Apron placement as intimidation?

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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 ?

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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 Trevor´s 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,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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.

[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

[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

[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?