Apron placement as intimidation?

[Fisherman]

Those who choose to interpret the facts, and look at it from a different perspective are those it would seem that prop up the old accepted theories.

Can we really be expected to believe that every single part of this mystery from 128 years ago is as we have been led to believe. That every police officer was telling the truth, that every doctors opinion is correct. That the anomalies regarding newspaper reports that conflict with the official statements are correct, and that the official statements are wrong because of someone mis hearing words.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As for your last question, yes, we can certainy conclude that the more probable thing is that the official statement got the apron business wrong, working from the idea that Browne had said "corner" instead of "portion". It all boils down to the fact that a good many people, one of them the inquest clerk and the rest reporters, were all present at the same event, seated in the same room, listening to the same testimony. So if all save one are of the meaning that the word "portion" was what was said by Browne, then it makes little difference that the inquest clerk had it "corner". All of these sources are primary sources, and all of them derive from the exact same event, and so the more likely thing is that the papers were correct.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes

I agree with you 100%

We are back to how we interpret what is recorded in the inquest source document.

You chose to see it one way and the majority see it differently.

That does not mean they are right are you are wrong; but it does clearly show you are in a minority on the interpretation the official inquest documents. That is something you have to live with Trevor.

If your theory is to be proven correct then you must find a different approach, this continual selective quoting of sources to push your position has not advanced that theory at all.

For every quote you give, others give 2 back or just interpret what you post differently to yourself.


The sources and details have been posted and reposed, and yet there is still a refusal to see any view but one.

As I have said to you before this can carry on as long as you like, the positions will not change dramatically.

There is little point in debating with someone who continually runs away, when confronted with questions he does not like, and who then says he will not talk about such as they are off topic, or worse still, someone who says all the answers are in my books.

Actually they are not, far from it.



For my part, I am doing some real research on the subject at present, which is forcing me not to post as often, if i want that research to be taken seriously.


Perhaps that approach, getting the support for an ideas as airtight as possible, so that it is not based on personal viewpoints would be beneficial.



steve

Those who choose to interpret the facts, and look at it from a different perspective are those it would seem that prop up the old accepted theories.

Can we really be expected to believe that every single part of this mystery from 128 years ago is as we have been led to believe. That every police officer was telling the truth, that every doctors opinion is correct. That the anomalies regarding newspaper reports that conflict with the official statements are correct, and that the official statements are wrong because of someone mis hearing words.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

So many anomalies, but the official inquest statements are what sets the benchmark.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes

I agree with you 100%

We are back to how we interpret what is recorded in the inquest source document.

You chose to see it one way and the majority see it differently.

That does not mean they are right are you are wrong; but it does clearly show you are in a minority on the interpretation the official inquest documents. That is something you have to live with Trevor.

If your theory is to be proven correct then you must find a different approach, this continual selective quoting of sources to push your position has not advanced that theory at all.

For every quote you give, others give 2 back or just interpret what you post differently to yourself.


The sources and details have been posted and reposed, and yet there is still a refusal to see any view but one.

As I have said to you before this can carry on as long as you like, the positions will not change dramatically.

There is little point in debating with someone who continually runs away, when confronted with questions he does not like, and who then says he will not talk about such as they are off topic, or worse still, someone who says all the answers are in my books.

Actually they are not, far from it.



For my part, I am doing some real research on the subject at present, which is forcing me not to post as often, if i want that research to be taken seriously.


Perhaps that approach, getting the support for an ideas as airtight as possible, so that it is not based on personal viewpoints would be beneficial.



steve

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

Apparently = Purportedly, Supposedly, Seemingly etc.

I was rather hoping you might tell me.

Regards,

Simon

She seemed to have been wearing it.

1. Did the killer bring the two pieces with him on the night of the double event?

2. Did the killer plan to place a portion of the apron by (beside/upon/outside the dress of) a victim?

3. Did the killer plan to place the other portion of the apron beside a wall?

4. Did the killer plan to write on the wall?

5. If yes on every question:

WHY?

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

For once, I was actually agreeing with you Trevor.
However, not in this instance. If the reports are interpreted the way you suggest, it is effectively saying that he saw the body naked, which seems irrelevant. I prefer the more sensible interpretation that he witnessed the clothes being removed.
The fact that Collard didn't mention Halse doesn't 'confirm' he wasn't present, only that the named people were. Are you saying the Times was lying when it says Halse accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary?

So many anomalies, but the official inquest statements are what sets the benchmark.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk