Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apron placement as intimidation?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    I have put forward enough to suggest that the old accepted theory is not conclusive, and that there are other alternatives to be considered. That is fact, whether you accept it or not, it is not going to change.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    If you think that so be it.


    steve

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      I have put forward enough to suggest that the old accepted theory is not conclusive, and that there are other alternatives to be considered. That is fact, whether you accept it or not, it is not going to change.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Hi Trevor,

      you are speaking a lot about the apron but you do not discuss the fact that it was an apron. Why not?

      Regards, Pierre

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
        Hi Trevor,

        you are speaking a lot about the apron but you do not discuss the fact that it was an apron. Why not?

        Regards, Pierre
        Pierre

        The old accepted theory is that she was wearing an apron at the time of her murder, and that it was the killer who cut or tore a piece, depositing that piece in Goulston Street.

        That theory may not be as watertight as some believe it to be. The GS and the mortuary pieces have always been described as pieces. There is no mention of anyone matching those two pieces to make a full apron. In fact we know that one of the pieces had a string attached, but there is no mention of the second piece having a string attached.

        So an important question is if she was wearing an apron what happened to the piece of the apron with the second string attached. You cant tie an apron with just one string. If there had been a string on the second piece, I would have expected it to have been mentioned in the process of identification.

        So it is not unreasonable to suggest that she in fact was not wearing an apron, and at some time prior to her death she was in possession of two old pieces of an apron which at some point in time had come from a full apron, one of which found its way to GS either by the killer taking it, or she deposited it herself.

        The flaws in the evidence which points to her wearing an apron have been highlighted many times on here, thus making the old accpted theory less than watertight.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          The GS and the mortuary pieces have always been described as pieces. There is no mention of anyone matching those two pieces to make a full apron.
          There are a number of reports of the two pieces been matched.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
            There are a number of reports of the two pieces been matched.
            Yes by the seams, but none that state the two pieces made up a full apron.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              Yes by the seams, but none that state the two pieces made up a full apron.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Doesn´t that go without saying? One portion was still on the body when found, and the other was dropped off in Goulston Street.

              If there had been other portions missing, would we not know? And, not least, who took them? The killer? Did he cut away four or five pieces, out of which all but one are still missing and not accounted for?

              What is the logical solution to this, Trevor?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                Doesn´t that go without saying? One portion was still on the body when found, and the other was dropped off in Goulston Street.

                If there had been other portions missing, would we not know? And, not least, who took them? The killer? Did he cut away four or five pieces, out of which all but one are still missing and not accounted for?

                What is the logical solution to this, Trevor?
                The logical solution is quite clear

                We know there were only two pieces of apron. If the mortuary piece was still tied around the body it would have been listed amongst the clothing, because it would have had to have been removed before any of the other clothing came off, and then there would be no mention of a single string.

                The two pieces were matched by the seams that means the two pieces had to have come from the same side of the apron

                Had the apron been sliced straight down the middle as you have suggested in the past then the GS piece would have the other string attached and identification of the two pieces coming from the same piece made even more easier.

                Furthermore just think of the sizes of both pieces if it had been cut down the middle. The mortuary piece could hardly have been missed, and then listed later as an afterthought on the possession list as some suggest.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #23
                  Trevor Marriott: The logical solution is quite clear

                  Indeed it is.

                  We know there were only two pieces of apron.

                  It seems to me you led on a different story?

                  If the mortuary piece was still tied around the body it would have been listed amongst the clothing, because it would have had to have been removed before any of the other clothing came off, and then there would be no mention of a single string.

                  We cannot know if there was just the one string. Some reports say strings. And since the apron was on her body, strings make more sense.

                  The two pieces were matched by the seams that means the two pieces had to have come from the same side of the apron

                  No, it does not. It only means that no matter HOW the apron was parted in two, the two parts did fit together when tested.

                  Had the apron been sliced straight down the middle as you have suggested in the past then the GS piece would have the other string attached and identification of the two pieces coming from the same piece made even more easier.

                  When did I suggest that, Trevor? The apron was likely cut in an uppar and a lower portion. He pulled at the bottom part, and cut straight through the middle. You will find that is the likeliest way to cut, since you must pull hard on the cloth before you can cut it. Marrying yourself to the idea that the inquest clerk must have been right about the one string is silly, since it seems he could not hear the word "portion", mistaking it for "corner".

                  Furthermore just think of the sizes of both pieces if it had been cut down the middle. The mortuary piece could hardly have been missed, and then listed later as an afterthought on the possession list as some suggest.

                  It wasn´t missed, it was on her person. But not cut down the middle, which would have been hard to do.
                  That is the logical solution, Trevor.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Trevor
                    The mortuary piece could hardly have been missed, and then listed later as an afterthought on the possession list as some suggest.
                    As Christer states, it was not missed.
                    Halse noted it was missing before he heard about the GSG rag

                    Halse: I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street.
                    Last edited by Jon Guy; 11-25-2016, 05:24 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Trevor Marriott: The logical solution is quite clear

                      Indeed it is.

                      We know there were only two pieces of apron.

                      It seems to me you led on a different story?

                      If the mortuary piece was still tied around the body it would have been listed amongst the clothing, because it would have had to have been removed before any of the other clothing came off, and then there would be no mention of a single string.

                      We cannot know if there was just the one string. Some reports say strings. And since the apron was on her body, strings make more sense.

                      The two pieces were matched by the seams that means the two pieces had to have come from the same side of the apron

                      No, it does not. It only means that no matter HOW the apron was parted in two, the two parts did fit together when tested.

                      Had the apron been sliced straight down the middle as you have suggested in the past then the GS piece would have the other string attached and identification of the two pieces coming from the same piece made even more easier.

                      When did I suggest that, Trevor? The apron was likely cut in an uppar and a lower portion. He pulled at the bottom part, and cut straight through the middle. You will find that is the likeliest way to cut, since you must pull hard on the cloth before you can cut it. Marrying yourself to the idea that the inquest clerk must have been right about the one string is silly, since it seems he could not hear the word "portion", mistaking it for "corner".

                      Furthermore just think of the sizes of both pieces if it had been cut down the middle. The mortuary piece could hardly have been missed, and then listed later as an afterthought on the possession list as some suggest.

                      It wasn´t missed, it was on her person. But not cut down the middle, which would have been hard to do.
                      That is the logical solution, Trevor.

                      Trevor

                      Once again, you repeat this viewpoint as if it is established fact.

                      To do so, is to blatantly attempt to mislead others, give it as a theory no problem.


                      However the truth is that at the inquest Dr Brown does not say what you wish he says, he talks about the portion of the Apron his attention was drawn to because it had blood on it.

                      He does not say only a corner remains, that is how you wish to read what is written, no more.

                      You seem to have a reoccurring issue with comprehension, as exposed in the "heartless" thread,
                      you still fail to answer any questions you are asked, when the answer cannot be manipulated to fit certain ideas.

                      The last reply said go and buy my books, a pointless exercise on several fronts, the most obvious being that the issues discussed where "discovered" by you 2 weeks ago and so could not be in your Books.

                      It is really very sad.



                      Steve

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Trevor,

                        .. and another

                        Halse: "I saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing"

                        Daily Mail Oct 12th

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Had the apron been sliced straight down the middle as you have suggested in the past then the GS piece would have the other string attached and identification of the two pieces coming from the same piece made even more easier.

                          When did I suggest that, Trevor? The apron was likely cut in an uppar and a lower portion. He pulled at the bottom part, and cut straight through the middle. You will find that is the likeliest way to cut, since you must pull hard on the cloth before you can cut it. Marrying yourself to the idea that the inquest clerk must have been right about the one string is silly, since it seems he could not hear the word "portion", mistaking it for "corner".
                          I believe it may have been me who once suggested the apron was cut down the middle, in an attempt to make it fit all the known details.
                          It seems the easiest way to start a cut - just slip the knife under the waistband and slice. You wouldn't even need to use the other hand to pull the cloth taut, the strings would provide the tension. Then just cut one string free and you have one piece of apron to wipe your hands/knife/organ on, and another still "attached" to the body with a single string in one corner. This would also mean that the apron remaining with the body would be likely to have become separated during the move to the mortuary, thus leading to it being listed as a possession rather than an item of clothing. Also, didn't her other skirts have a similar cut to the waistbands?

                          That said, it was only a suggestion. And the only press description I've found describes the apron as being cut into upper and lower parts, so probably not a correct one.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            Pierre

                            The old accepted theory is that she was wearing an apron at the time of her murder, and that it was the killer who cut or tore a piece, depositing that piece in Goulston Street.

                            That theory may not be as watertight as some believe it to be. The GS and the mortuary pieces have always been described as pieces. There is no mention of anyone matching those two pieces to make a full apron. In fact we know that one of the pieces had a string attached, but there is no mention of the second piece having a string attached.

                            So an important question is if she was wearing an apron what happened to the piece of the apron with the second string attached. You cant tie an apron with just one string. If there had been a string on the second piece, I would have expected it to have been mentioned in the process of identification.

                            So it is not unreasonable to suggest that she in fact was not wearing an apron, and at some time prior to her death she was in possession of two old pieces of an apron which at some point in time had come from a full apron, one of which found its way to GS either by the killer taking it, or she deposited it herself.

                            The flaws in the evidence which points to her wearing an apron have been highlighted many times on here, thus making the old accpted theory less than watertight.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            I am all for questioning "certainties" within these cases that are anything but certain, but when you waste everyones time...like another poster here...questioning what has been adequately addressed in the historical records, I can onloy ask that you provide proof of your statements or please stop making them.

                            From Dr Brown...."My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street."

                            What is unclear here is why you consistently make up scenarios...like no missing organs onsite...and expect the people who, many of which, are far more informed in the facts as they exist than you are.

                            These forums have become a place to discuss ideas coming from the lunatic fringe.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                              Trevor

                              Once again, you repeat this viewpoint as if it is established fact.

                              To do so, is to blatantly attempt to mislead others, give it as a theory no problem.


                              However the truth is that at the inquest Dr Brown does not say what you wish he says, he talks about the portion of the Apron his attention was drawn to because it had blood on it.

                              He does not say only a corner remains, that is how you wish to read what is written, no more.

                              You seem to have a reoccurring issue with comprehension, as exposed in the "heartless" thread,
                              you still fail to answer any questions you are asked, when the answer cannot be manipulated to fit certain ideas.

                              The last reply said go and buy my books, a pointless exercise on several fronts, the most obvious being that the issues discussed where "discovered" by you 2 weeks ago and so could not be in your Books.

                              It is really very sad.



                              Steve
                              If you are going to take the time to reply please stick to the issues being discussed.

                              The fact is, that there were only two pieces of apron that were matched by the seams so that as previously stated could only have been top left, bottom left or top right bottom right, meaning two quarters of a potentially four quarter apron.So perhaps you would care to tell us what happened to the rest of the apron if she was wearing one?

                              If the killer cut across horizontally the rest of the apron would still be attached to the body and would have been noted when the body was stripped because the other clothing could not have been removed until the apron was.

                              If he cut down vertically from the waistband a string would be on the GS piece and noted as such.

                              The apron or any piece of the apron was not listed as clothing she was wearing that is from an official document.

                              Dr Browns official inquest testimony "it was the corner of he apron with a string attached" primary evidence !

                              Staying with official documents Dc Halse says that he saw a piece of the apron was missing. He doesn't say she was wearing the apron and he was with Collard presumably when the list was made up, unless of course the list was complied by the mortuary keeper before there arrival, and thats why he says he saw the body stripped, it had already been stripped and the lists made up by the mortuary keeper which I have to think is a strong possibilty

                              Collards official inquest testimony he says the apron she was apparently wearing. Now which part of his testimony is correct? Why did he say apparently if it was clearly evident that she was wearing an apron? Again I suggest the mortuary keeper made the lists.

                              So there are many anomalies with regards to this apron issue.


                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                I am all for questioning "certainties" within these cases that are anything but certain, but when you waste everyones time...like another poster here...questioning what has been adequately addressed in the historical records, I can onloy ask that you provide proof of your statements or please stop making them.

                                From Dr Brown...."My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street."

                                What is unclear here is why you consistently make up scenarios...like no missing organs onsite...and expect the people who, many of which, are far more informed in the facts as they exist than you are.

                                These forums have become a place to discuss ideas coming from the lunatic fringe.
                                Who are the lunatic fringe ?

                                I presume the far more informed ones you refer to are those that think they know it all ?

                                The fact is that you and a small minority on here cant handle the fact that the old accepted theories that you sleep with under your pillow each night to protect them, do not now stand up to close scrutiny.

                                And the worrying factor amongst you is that the likes or myself and others who question these are not going to be bullied or intimated into rolling over and accpeting defeat.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X