Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

It is impossible 127 years later to try and determine anything by assuming you know the size or shape of the GS apron piece or the pattern of blood left on it. It is impossible to make the conclusion that the pattern of bloodstains made during a modern experiment proves anything if you have nothing to compare it with..

It is not impossible, a corner piece of an apron is just that a corner. top left, or top right. The question is how much apron formed part of that corner?

The Gs piece was matched by the seams so that must have been the bottom left of bottom right. If she was wearing a normal apron that ties up around the waist then it can clearly be judged what size each piece was.

Either the separations were equal i.e. half and half, or one piece was bigger than the other, either way, neither piece is going to be enormous based on the original size of the apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Because the description of the condition of the apron piece is consistent with the menstrual rag suggestion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Bit big.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: It is not impossible, a corner piece of an apron is just that a corner. top left, or top right. The question is how much apron formed part of that corner?

You are working from the assumption that the single clerk heard correctly, whilst all the reporters from the varying papers misheard, then?
Great stuff, Trevor!

The Gs piece was matched by the seams so that must have been the bottom left of bottom right.

Or it was cut in two by lifting it from the foot end and making one single cut across it, using Eddowes as counterweight (which predisposes that the inquest clerk got it wrong, while all the many papers got it right). I cannot be contested that this would have been the easiest way to divide the apron with a knife - it is not an easy thing to do if you cannot pull hard on the cloth before cutting.

If she was wearing a normal apron that ties up around the waist then it can clearly be judged what size each piece was.

Not if it was cut the way I suggest.

Either the separations were equal i.e. half and half, or one piece was bigger than the other...

Einsteinishly clever!

...either way, neither piece is going to be enormous based on the original size of the apron.

Eh...so no matter how it was cut, the part the killer took along with him cannot possibly have been a large piece of cloth? Is that it?

[DJA]

The question is how much apron formed part of that corner.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

About half.
At least a few square feet.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: It is not impossible, a corner piece of an apron is just that a corner. top left, or top right. The question is how much apron formed part of that corner?

You are working from the assumption that the single clerk heard correctly, whilst all the reporters from the varying papers misheard, then?
Great stuff, Trevor!

Either way we only have two pieces which were matched by the seams there is no evidence to suggest that these two pieces actually made up a full apron when matched. Otherwise it might have been said that the missing piece of the apron was then matched or words to that effect. But we dont we only have two pieces of apron.


The Gs piece was matched by the seams so that must have been the bottom left of bottom right.

Or it was cut in two by lifting it from the foot end and making one single cut across it, using Eddowes as counterweight (which predisposes that the inquest clerk got it wrong, while all the many papers got it right). I cannot be contested that this would have been the easiest way to divide the apron with a knife - it is not an easy thing to do if you cannot stretch the cloth before cutting.

On that point I agree, so again another minus in the killer cutting the apron.

If she was wearing a normal apron that ties up around the waist then it can clearly be judged what size each piece was.

Not if it was cut the way I suggest.

But if the killer cut across, then the top half of the apron would still be attached by both strings around the waist, and besides no one describes two halves of an apron had there been so I would have expected that to be documented. If he cut down the centre, then the other piece must have had the other string attached and there would have been evidence of matching in another way other than by the seams.

Furthermore if the killer wanted a piece of cloth to either wipe his hands or knife on, the apron if she had been wearing one was the most inaccessible items of all her clothing, because her clothes were up around her waist.and it would be covered by all the other clothing.

Eh...so no matter how it was cut, the part the killer took along with him cannot possibly have been a large piece of cloth? Is that it?

Based on the fact that she was supposedly wearing a normal apron depending on how it was cut if it was cut by the killer, neither piece would be that big.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

About half.
At least a few square feet.

You dont know that because we dont know the length of the apron had she been wearing one !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Based on the fact that she was supposedly wearing a normal apron depending on how it was cut if it was cut by the killer, neither piece would be that big.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Back to the drawing board, Trevor. Read again!

If there had been part/s of the apron missing, why was that not mentioned?

By the bye, you still have not told me how I was "manipulating the evidence" when I - correctly- pointed out that somebody must have misheard the word "corner" or "portion". Would you rather we left that subject?

[DJA]

You dont know that because we dont know the length of the apron had she been wearing one !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A half waist,knee length chef's apron is 4 square feet.
Eddowes' was likely at least twice that size.

[Trevor Marriott]

A half waist,knee length chef's apron is 4 square feet.
Eddowes' was likely at least twice that size.

Yes you keep believing that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning, Debs,

to Trevor you said:

If you feel you have proven that the organs weren't carried in the apron piece then that's good-we should all satisfy ourselves above anyone else.
I'm satisfied that they weren't either, in fact I hadn't heard the theory they were until you highlighted it.

Yes and that is the whole point of Trevor's debate about the apron. And has been all along.

Trevor's theory is the killer did not remove the bodily organs of Catherine Eddowes. Instead he proposes the organs were removed at the City of London Mortuary, Golden Lane.

Plus, he has been mistakenly operating under the idea that all of the Ripper books he's never read, you know, Sugden, Begg, Evans, Rumbelow, Tully, all of those plus many more - he thinks all those books state the Ripper used the apron piece to carry the body parts. He thinks everyone thinks that. He thinks we all think that. So he has been arguing against the apron being used to carry the body parts because it would conflict with his theory about the killer not taking body parts.

I once asked Phil on Forums where in the world Trevor got the idea that we all think that , and why Trevor would think all the Ripper books say the killer used the apron piece to carry the body parts, and Phil was kind enough to answer he didn't quite know for sure. Then someone mentioned the idea of the killer using the apron piece had been written in a dissertation once here on Casebook. And Trevor said aha see that's where I got the idea.

Does everyone on this thread understand exactly the absurdity of this all? Of all of the years and years of time wasted arguing with Trevor on this point? Which is all based solely on Trevor's paucity of knowledge and his lack of depth on the subject, and the mistaken premise he has been operating on. I hope this is helpful to everyone.

Roy

[Elamarna]

In post # 1451 of this thread Trevor asked a series of questions, I am not sure what he was hoping to prove by asking them?



I was always taught by my Parents that when asked a question it is rude not to reply.

So I dutifully provided Reasoned answers to the questioned posed.

Now I was also taught then when one asks a question and gets a reply the polite and adult thing to do is to at least say "thank you", and maybe even comment.



The only comment which as been produced which could refer to my answers was in post #1475


"Of course I will comment, seeing as I have been accused of not replying to posts."



That gives the impression that somehow the poster is being unfairly accused of not replying.





However there as been no response to the 2 suggestions made in posts 1429 and 1452


Or any reply to posts 1481 and 1498.

These are not isolated examples, claims are made which are never backed up.
When details are requested no answers are provided.

Thread Heartless posts 103, 105 and 108, there are also other posts in the same thread from other posters ignored too.

Thread "Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect? No responses to questions in posts 665, 697 and 780.

Thread "19th Century "anatomical skill"" post # 69, very first point, never addressed.



Mr Marriott, exhibits a tendency to not reply when the question requires an answer which would be less than 100% in favour of his theories.

These theories appear to be built around a lack of knowledge of science and medicine, a lack of understanding of how history works and the real differences between sources and evidence, and a lack of understanding it also sadly appears of much of the case.

Above all there is an inability shown, to admit mistakes or to consider any other view.


I once again ask Trevor, if he is so sure of his theories then please address the points raised and at least attempt to convince others that he is correct.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

In post # 1451 of this thread Trevor asked a series of questions, I am not sure what he was hoping to prove by asking them?



I was always taught by my Parents that when asked a question it is rude not to reply.

So I dutifully provided Reasoned answers to the questioned posed.

Now I was also taught then when one asks a question and gets a reply the polite and adult thing to do is to at least say "thank you", and maybe even comment.



The only comment which as been produced which could refer to my answers was in post #1475


"Of course I will comment, seeing as I have been accused of not replying to posts."



That gives the impression that somehow the poster is being unfairly accused of not replying.





However there as been no response to the 2 suggestions made in posts 1429 and 1452


Or any reply to posts 1481 and 1498.

These are not isolated examples, claims are made which are never backed up.
When details are requested no answers are provided.

Thread Heartless posts 103, 105 and 108, there are also other posts in the same thread from other posters ignored too.

Thread "Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect? No responses to questions in posts 665, 697 and 780.

Thread "19th Century "anatomical skill"" post # 69, very first point, never addressed.



Mr Marriott, exhibits a tendency to not reply when the question requires an answer which would be less than 100% in favour of his theories.

These theories appear to be built around a lack of knowledge of science and medicine, a lack of understanding of how history works and the real differences between sources and evidence, and a lack of understanding it also sadly appears of much of the case.

Above all there is an inability shown, to admit mistakes or to consider any other view.


I once again ask Trevor, if he is so sure of his theories then please address the points raised and at least attempt to convince others that he is correct.



Steve

All that I need to say has been said over the years, all that needs to be written is written in full in my book. If anyone cant read then it can be seen and heard visually in my DVD.

It is plainly clear that over the years certain posters on here, in fact probably the only main posters on here, who hold court here day after day are never going to be convinced about anything written or suggested by anyone which goes against the old accepted theories. that has been proven time and time again.

So I do not need to waste anymore of my valuable time trying to convince those who dont want to be convinced. These same issue have been discussed time and time again on here with the same posters repeating the same posts
There time might be better spent in trying to understand the terms "conflict", "evidence" "unsafe" "flaws" "primary" "secondary"

Thankfully the public who do take an interest in this mystery dont suffer from numptyitus which seems to be prevalent with some on here.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

All that I need to say has been said over the years, all that needs to be written is written in full in my book. If anyone cant read then it can be seen and heard visually in my DVD.

I see no attempt to answer anything at all. How very surprising.



If one comes onto a public forum, and makes statements, one should not be expecting others to go and buy ones commercial produced products in order for them to have answers.


And as someone, who has your products, they do not provide the answers I am asking for in post #1511.

How could they when those questions raised, in my last post are specific to the threads in which they are raised.

Indeed the points in "Heartless" were in response to your "new discovery", how could your old products cover and answer something you did not know about until last week?

It is plainly clear that over the years certain posters on here, in fact probably the only main posters on here, who hold court here day after day are never going to be convinced about anything written or suggested by anyone which goes against the old accepted theories. that has been proven time and time again.

Yes the old theories.
The ones you despise so much!

The ones which you asked me to comment on only a few days ago.

Which I did and which you do not even have the common decency or good manners to say thank you for.


And just in case you forgot, I do not agree with many of the ideas, has I made clear in my replies.

So I do not need to waste anymore of my valuable time trying to convince those who dont want to be convinced. These same issue have been discussed time and time again on here with the same posters repeating the same posts
There time might be better spent in trying to understand the terms "conflict", "evidence" "unsafe" "flaws" "primary" "secondary"

Again it is clear that you cannot defend the views you take, and that you are aware of that.
And so like normal when in an indefensible position one walks away.


By the way the word is "their" not "there"



Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Well Harry it is a fact, that that apron piece got there somehow; even you must agree on that?

If she wasnt wearing an apron then the killer could not have cut or torn a piece off and deposited it there.

and the evidence to show she was is not conlcusive !

So six people standing up at the inquest and testifying - either directly or by implication - that she was wearing an apron isn't conclusive enough for you, but one mention of a corner has you convinced you know the size, design and recent history of it?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;401010]

Steve,

sorry for interrupting. I just had a thought.

"It was the corner of the apron with a string attached."

It was that corner of the apron. The corner that had a string.

As opposed to "the corner of the apron without a string"?

What do you think, Steve?

Regards, Pierre