Apron placement as intimidation?

[Trevor Marriott]

I did consider that too Jon, but if the killer cut the tie, wouldn't the piece have fallen off?
Thats why I opted for Dr. Brown, besides the piece of apron was mentioned in the press so it must have still been attached to the body somehow when it arrived at the mortuary.

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

[Elamarna]

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 Trevor´s hypothesis.

Best wishes, Pierre

Pierre

Of course it is boring, much research and analysis is very boring.

And surely Trevor is the one who needs to refute the accepted hypothesis, this is purely meant to show that he has not achieved that yet, and unless he presents new data and arguments, he is unlikely to in the future.


Steve

[Wickerman]

and not the killer, who also cut through everything else tied around her waist ?

I did consider that too Jon, but if the killer cut the tie, wouldn't the piece have fallen off?
Thats why I opted for Dr. Brown, besides the piece of apron was mentioned in the press so it must have still been attached to the body somehow when it arrived at the mortuary.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;401969

That to me suggests he is matching the new material on the two apron pieces, not the original seams.

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 Trevor´s hypothesis.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Jon Guy]

I
I'm suggesting that Dr. Brown cut the string to remove the article during the autopsy. In consequence the piece of apron entered into evidence had a string attached.

and not the killer, who also cut through everything else tied around her waist ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Actully Trevor, I think the description of the cuts tend to confirm what I say.



The bodice likely carries evidence of the initial cut to the sternum, just left of center, 5 inches long, from R - L. The cut is downwards, so R - L must mean diagonally. It does not mean horizontal.
It's just that the cut was not vertical, but slightly diagonal from R - L.

The chintz skirt also had a cut of similar length, and just left of center.
Chintz is the same fabric as the apron - calico, only with a flowery pattern.



Then the green alpaca skirt and the blue skirt both had similar cuts. They were probably cut together with the same sweep of the knife.

The reason the cuts in those two skirts are longer is because they were lower down on her waist than the bodice and the chintz skirt.

How could they be lower down on her waist, that doesnt make sense she was wearing clothes which were all affixed around her waist and all would have the same cuts to the clothing on the premise "stab one piece of clothing, stab all"

I think you will find that if all the clothes were pulled up as you suggest and then a knifed plunged in and drawn up or down, or across, you would not get clean cuts to the clothing, and would not be in line with each other. The two skirts had downward cuts of 10 ins each from waistband. and the bodice and chintz skirt had cuts going across. But as stated they all never had the same cuts.

So that to me indicates two separate stab wounds. Dr Brown even mentions stab injuries caused by the knife.

I am sorry but I disagree with you with regards to the angle of cuts to the clothing and say that the cuts to the clothing represent where she was stabbed through her clothing at the onset

The final point is that had she been wearing an apron the mortuary piece or the Gs piece would as likely as not shown some signs of it being stabbed through either downwards or across in line with the other items of clothing

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

I agree that Dr Brown is describing the initial thrust of the knife, with the cut subsequently made downward, but does the fact that the enciform cartilage is divided indicate that the knife was double-edged, at least at the point?

I think Steve is correct, the description as brief as it is does not help us determine whether the blade was single or double-edged.

[Elamarna]

I agree that Dr Brown is describing the initial thrust of the knife, with the cut subsequently made downward, but does the fact that the enciform cartilage is divided indicate that the knife was double-edged, at least at the point?

HI Joshua

not sure it does, if the cut goes deep enough and with sufficient power applied it will divide the cartilage anyway, a double edge would make it easier that is certain, but not essential in my view, others may disagree.

Where is a surgeon when you need one I ask?

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Correct.
What you initially described was the thrust of the knife...
Ie: - The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage.

The above is the "upwards incision", this was the top of the abdominal mutilation.

Picture yourself giving someone an uppercut punch to the ribs, only in this case you have a knife in your fist.
Then, you pull the knife downwards, all the way to the pubic area.
That is what was done to Eddowes.

The "incision" was upwards, but the abdominal cut was then downwards.

I agree that Dr Brown is describing the initial thrust of the knife, with the cut subsequently made downward, but does the fact that the enciform cartilage is divided indicate that the knife was double-edged, at least at the point?

[Wickerman]

But look at the angle of cuts as described in the clothing they dont tie up with what you are suggesting

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front,

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

So what did the killer do after he had pulled up the outer clothing and carried out the stabbings ? In fact your scenario tends to point to the fact that the only motives were murder and mutilation !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Actully Trevor, I think the description of the cuts tend to confirm what I say.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

The bodice likely carries evidence of the initial cut to the sternum, just left of center, 5 inches long, from R - L. The cut is downwards, so R - L must mean diagonally. It does not mean horizontal.
It's just that the cut was not vertical, but slightly diagonal from R - L.

The chintz skirt also had a cut of similar length, and just left of center.
Chintz is the same fabric as the apron - calico, only with a flowery pattern.

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front,

Then the green alpaca skirt and the blue skirt both had similar cuts. They were probably cut together with the same sweep of the knife.

The reason the cuts in those two skirts are longer is because they were lower down on her waist than the bodice and the chintz skirt.

[Wickerman]

But you are saying Dr Brown cut the apron when he did the post mortem, which is not correct. Any cutting as you refer to it would have been done at the time the body was stripped.

No, no. Dr. Brown removed all the clothes, yes?
That's his duty, as a pre-requisit to a post-mortem. It doesn't matter if there is any time between the two functions - thats irrelevant.

Irrespective of whether the apron was cut or not, there is still no conclusive evidence to show that when the body was stripped she was wearing an apron.

Oh, c'mon Trevor, almost everyone with a pulse has been telling you there is sufficient evidence she was wearing an apron. There's only you who refuses to accept it.

If it were cut they would have remembered that it was cut and listed it as clothing.

I think that is what the underlines in the list was intended to signify.
All the latter items down to the ball of hemp are not underlined, so they are just contents, not articles of clothing.
I can't think of any other reason to explain the underlining of some items, but not others.

There is no evidence to show that any clothing was cut in an attempt to remove it, as Dr Brown says clothing "carefully removed"

What evidence would you expect to see?
"Carefully removed", can just as easily imply cutting the string so as not to disturb the knot.
You can always remove coats & clothing "carefully" without disturbing evidence, but you cannot remove anything tied to the body without untying the knot or bow. So you really need to cut the string to preserve evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why?
The knife cut's into the upturned skirt, then is sliced down, through the waist band and continues to the pubic area, but there are no clothes covering that lower abdomen/pubes.

But look at the angle of cuts as described in the clothing they dont tie up with what you are suggesting

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front,

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

So what did the killer do after he had pulled up the outer clothing and carried out the stabbings ? In fact your scenario tends to point to the fact that the only motives were murder and mutilation !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

To my knowledge the Enciform Cartilage, or Xiphoid Process as it is now referred to as, is at the apex of the sternum. The quote "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."

I don't see how that translates to a downward cut Jon.

Correct.
What you initially described was the thrust of the knife...
Ie: - The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage.

The above is the "upwards incision", this was the top of the abdominal mutilation.

Picture yourself giving someone an uppercut punch to the ribs, only in this case you have a knife in your fist.
Then, you pull the knife downwards, all the way to the pubic area.
That is what was done to Eddowes.

The "incision" was upwards, but the abdominal cut was then downwards.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not sure what you mean by that.
The undressing is a requirement prior to the autopsy. Anything tied to the body is cut loose, not untied. It doesn't matter how much time passes between the undressing and the autopsy.

But you are saying Dr Brown cut the apron when he did the post mortem, which is not correct. Any cutting as you refer to it would have been done at the time the body was stripped.

Irrespective of whether the apron was cut or not, there is still no conclusive evidence to show that when the body was stripped she was wearing an apron. If it were cut they would have remembered that it was cut and listed it as clothing. The clothing was taken off carefully starting at the top and working there way down.

There is no evidence to show that any clothing was cut in an attempt to remove it, as Dr Brown says clothing "carefully removed"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

If that had been the case the majority of the wounds would all be at the top part of her body and not on the lower abdominal area surely ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why?
The knife cut's into the upturned skirt, then is sliced down, through the waist band and continues to the pubic area, but there are no clothes covering that lower abdomen/pubes.