policeman.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

You are wrong, Trevor.

The purpose of the post mortem examination was to determine the nature of the wounds and to generate knowledge about the wounds and make possible knowledge of the murder.

Therefore the wounds were not allowed to be affected by the procedure of taking off the clothes from the body.

Therefore the access to the wounds must be reached through the smallest possible risk in the whole procedure of taking all the clothes off.

Therefore the clothes must have been taken off carefully.

The reason why Brown mentioned this is that he wanted to make clear that the procedure of taking the clothes off did not affect the results of the post mortem.

To reach this result they may very well have made the choice to cut of clothes and part of the clothes.

Evidence could otherwise be destroyed.

You should know this, Trevor. You have been working as a policeman.

Regards, Pierre

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

The term used by Dr Brown in his officially signed inquest deposition was "the clothes were carefully taken off" If they had been cut off would he not have said so? If the apron had been cut then so would the rest of her clothes. Cut one cut all ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are wrong, Trevor.

The purpose of the post mortem examination was to determine the nature of the wounds and to generate knowledge about the wounds and make possible knowledge of the murder.

Therefore the wounds were not allowed to be affected by the procedure of taking off the clothes from the body.

Therefore the access to the wounds must be reached through the smallest possible risk in the whole procedure of taking all the clothes off.

Therefore the clothes must have been taken off carefully.

The reason why Brown mentioned this is that he wanted to make clear that the procedure of taking the clothes off did not affect the results of the post mortem.

To reach this result they may very well have made the choice to cut of clothes and part of the clothes.

Evidence could otherwise be destroyed.

You should know this, Trevor. You have been working as a policeman.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Variations include:
- The clothes were taken off carefully
- The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully.
- The clothes were carefully taken off the body.
- the clothes were carefully removed,
- The clothes were removed from the body carefully.

There's nothing there which excludes careful removal via a knife.
Why 'carefully', didn't the doctors want to damage her well-worn clothes, or maybe they didn't want to loose any organs?

I sense you are trying to avoid explaining how they could have removed her clothes intact, without loosing any internal organs, and why - when it is necessary to preserve evidence, it isn't done today.

I wasn't there nor were you, but if the clothes had been cut off Dr Brown would not have said they were carefully removed. Look at her clothes she was wearing very easy to remove them, no need to cut at all.

Accept it and move on !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Hunter]

I see nothing has changed here.

[Wickerman]

The term used by Dr Brown in his officially signed inquest deposition was "the clothes were carefully taken off" If they had been cut off would he not have said so? If the apron had been cut then so would the rest of her clothes. Cut one cut all ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Variations include:
- The clothes were taken off carefully
- The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully.
- The clothes were carefully taken off the body.
- the clothes were carefully removed,
- The clothes were removed from the body carefully.

There's nothing there which excludes careful removal via a knife.
Why 'carefully', didn't the doctors want to damage her well-worn clothes, or maybe they didn't want to loose any organs?

I sense you are trying to avoid explaining how they could have removed her clothes intact, without loosing any internal organs, and why - when it is necessary to preserve evidence, it isn't done today.

[Trevor Marriott]

After I responded to the above question, I had to wonder how would you expect a pathologist today, to remove the clothes of a victim who has their abdomen totally laid open, as with Eddowes?

Carrying her in to the mortuary on her back is fine, but how do you remove her jacket, her bodice, three skirts, a petticoat, a chemise and the mans vest?
How do you do that without turning her over, or sitting her upright, and letting all her internal organs & intestines spill out all over the floor?

The clothes are cut off, I know it, you know it, and anyone who has witnessed this procedure knows it.
So, why are you so concerned about no mention of cutting the apron off?

The term used by Dr Brown in his officially signed inquest deposition was "the clothes were carefully taken off" If they had been cut off would he not have said so? If the apron had been cut then so would the rest of her clothes. Cut one cut all ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

... As to cutting it off. No mention of that, and as stated the clothes were carefully taken off the body, so no excuse to miss anything tied around her waist, neck or even stuck up her backside.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

After I responded to the above question, I had to wonder how would you expect a pathologist today, to remove the clothes of a victim who has their abdomen totally laid open, as with Eddowes?

Carrying her in to the mortuary on her back is fine, but how do you remove her jacket, her bodice, three skirts, a petticoat, a chemise and the mans vest?
How do you do that without turning her over, or sitting her upright, and letting all her internal organs & intestines spill out all over the floor?

The clothes are cut off, I know it, you know it, and anyone who has witnessed this procedure knows it.
So, why are you so concerned about no mention of cutting the apron off?

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Its is quite simple to understand no need to conduct a major exercise.

All you need to concern yourself about is that the two pieces were matched by the seams of the borders corresponding. It matters not which piece had been repaired with a new piece that was not how the two pieces were matched,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

You have come to that conclusion by reading what Brown said, and the interpreting what he meant.

Others have done the very same and come to a different conclusion.

It is clear to anyone with a command of English, that either interpretation is possible.

To continue with this attitude that only your view is ever right is symptomatic of a closed mind.
And of course this not just true of this specific thread, but any on which you post.



Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

Its is quite simple to understand no need to conduct a major exercise.

All you need to concern yourself about is that the two pieces were matched by the seams of the borders corresponding. It matters not which piece had been repaired with a new piece that was not how the two pieces were matched,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

So what is it that you think is the evidence for the borders of two pieces of original apron matching, and not the borders of a patch beeing sewn on to the whole apron and then divided into two pieces?

Steve hypothesizes that the latter may have been the case.

Regards, Pierre

[Wickerman]

Then why wasnt it listed as such, and not listed as being in her possessions ?

As I offered before, all the underlined items appear to be clothing, and
"1 large White Handkerchief, blood stained", is among those underlined items.
Alternately, the first item not underlined is - "1 piece of white coarse linen". Either one of those items could have been the remaining portion attached to her body.
I wouldn't expect Collard to describe it as a piece of apron, it was just a bloodstained piece of cloth at that point.

As to cutting it off. No mention of that, and as stated the clothes were carefully taken off the body, so no excuse to miss anything tied around her waist, neck or even stuck up her backside.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I wouldn't try to argue that cutting the tie to remove the apron carefully did not constitute careful removal of the apron piece.

[Trevor Marriott]

QUOTE=Elamarna;401969


Hi Steve,

OK, so:

We have one new material on two apron pieces, according to your interpretation. Testing again:

"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)


Comment: the piece A had a new material B.


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

Comment: but this is not the material B. It is A and/or C!

D) The seams of

E) the borders of

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

Comment: "The two" = pieces of apron or two pieces of material? Since he is not speaking of B but A and/or C. Or is he speaking about B?

(/ i.e. the seems of the borders on the patch / material)

actually corresponding

and therefore B) is the link to the correspondence?"

Where is the key to A / B / C here and their relations?


I do not think this is very interesting, I think it is boring. But still. It seems important to those who want to refute Trevorīs hypothesis.

Best wishes, Pierre

Pierre

Its is quite simple to understand no need to conduct a major exercise.

All you need to concern yourself about is that the two pieces were matched by the seams of the borders corresponding. It matters not which piece had been repaired with a new piece that was not how the two pieces were matched,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk