Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

There are no ifs in the fact that several witnesses testified to her WEARING an apron on that night.

That maybe so, and the flaws in that evidence has been highlighted many times on here, and there is other evidence to the contrary, all of this has all been discussed many times before on here so I dont intend to get into arguments all over again.

Points to consider ,you cant tie an apron with only one string, and based on what is suggested that the killer cut the apron, and the drawing I posted, there would need to be at least three pieces to make up a full apron. In this case we only have two, and those were a top left or top right corner and a bottom left or right matching piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

There would be no other corner if at the time of her murder she had not been wearing an apron but simply had in her possession two old pieces of apron, which at some point in the past had formed part of a full apron, and had been cut up for whatever purpose. Hence the match for the mortuary and Goulston pieces.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I was waiting for that Trevor, the whole point of the post in the first place,
Just surprised it took so long!


You accuse others of constantly defend old discredited theories, while attacking your new true theories.

Well the way world works my dear Trevor, is that if you want to replace a generally accepted theory, not only does one need to prove any new theory; but one also has to prove the previous one faulty.


Now by prove, I mean scientifically prove; not just someone saying it is discredited, or personal opinion that something is not possible, I mean actual real data which can be measured and agreed by ones peers.



And of course here we are again will the sanitary towel theory and its just another unsupported theory, exactly like the body part thefts at the mortuary.


And for the organ removals, the evidence there to show the accepted theory is wrong, is wait for it....

A personal statement that in the opinion of someone with no medical or even butchery skills. that there was not sufficient time to kill, carry out the mutilations and remove the organs.


And the evidence to support removal at the mortuary is there was apparently a black market trade in human organs at mortuaries..

When asked to produce any evidence of this, of course there is none!



And just as with the organ removals there are no sources to test the hypothesis of the sanitary towels against.

No evidence to suggest that Eddowes was not wearing an apron(the accepted theory), other than the disputed interpretation of half a line in inquest testimony.
And of course there are witness statements that she was wearing the apron, so one needs to disprove those too.


And nothing to support the "new" idea other than a creative imagination.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi All,

The Times, Thursday 11 October 1888—

"Two witnesses have also been found who state that they saw the deceased standing at the corner of Duke Street, Aldgate, a few minutes' walk from Mitre Square. This was as near as they can recollect about half-past 1 o'clock, and she was then alone. They recognized her on account of the white apron she was wearing."

It sounds like Eddowes was famed for wearing a white apron.

Regards,

Simon

She must have been the only person in The East End wearing a white apron that night everyone seems to identify the apron. I wonder what was so identifiable about it, obviously the colour !

At the inquest the police were shown a piece of white apron and identified it as the one she was wearing. Priceless

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

She must have been the only person in The East End wearing a white apron that night everyone seems to identify the apron. I wonder what was so identifiable about it, obviously the colour !

At the inquest the police were shown a piece of white apron and identified it as the one she was wearing. Priceless

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You seem to be missing the point though....nobody said she wasn't wearing an apron.

[Elamarna]

She must have been the only person in The East End wearing a white apron that night everyone seems to identify the apron. I wonder what was so identifiable about it, obviously the colour !

At the inquest the police were shown a piece of white apron and identified it as the one she was wearing. Priceless

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

I see the evidence to discredit the witnesses is that they must be mistaken!

A real piece of considered research.



regards
.

[Trevor Marriott]

I was waiting for that Trevor, the whole point of the post in the first place,
Just surprised it took so long!


You accuse others of constantly defend old discredited theories, while attacking your new true theories.

Well the way world works my dear Trevor, is that if you want to replace a generally accepted theory, not only does one need to prove any new theory; but one also has to prove the previous one faulty.


Now by prove, I mean scientifically prove; not just someone saying it is discredited, or personal opinion that something is not possible, I mean actual real data which can be measured and agreed by ones peers.



And of course here we are again will the sanitary towel theory and its just another unsupported theory, exactly like the body part thefts at the mortuary.


And for the organ removals, the evidence there to show the accepted theory is wrong, is wait for it....

A personal statement that in the opinion of someone with no medical or even butchery skills. that there was not sufficient time to kill, carry out the mutilations and remove the organs.


And the evidence to support removal at the mortuary is there was apparently a black market trade in human organs at mortuaries..

When asked to produce any evidence of this, of course there is none!



And just as with the organ removals there are no sources to test the hypothesis of the sanitary towels against.

No evidence to suggest that Eddowes was not wearing an apron(the accepted theory), other than the disputed interpretation of half a line in inquest testimony.
And of course there are witness statements that she was wearing the apron, so one needs to disprove those too.


And nothing to support the "new" idea other than a creative imagination.



Steve

I think you need to look at the evidence you are seeking to rely on to prop up the old theories. Much of it is flawed and untested, and clearly does not stand up to close scrutiny. Because of that I have put forward other plausible explanations which are there to be considered.

As to the one line, dispute it all you like, the fact is it is recorded in an official document from an expert who was a primary witness in the case and if that is correct then it again questions the accuracy and reliability of the old theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You seem to be missing the point though....nobody said she wasn't wearing an apron.

You are missing the point those who said she was wearing an apron said so in circumstances which dont stand up to close scrutiny. I think its called trying to be too helpful to a cause. By the time some of those officers gave their evidence it was widely know that portions of an apron she had apparently been wearing had been found.

As I previously said that evidence was never tested but readily accepted as being accurate

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

You are missing the point those who said she was wearing an apron said so in circumstances which dont stand up to close scrutiny. I think its called trying to be too helpful to a cause. By the time some of those officers gave their evidence it was widely know that portions of an apron she had apparently been wearing had been found.

As I previously said that evidence was never tested but readily accepted as being accurate

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor


So anything which does not fit certain theories does not stand up to scrutiny?

By whom?




regards

[Elamarna]

I think you need to look at the evidence you are seeking to rely on to prop up the old theories. Much of it is flawed and untested, and clearly does not stand up to close scrutiny. Because of that I have put forward other plausible explanations which are there to be considered.

The same old chorus, the same old, tired claim that much "does not stand up to close scrutiny," that of course being the view of one man, just as was posted in the post you are replying to, post #1442




Plausible Explanations?

Not really!

Firstly there is no evidence to suppose that the current views on the organ removal and the apron are wrong, other than an individuals view.


Secondly the "explantions" put forward are not backed by any data at all, purely creative imagination.


So pleased to see that when the views are questioned one cannot defend them with a single point of data.

Opinion is not data or fact.

As to the one line, dispute it all you like, the fact is it is recorded in an official document from an expert who was a primary witness in the case and if that is correct then it again questions the accuracy and reliability of the old theory.

Trevor, no one I have seen today has disputed what was written in the document, which is The Primary Source for the inquest, the newspaper reports of the inquest are also primary sources, but not THE Primary Source.

No one is as far as I can tell disputing doctors informed opinion, none of that is disputed!


It is how one reads the document and how one interprets it that is in dispute.



regards

[Fisherman]

You think a closet transvestite is akin to a rapist and a small time crook?

A closet transvestite shouldn't be considered something derogatory at all?

I think you owe the boards an unreserved apology.

Surely we've should have moved past the Victorian attitudes against women, gays, minorities, the mentally and physically different.
It's a sad world that we still have situations like Michelle Obama being publicly called an "ape in heels".

Did I say that I find the three categories of people akin to each other? Or was that your suggestion? Did I say that I find transvestism derogatory? Did I say that I think it´s a bad thing to be a small time crook or a rapist?

Or did I say that when somebody takes it upon himself to accuse another poster of using sock puppets on no evidence at all, and then claims that he was in his right to do so since it was only a theory, then that would equal how suddenly anybody had the right to call anybody else exactly what they wanted to - as long as they added that it was just a theory?

Of course, if you yourself are a closet transvestite or if you feel offended on behalf of closet transvestites as a group, I unreservedly apologize, and I hasten to add two things:

1. I am not passing judgment on any group, I am saying that apparently any poster can nowadays be placed in any group, be that sinister, jolly, lazy, stupid or brilliant groups, according to Harry D, as long as we add that we are only theorizing.
For example, I could say that you are in your post simply trying to get to me whichever way you can, you nourish a hatred towards me and you are outright malicious and equipped with a miniscule mind, and then I could say that this is nothing but a theory I have, and that you should not be upset about it.
To begin with, I think other things about what you are, Dusty.
And of course, it would be a very immature thing to do, but there you go. That´s what Harry D does, and I don´t like it one single bit. Although I know he´s "just theorizing", I think it is a very tarnishing thing to do just the same. I hope you agree that this is so, and I hope you agree that this is where an apology is due.

2. This discussion with you is over, as far as I´m concerned. It´s too silly to prolong, and it has nothing at all to do what we are supposed to discuss out here. Which I would propose is because Harry and you have not been able to factually and logically produce much of an argument about what I say.
I´m not sure of this though.

It´s just a theory I have.

[Trevor Marriott]

I was waiting for that Trevor, the whole point of the post in the first place,
Just surprised it took so long!


You accuse others of constantly defend old discredited theories, while attacking your new true theories.

Well the way world works my dear Trevor, is that if you want to replace a generally accepted theory, not only does one need to prove any new theory; but one also has to prove the previous one faulty.


Now by prove, I mean scientifically prove; not just someone saying it is discredited, or personal opinion that something is not possible, I mean actual real data which can be measured and agreed by ones peers.



And of course here we are again will the sanitary towel theory and its just another unsupported theory, exactly like the body part thefts at the mortuary.


And for the organ removals, the evidence there to show the accepted theory is wrong, is wait for it....

A personal statement that in the opinion of someone with no medical or even butchery skills. that there was not sufficient time to kill, carry out the mutilations and remove the organs.


And the evidence to support removal at the mortuary is there was apparently a black market trade in human organs at mortuaries..

When asked to produce any evidence of this, of course there is none!



And just as with the organ removals there are no sources to test the hypothesis of the sanitary towels against.

No evidence to suggest that Eddowes was not wearing an apron(the accepted theory), other than the disputed interpretation of half a line in inquest testimony.
And of course there are witness statements that she was wearing the apron, so one needs to disprove those too.


And nothing to support the "new" idea other than a creative imagination.



Steve

Lets stick to the issue in hand please no need for you to go off on a tangent talking about other contentious issues with regards to this murder.

You really make me laugh, all I hear you keep saying is "where is the source"
"where is the data" and when you are provided with a primary source, which if correct clearly raises questions about her wearing an apron or not at the time of her murder, you question its accuracy against the newspaper articles reporting on the same, which I would suggest many of them may not even be primary sources. You say its down to interpretation. there is only one way to interpret that.

As to the witness statements saying she was wearing one, we cannot prove them wrong outright or test that evidence, but we can look at them and see the flaws in them which will allow us to ask ourselves, can we rely on those statements as being totally accurate as to make a definitive answer.

As to those flaws in the evidence, many of them are clearly visible and I dont intend to go over them yet again.

At the end of the day if you are one who wants to readily accept the old theories without question so be it that is your free choice and I know there are several others on here who do the same.

History is there to be challenged and not readily accepted as being correct just because it was written down at the time of the event.

When you look at this whole mystery and all that surrounds it from 1888 what of the original old accepted facts and theories has now been dismissed as not being accurate or total fabrication?

what are those old readily accepted facts

5 and 5 only
one killer named JTR
graffiti
organ removal
apron cut and taken away
letters
statement of police readily accepted simply because they are police and cannot tell a lie
Victorian doctors opinions

suspects same old same
Kosminski
Druitt
Chapman
Tumblety
Prince Albert

One question directly to you.What evidence realting to any of the old accepted facts do you say is flawed, or do you readiluy accpet all that has been left behind since 1888?

Its time for ripperology to stand up and be counted and ditch some of this old stuff, but of course that wont happen in fact the suspect list keeps growing instead of diminishing, and Ripper books are still being churned out by the dozen. Ripperology has become a cottage industry, so nothing will change and that is why when someone comes along with direct challenges to the old stuff, the knives come, out the old guard (all 6 of you) form a circle around the old stuff, to protect it at all costs. Its sad to see

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

The size and shape of the apron is unknown
The exact nature of the bloodstains on either piece (there were two, one that went with the body to the mortuary and one found at GS) is not known.

In his inquest evidence Dr Brown mentions the/a corner with a string seemingly in the context of pointing out which corner had blood marks -" the corner with the string attached" -does Dr Brown ever say that there was only one string or one corner on the apron pieces? I don't think he does. His comments are out of context because they aren't given as a description of the apron itself but a description of the location of the blood marks on the piece.

The apron had a bib portion according to the official memo sents by Matthews posted on here recently by Simon Wood.

[Elamarna]

Trevor,

I note that once again, you do not put forward a single fact in this post.

Its all about you, challenging the accepted view point, no problem with that, but please stop presenting your ideas as established fact, which is what I say to you every time.



Anyway onto the post

Lets stick to the issue in hand please no need for you to go off on a tangent talking about other contentious issues with regards to this murder.

Well we have to because you never answer issues when put on the spot:

For instance you throw out a reference to the view of a Master Butcher and that is it, no details and a refusal to answer questions.

The same with regards to the memory lapse you suggested for Arnold, which was never addressed in the "Heartless" thread, or your refusal to see that he was not actually quoted.

You really make me laugh, all I hear you keep saying is "where is the source"
"where is the data" and when you are provided with a primary source, which if correct clearly raises questions about her wearing an apron or not at the time of her murder, you question its accuracy against the newspaper articles reporting on the same, which I would suggest many of them may not even be primary sources. You say its down to interpretation. there is only one way to interpret that.

I have not questioned the reports accuracy, nor compared it against any particular newspaper article, please show me where I have done so?

I have stated very clearly several times that what the report contains is not in dispute.


Have you not read and understood that?



Your suggestion that the newspaper reports may not be primary sources is based on what?

Any carrying syndicated reports can be questioned, although the original may be be based on a eyewitness account.

Those where a reporter actually attended court and gave a first hand report cannot be anything other than Primary.


Yes interpretation is everything:

At the weekend in the "Heartless" thread, one poster demonstrated to all that they failed to grasp that the newspaper report was a weekly roundup, made up of many stories, and the that Arnold was never quoted in the report. And when asked to quote the supposed interview they were unable to do so.

Interpretation or rather a failure to do so!


Back to the point under discussion

In post 1429 two options were presented on interpreting the document in question, there are certainly others.

The silence from yourself on this is deafening

As to the witness statements saying she was wearing one, we cannot prove them wrong outright or test that evidence, but we can look at them and see the flaws in them which will allow us to ask ourselves, can we rely on those statements as being totally accurate as to make a definitive answer.

As to those flaws in the evidence, many of them are clearly visible and I dont intend to go over them yet again.

Same old, no facts just an opinion. which of course just happens to suit a particular theory.

At the end of the day if you are one who wants to readily accept the old theories without question so be it that is your free choice and I know there are several others on here who do the same.


History is there to be challenged and not readily accepted as being correct just because it was written down at the time of the event.

History is not to be challenged for the sake of it!

There must be a legitimate reason to do so, a real serious failing or a new discovery, not just someone has an idea!

When you look at this whole mystery and all that surrounds it from 1888 what of the original old accepted facts and theories has now been dismissed as not being accurate or total fabrication?

what are those old readily accepted facts



5 and 5 only

Certainly not, there is probably enough evidence to say that is incorrect, of course it was not the view held by most in 1888.

There is enough to look to a possible link the early attacks such as that on Wilson.

Tabram for me is too different wound wise, but many are prepared to accept her.

Stride is questionable to some, as indeed is Kelly and even Eddowes to some

There are enough similarities to Mackenzie to at least consider her.

one killer named JTR

yes one killer, I see nothing to convince me otherwise

Some disagree, however the arguments they put forward are not complete at this stage, that is they can name a killer for some, but not for others.

graffiti

Nothing to do with the murders, probably a minority view point

organ removal

Absolutely nothing to suggest this was not done on site.

The arguments put forward are based on personal opinion, and ignore the facts, such as stating there was not enough light to do the job, when the primary medical source on site disagrees.

Or arguing there was not enough time, when in depth studies such as the one by Gavin Bromley have suggested there was.

The alternative appears to read, I have read that report and it is flawed, the timings are wrong. that is not research, it is personal opinion, no more and no less.

apron cut and taken away

Nothing, I repeat nothing to say that is wrong.
Again it is one mans opinion that such did not happen.

letters

what exactly are you asking?

None can be shown to have come from the killer, that does not rule out the possibility that he may have written one or more.

statement of police readily accepted simply because they are police and cannot tell a lie

Certainly not, that appears to be your view with Reid however.

Of course they may lie, they are human, I have said so several times, most recently when talking about Mizen.

Victorian doctors opinions

On basic medical opinions they should be accurate, but on such things as TOD, they may be very far out.

I have argued often that Phillips is wrong over his TOD for Chapman, and that the early TOD for Kelly is also wrong.




It would seem you have little idea about what I have actually said on many issues Trevor.

suspects same old same



Kosminski
Druitt
Chapman
Tumblety
Prince Albert

As I have posted many times, I consider none of the suspects named to be any more than possibles; some not even that.

Of the list you post the lowest possibility to my mind is Prince Albert, followed by Chapman.

Druitt appears to be named on private information, I am sure he was NOT the only person so named.

Tumblety was linked by the press, but that does not make him a strong suspect.

Kosminski, is named by 3 officers close to the time, there are issues with all 3.

However it would seem there was a reason to link him at the time, what that was is now lost.

None are probables, some are less possible than others.

One question directly to you.What evidence realting to any of the old accepted facts do you say is flawed, or do you readiluy accpet all that has been left behind since 1888?

see above.

Generally I read and asses, if there is a case to question I do.

Its time for ripperology to stand up and be counted and ditch some of this old stuff, but of course that wont happen in fact the suspect list keeps growing instead of diminishing, and Ripper books are still being churned out by the dozen. Ripperology has become a cottage industry, so nothing will change and that is why when someone comes along with direct challenges to the old stuff, the knives come, out the old guard (all 6 of you) form a circle around the old stuff, to protect it at all costs. Its sad to see

I think you will find its alot more than 6.

If someone made well researched and reasoned arguments people would listen, the truth is that with some of the theories you propose that is not the case.

The suggested theories quoted are not challenges, they have no substance to them, they are just ideas.

There is no proof there was a thriving black market in human organs
There is no proof that Eddowes was making sanitary towels from dirty old aprons.




Steve

[Phil Carter]

Anyway Phil, if not the killer, what was your thinking if I may ask?

Cheers
Charlie

Hello Charlie,

Sorry about the delay in replying. My apologies.

I cannot say with certainty. . But the only name I can attribute to the person doing this is "accomplice".
That is in the widest sense of the word. Not an accomplice that took part on the killing of Eddowes though. I have an odd feeling this accomplice had a part or role to play with that apron piece.
I can't get nearer than that at this time. Nor whom the accomplice could be with any certainty.
The whole planting of that apron piece looks set up. Almost staged. The idea is controversial perhaps... but I see it as a very real possibility.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Steve,

I must pull you up on one point you made.
No..there is no proof that Eddowes used any cloth piece for sanitary towel purposes.. but..the overwhelming truth is that amongst the poor, cloth pieces were indeed used for such purposes. For obvious reasons of great poverty, it was at times a case of anything that could be used close to hand. If that meant tearing or cutting a cloth in their possession..they did.

There is no proof of any female person in this whole saga from Nichols to Kelly doing it. . But I can assure you it would have been done by many of the poor women in that area at that time. So, realistically, it must be considered as possible.
That does NOT mean I believe Eddowes herself dropped the piece of apron. But the act of possession must be considered imho.

Phil