Apron placement as intimidation?

[Michael W Richards]

An apron with a bib is put on by tying it around the neck and around the waist.

Hi Fish,

In actuality there are examples of Victorian era aprons that show the neck string is not tied, it is attached to both upper sides...the wearer slips the neck portion over their head, and then fastens the waist by tying the strings that are attached individually to each side of the apron.


This is why I believe "attached" refers to the neck portion being intact and that string still round her neck. She is not wearing it, but it is attached to her.

[Trevor Marriott]

I noticed your name mentioned, so I hoped you were going to investigate.

No sadly not I was asked to comment on the sickening crimes and the police investigation or the lack of it as it seems.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I asked you previous if you argued for the sake of arguing on here well its clear you do.

What you suggest is a matter for you and not a matter of fact.

As I have said before the seams of an apron go down the outside of an apron how else could they be matched to identify the two pieces as having come from the same apron?

He is fact mentioning matching the mortuary piece and the gs piece by the seams to show they came from the same apron.

Nice try and keep trying !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor


How is it a matter for me?

It is what Brown is recorded by the court reporter has saying.

Is that document not the primary source?

It is not even about interpretation, it is what he says.




Why not read what Brown says.



"I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding –"


Yes you are correct he is matching seams, however he does not say he is matching the outside seam of the original apron, rather the testimony implies he is matching the seams of the new material which has been added to the apron, that is what the inquest testimony says.

You know the document which you say was signed by those giving the testimony to confirm it is true and accurate.


Therefore you theory is based on a faulty interpretation, not even a nice try from you, just a closed view.




Steve

[Jon Guy]

I would love to concentrate on that case for the same reasons as you

I noticed your name mentioned, so I hoped you were going to investigate.

[Elamarna]

I never said that the wounds would match the cuts exactly because a lot would depend on the position of the clothing when the knife entered the body, and as is known much of the clothing was loose fitting in any event.

You are just saying there are cuts to the clothing and cuts to the body, so they must match, that is not research or fact, or even a theory, it is just wishful thinking.


You have not proved they match at all Trevor!!



And of course still no apology to the forum for the highly misleading photo in the post mentioned above.

Sorry would more than suffice.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that the pieces were matched by the edge seams, that is not what the inquest testimony says:


"I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding –"


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

That is how it reads Trevor, if not, there is no reason to mention the NEW Material (patch?)at all in this context.



Steve

I asked you previous if you argued for the sake of arguing on here well its clear you do.

What you suggest is a matter for you and not a matter of fact.

As I have said before the seams of an apron go down the outside of an apron how else could they be matched to identify the two pieces as having come from the same apron?

He is fact mentioning matching the mortuary piece and the gs piece by the seams to show they came from the same apron.

Nice try and keep trying !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

and of course the absence of cuts and bloodstains to the mortuary piece which would have been evident had she been wearing an apron.

At least get that right please!

The mortuary piece had blood on it.

It is what drew Browns attention to the apron.


"My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin –"



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course in a previous post, "19th Century "anatomical skill"" post # 69, Trevor showed these corresponding wounds on a mortuary photograph.

Of course this could not work as he did not have details of the cuts to the clothing he claims can be compared.

However far more alarmingly from the point of good research and integrity, he includes on the photo one "wound" not on the body, it is some 6-8 inches from the side of Eddowes, and is no more than damage to the photo itself, yet Trevor is happy to post such and claim it shows an actual wound.

Worryingly he has still not explained why he was making this claim in that particular case.

Been here before, Trevor cannot prove his theory, in fact it falls apart very easily.

Trevor continues to post these now discredited new theories, the theories having been peer reviewed by many, and found to have serious failings, it seems he does not see the faults which are so glaring.


Of course Trevor now does not respond to me. All that I have done is ask very serious questions, this has been done over and over again, because he will not give answers to any of these questions.

One wonders why, if his theories are so strong, he finds it difficult to even attempt to answer?



Steve

I never said that the wounds would match the cuts exactly because a lot would depend on the position of the clothing when the knife entered the body, and as is known much of the clothing was loose fitting in any event.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

[B]

The deciding factor in determining where the truth lies comes from the matching of the two pieces which were matched by the seams. We know that the mortuary piece was a corner and so for the two pieces to have been matched in the way described they must both have come from the same side of the apron. So how could effectively half and apron turn into a full apron?

Trevor,

Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that the pieces were matched by the edge seams, that is not what the inquest testimony says:


"I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding –"


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

That is how it reads Trevor, if not, there is no reason to mention the NEW Material (patch?)at all in this context.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear

Instead of just telling me this, back up your claim and just cut and paste the relevant info?

See below sketch of the body in situ.

Dr Browns Official inquest testimony
"The Clothes were drawn up above the abdomen"
No where does it say they were cut and pulled across

Are you saying they weren`t cut through ?
(Of course, I can clearly see where Collard mentions that waistbands were all cut through)

And he mention the cuts in sizes and directions, not just waistbands

It was witness testimony. Did the coroner, or journalists see any problem with it ?

Why should there be a problem? It was quite clear that she had been attacked and mutilated with a long bladed knife. What difference would it have made if she had been stabbed through her clothing or directly through her open skin. We are now discussing it in relation to whether or not she was wearing an apron.

You alone think so.
I know you don`t care but your arguments have not convinced anyone.

I think they have convinced a lot more than you think

But now you're arguing that Collard does not even mention cuts in his description of the clothing I have to go and do something else.

Do you have difficulty in understanding what you read? The cuts in the clothing match up with the wounds which were described by the doctor.

Have you caught that twat, the Croydon Cat Killer yet ?
As an animal lover I wish you would concentrate on that case.
There`s a reward, the killer is still out there, and witnesses are all alive and available for questioning.

I would love to concentrate on that case for the same reasons as you

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

This has been gone through before many times on here. There are wounds to the abdomen and lower abdomen consistent with the cuts in the clothing. They may not be identical matches because we dont know the position of the clothing at the time the wounds were inflicted but they are as near as dam.

But if you have another explanation for the cuts to the clothing and the blood stains that accompany those cuts feel free to enlighten us, and of course the absence of cuts and bloodstains to the mortuary piece which would have been evident had she been wearing an apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course in a previous post, "19th Century "anatomical skill"" post # 69, Trevor showed these corresponding wounds on a mortuary photograph.

Of course this could not work as he did not have details of the cuts to the clothing he claims can be compared.

However far more alarmingly from the point of good research and integrity, he includes on the photo one "wound" not on the body, it is some 6-8 inches from the side of Eddowes, and is no more than damage to the photo itself, yet Trevor is happy to post such and claim it shows an actual wound.

Worryingly he has still not explained why he was making this claim in that particular case.

Been here before, Trevor cannot prove his theory, in fact it falls apart very easily.

Trevor continues to post these now discredited new theories, the theories having been peer reviewed by many, and found to have serious failings, it seems he does not see the faults which are so glaring.


Of course Trevor now does not respond to me. All that I have done is ask very serious questions, this has been done over and over again, because he will not give answers to any of these questions.

One wonders why, if his theories are so strong, he finds it difficult to even attempt to answer?



Steve

[Jon Guy]

The doctors do mention the wounds in the post mortem reports

Instead of just telling me this, back up your claim and just cut and paste the relevant info?

Why would the killer do that?
It would mean when the body was found the clothes would be separated in half and the abdomen exposed. The clothes were described as being up above her waist.

See below sketch of the body in situ.

Collards list doesnt state they were cut through he specifically mentions cut and mentions the sizes and directions of cuts. they are all different

Are you saying they weren`t cut through ?
(Of course, I can clearly see where Collard mentions that waistbands were all cut through)

Of course an argument can be made, when it is clear that firstly the evidence you refer to was never tested,

It was witness testimony. Did the coroner, or journalists see any problem with it ?

and secondly there are now obvious flaws to that questionable evidence.

You alone think so.
I know you don`t care but your arguments have not convinced anyone.

But now you're arguing that Collard does not even mention cuts in his description of the clothing I have to go and do something else.

Have you caught that twat, the Croydon Cat Killer yet ?
As an animal lover I wish you would concentrate on that case.
There`s a reward, the killer is still out there, and witnesses are all alive and available for questioning.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Is it attempting to disprove another part of this mystery that has been readily accepted as being fact all of these years.

In a sense, Trevor, facts are to an extent matters agreed upon. Itīs like conclusive circumstantial evidence, where doubt is eliminated. And in this case, people have an understanding of the facts that differs very much from yours. And it is based on the evidence as a whole, instead of picking out the bits and pieces that are suitable. Saying that it is all about some sort of imposed thinking that rules the day just isnīt true - every- and anybody has the right to make his own assessment, but even with this liberty of thought, the apron remains on the body of Eddowes and the organs remain the killerīs loot.
You sometimes accuse me of clinging to old school rules, but I canīt see the sense in such a thing - I differ very much from what most people say and I answer for it on an everyday basis. I rule out Kosminsi, Druitt, Bury, Tumblety etcetera - all of the ones contemporarily suspected, so I cannot be called a traditionalist in any meaning of the word. And nevertheless, I think you are as wrong as you can be on this.

The question of the apron and whether or not she was wearing one, starts in Mitre Square with her murder. The two pieces of this apron are a major part of the ripper mystery in so many different ways. So it is important that if possible we get as near to the truth as is possible 128 years later.

I agree. But I would not want you to guide me there, Trevor. It involves thinking that a corner only of the apron remained on the body of Eddowes, and it makes very little sense to me, for example. I use all the sources, I weigh them together, and when they offer a solution that makes a lot more sense, I opt for it. That does not mean that I do not look on other suggestions - I do, just like I said, I am somebody who offer a lot of suggestions that those you call traditionalists do not readily buy. But looking at your suggestions, I find they have so very little going for them that they must step aside for other, more viable interpretations.

[Trevor Marriott]

What I fail to see is WHY Trevor argues against the evidence. To what end? Is there any purpose behind it?
If Eddowes did not wear an apron on her person on the murder night, and if the organs went lost during the morgue procedures instead of in Mitre Square, what possible implications is Trevor after?
We all know that the killer took out Kellyīs organs, unless somebody from the morgue sneaked in and did it inbetween the murder time and when Bowyer found her. We all know that the person/s who killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly cut their abdomens open.

Does anybody - Trevor included - have an idea where he is going with this? Or trying to go?

Is it attempting to disprove another part of this mystery that has been readily accepted as being fact all of these years. The question of the apron and whether or not she was wearing one, starts in Mitre Square with her murder. The two pieces of this apron are a major part of the ripper mystery in so many different ways. So it is important that if possible we get as near to the truth as is possible 128 years later.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, but your conclusion is wrong, and easily explained as wrong because there are no corresponding wounds and the attending doctors make no mention of it.

The doctors do mention the wounds in the post mortem reports

I am arguing that the killer cut through the items tied around her waist.
Which is exactly what the descriptions describe
All items tied around her waist are cut through

Why would the killer do that? It would mean when the body was found the clothes would be separated in half and the abdomen exposed. The clothes were described as being up above her waist. Collards list doesnt state they were cut through he specifically mentions cut and mentions the sizes and directions of cuts. they are all different

We have numerous eye witness statements stating Eddowes was wearing apron before and after death.
Even if I wanted to, an argument cannot be made to show that she was not wearing an apron.

Of course an argument can be made, when it is clear that firstly the evidence you refer to was never tested, and secondly there are now obvious flaws to that questionable evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk