Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[Fiver]

I always answer the questions

You didn't answer the first time I asked the questions. Or the second.

Because she may have had the rags to sell as we do not know what material they were made out of and she is described as a hawker and that is someone who offers goods for sale besides according to the evidence she was in possession of 2 old pieces of white apron which at some point in the past had been cut from a full apron and not the one she was supposedly wearing

Why do you believe rages are more valuable than aprons?

Why do you think the apron was old?

Why do you ignore the evidence given under oath that the two pieces formed a complete apron?

Why do you ignore the evidence given under oath that Eddowes was wearing an apron?

And you still haven't answered the initial question - Why would Eddowes cut up an apron to use as a sanitary napkin when she already had 12 rags?

We do not know what material the apron pieces were made out of it is possible that it was of the type which was absorbent

You haven't answered the question - Why would Eddowes try to use non-absorbent cloth like an apron as a sanitary napkin?

* Why would Eddowes discard the apron piece instead of washing and reusing it?

Rags were easy to come by which Victorian street women used for sanitary devices I am not aware of Victorian street women washing and re using sanitary rags

There's a lot you don't seem to know about women.

And you haven't answered the question - Why would Eddowes discard the apron piece instead of washing and reusing it?

She could have gone under the archway to go to the toilet and discarded it at that point as she was passing

If she was headed to the toilet, it would have been vastly more private to remove and discard the sanitary napkin in the toilet.

You haven't answered the question -Why would Eddowes choose so public a place - the entryway of a tenement - to remove and discard the apron piece?

I think it is right to assume the killer would have blood on both his hands having allegedly put his hands inside a blood-filled abdomen to remove organs if that is what in fact did happen

Why do you ignore the evidence given under oath that the abdomen would not be filled with blood?

Why are you assuming that the killer would reach into the abdomen with both hands instead of one?

You haven't answered the question - Why are you assuming the killer would have blood on both hands?

I am not assuming that, Dr Brown gives evidence that blood and faecal matter was on one side of the apron piece

That's not an accurate summary of Dr Brown's testimony. He never says there was no blood on the other side of the apron piece.

You haven't answered the question - Why are you assuming there was blood on only one side of the apron piece?

And why are you using Dr Brown as a witness when you have already assumed that he lied under oath about matching up the apron pieces?

Pc Long's testimony has to be taken at face value, was he where he says he was? did he pass by at the time he said he did? or was the apron piece there and he missed it after all we do not know the size of the piece

You haven't answered the question - Why are you assuming a theory where PC Long misses spotting the apron piece twice is more credible than a theory where PC Long only missed seeing it once or never missed seeing it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So prove what you are suggesting!

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel of excuses

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Its been done Trevor but you don’t practice what you preach. It’s you that won’t listen to other people because you have no concept of the possibility of you being wrong. Everyone on here has read the case that you’ve made and we’ve repeatedly pointed out the very obvious flaws. What you’ve done is posted a deliberately misleading photo/diagram falsely claiming that it was the only way that the apron could have been cut. It’s simply untrue and provably so. Added to that you have, with no basis in fact, sought to discredit witness that don’t support your theory - and no, it’s not a case of ‘not taking everything at face value’ it’s a case of inventing issues where we have no reason for believing any exist. It’s also not just a case of you ‘thinking outside the box’ either. It may have started out like that but it’s now become a crusade with you and the points that you’re making to defend your theory are becoming less and less reasonable.

Just 11 points which show that the ‘old accepted theory’ has been accepted for good reason.

1. PC Robinson testified to Kate wearing an apron.
2. PC Hutt testified to Kate wearing an apron.
3. Wilkinson testified to Kate wearing an apron.
4. The apron was discovered outside of her body as opposed to the other items found inside. So, as she wouldn’t have been carrying it around in her hand she was clearly wearing it. There is no there explanation.
5. As the Police without doubt believed that the GS piece came from the mortuary piece then they would have been equally interested in any missing piece and locating it would have been a priority. No missing piece was mentioned by anyone at any time.
6. Dr. Brown matched up the two pieces by means of a patch which had been attached to both pieces. There can have been no mistake.
7. We have no witness who saw Kate at the lodging house and she had no money for a bed.
8. It would seem strange to say the least for Kate to have left the police station then walked to her lodging house without money for a room, then almost immediately turned around and returned to an area that, as far as we know, she had no link to.
9. Why would the poverty-stricken Kate have chopped up her meagre clothing when she was in possession of 14 pieces of material that would have served the same suggested purpose.
10. There has to be at least a possibility that the message was written by the killer and so we would have to accept that it was written next to the rag coincidentally.
11. If Long was correct then the apron was dropped after 2.20 - after Eddowes was dead of course.

We’re going around in circles of course. I’m happy that everyone on here can see that you’re wrong on this. You’ll continue of course but perhaps one day you’ll stop and think “I wonder why all of these people who have been looking in detail at these crimes for 20, 30, 40 years always disagree with my theories?” Your just very obviously wrong on this one.

[Elamarna]

When you have a backup of 12 why would you? and if you are suggesting she would use and reuse one, why the need for 12? two would suffice, now let me see hmmmmmmmmm she did have 2 didn't she, the one found in GS and the one in her possessions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Seriously?
So you have her washing the towels every day, and drying them everyday.
(What if she used more than one or two a day.)

You just argued that washing was difficult, now you suggest it was done everyday, and you want people to consider your theories seriously?

It's not that you don't understand women's menstrual hygiene , you clear really know very little about it at all.

[Elamarna]

And maybe they simply discarded the rags, when soiled, after all in Eddowes case according to you and others she wouldn't need to worry about washing and re-using as she has 12 pieces to fall back on, and I get accused of changing the goalposts

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The point is Trevor, I see nothing to support your claims as regards the use of sanitary towels or rags as call them.

The idea appears to be one you have produced yourself.

She wouldn't need to reuse, as she had 12!
Pardon?

12 would very possibly just cover 1 month, so unless she's replacing every month, I suggest they would be reused.

It's not us moving the goal posts , it's that you are playing a different game to everybody else. Applying rules no one else is aware of.

Again your post sadly demonstrates you have no real understanding of women's menstrual hygiene.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When you have a backup of 12 why would you? and if you are suggesting she would use and reuse one, why the need for 12? two would suffice, now let me see hmmmmmmmmm she did have 2 didn't she, the one found in GS and the one in her possessions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You mean the 2 halves of the apron that it has been proven that she was wearing on the night of her murder.

Ive said it before but logic and reason are towns that you never visit aren’t they? We can’t know where she would have washed them so perhaps she only had the opportunity to do so every few days? Maybe she’d only recently acquired these 12 pieces and hadn’t used them yet? And of course, we have no way of knowing that she was menstruating at the time which is simply a bit of speculation on your part - something that you criticise others for doing.

[Trevor Marriott]

And of course, the RIVER SIDE would not have been anyone's first choice. It was no doubt scummy, gross and probably smelled really bad. But when you're desperate, I guess you make do with what you can get.




Trevor apparently doesn't realize that women menstruate on a monthly basis, and the rags that are washed this month, get reused next month. Or on day four, when they've run through the other 11. No Trevor just thinks that women are going to toss away items they are going to use one week out of every four on the hope that they can find replacement. Well-to-do women of the time washed and reused their menstrual rags, but Trevor thinks poor women can just afford to chuck them away in the street. The lack of basic knowledge about the subject is staggering.

When you have a backup of 12 why would you? and if you are suggesting she would use and reuse one, why the need for 12? two would suffice, now let me see hmmmmmmmmm she did have 2 didn't she, the one found in GS and the one in her possessions

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

Maybe they walked the few hundred yards and washed by the RIVER SIDE.

And of course, the RIVER SIDE would not have been anyone's first choice. It was no doubt scummy, gross and probably smelled really bad. But when you're desperate, I guess you make do with what you can get.

she wouldn't need to worry about washing and re-using as she has 12 pieces to fall back on,

Trevor apparently doesn't realize that women menstruate on a monthly basis, and the rags that are washed this month, get reused next month. Or on day four, when they've run through the other 11. No Trevor just thinks that women are going to toss away items they are going to use one week out of every four on the hope that they can find replacement. Well-to-do women of the time washed and reused their menstrual rags, but Trevor thinks poor women can just afford to chuck them away in the street. The lack of basic knowledge about the subject is staggering.

[Trevor Marriott]

You’re trying to make things fit your theory. As usual.

So prove what you are suggesting!

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel of excuses

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So you dont have any sources at all, and your post was not based on fact at all, simply your own beliefs, with no factual support.

There are far to many to quote here and I am sure you have done your own research as I have

Maybe the 12 Eddowes had were a regular collection of such cloths, which she habitually used.
Her having 12 does not show they were easy to come by at all, only that she had collected 12.

I assume from your post, you also believe they never washed their clothing either, same problems.

Maybe they walked the few hundred yards and washed by the RIVER SIDE.

And maybe they simply discarded the rags, when soiled, after all in Eddowes case according to you and others she wouldn't need to worry about washing and re-using as she has 12 pieces to fall back on, and I get accused of changing the goalposts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are many sources to be found on www which I am sure you are aware of

Actually no. That’s why evidence was requested and as none has been forthcoming we can only assume that it doesn’t exist.

As to how Victorian street women acquired their rags for sanitary devices is unknown, clearly, they

Therefore no assumption can be made as to where she got them.

would not have had money to buy them as you say. and being of that class of women I would suggest that washing and reusing was not an option for obvious reasons,

Can we assume that these women couldn’t have washed items? They didn’t have bathrooms but I’m sure that these women found some way of keeping as clean as they could? Desperation and poverty tends to inspire ingenuity.

as is know these women had no fixed abodes and as such would not have had access to washing facilities unless you suggest they used the horse troughs, and that even causes a problem in how would they dry them.

People find a way to do things.

Furthermore, I suggest that old rags were easy to come by, and that is proven by Eddowes being in possession of a large number, which may well have come from an old apron that had been cut up previously, and if that be the case whose to say that the two pieces referred to had not come from that cut apron.

She might have acquired those rags any number of ways. She might have stolen a piece of material. A man might have paid for sex by giving her various items including a piece of material. She might have been given them by a friend. Her daughter, unable to give her money, might have given her a few cast-off’s. I know that charity workers dispensed food at times but did any of them ever dispense old clothing?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’re trying to make things fit your theory. As usual.

[Elamarna]

There are many sources to be found on www which I am sure you are aware of

As to how Victorian street women acquired their rags for sanitary devices is unknown, clearly, they would not have had money to buy them as you say. and being of that class of women I would suggest that washing and reusing was not an option for obvious reasons, as is know these women had no fixed abodes and as such would not have had access to washing facilities unless you suggest they used the horse troughs, and that even causes a problem in how would they dry them.

Furthermore, I suggest that old rags were easy to come by, and that is proven by Eddowes being in possession of a large number, which may well have come from an old apron that had been cut up previously, and if that be the case whose to say that the two pieces referred to had not come from that cut apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you dont have any sources at all, and your post was not based on fact at all, simply your own beliefs, with no factual support.

Maybe the 12 Eddowes had were a regular collection of such cloths, which she habitually used.
Her having 12 does not show they were easy to come by at all, only that she had collected 12.

I assume from your post, you also believe they never washed their clothing either, same problems.

Maybe they walked the few hundred yards and washed by the RIVER SIDE.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor would you care to share your sources for that reply, as a serious researcher I am always willing to learn.

1. Rags were easy to come by.

Do you mean that clean cloth was simply freely available?

Or did the women have to pay for these bits of rag as you call them?

Which leads me to the 2nd point

2. You are not aware that they washed and reused sanity rags.

Are you saying you have researched and found no evidence or source which supports the idea of washing or reusing

Or do you simply mean by unaware you don't actually know if they did wash and reuse.

I mean surely they washed them first, before use, if as you suggest they were easy to find, and one assumes therefore much handled and dirty. If not they were leaving themselves open to a terrible risk of illness and infection.

So maybe you could supply the source for your knowledge on how sanity towels were used, it seems they were disposable just like today if you are correct.

I wonder about this because many of the women in Whitechapel at the time were so poor that they often had decide between a bed or food to eat. Maybe some had enough for a bed and say a potato, or sometimes a staple like Bread and Dripping maybe. But many didn't.
If they also had to earn money to purchase clean rags each month surely they would reuse if possible. That's the common sense thing to do surely.

There are many sources to be found on www which I am sure you are aware of

As to how Victorian street women acquired their rags for sanitary devices is unknown, clearly, they would not have had money to buy them as you say. and being of that class of women I would suggest that washing and reusing was not an option for obvious reasons, as is know these women had no fixed abodes and as such would not have had access to washing facilities unless you suggest they used the horse troughs, and that even causes a problem in how would they dry them.

Furthermore, I suggest that old rags were easy to come by, and that is proven by Eddowes being in possession of a large number, which may well have come from an old apron that had been cut up previously, and if that be the case whose to say that the two pieces referred to had not come from that cut apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

Bread and Dripping maybe. But many didn't.
If they also had to earn money to purchase clean rags each month surely they would reuse if possible.That's the common sense thing to do surely

I really feel like with the abductive reasoning evidenced on this thread, Tony should have kept his night job. Although, come to think of it, I guess he did.

[Elamarna]

FIVER: Why would Eddowes discard the apron piece instead of washing and reusing it?

Trevor: Rags were easy to come by which Victorian street women used for sanitary devices I am not aware of Victorian street women washing and re using sanitary rags

Trevor would you care to share your sources for that reply, as a serious researcher I am always willing to learn.

1. Rags were easy to come by.

Do you mean that clean cloth was simply freely available?

Or did the women have to pay for these bits of rag as you call them?

Which leads me to the 2nd point

2. You are not aware that they washed and reused sanity rags.

Are you saying you have researched and found no evidence or source which supports the idea of washing or reusing

Or do you simply mean by unaware you don't actually know if they did wash and reuse.

I mean surely they washed them first, before use, if as you suggest they were easy to find, and one assumes therefore much handled and dirty. If not they were leaving themselves open to a terrible risk of illness and infection.

So maybe you could supply the source for your knowledge on how sanity towels were used, it seems they were disposable just like today if you are correct.

I wonder about this because many of the women in Whitechapel at the time were so poor that they often had decide between a bed or food to eat. Maybe some had enough for a bed and say a potato, or sometimes a staple like Bread and Dripping maybe. But many didn't.
If they also had to earn money to purchase clean rags each month surely they would reuse if possible. That's the common sense thing to do surely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because she may have had the rags to sell as we do not know what material they were made out of and she is described as a hawker and that is someone who offers goods for sale besides according to the evidence she was in possession of 2 old pieces of white apron which at some point in the past had been cut from a full apron and not the one she was supposedly wearing

She wouldn’t have cut up an item of her own clothing. It is PROVEN that she was wearing an apron beyond all doubt and I really do wish that you’d stop saying that she wasn’t. You really haven’t a clue.

Rags were easy to come by which Victorian street women used for sanitary devices I am not aware of Victorian street women washing and re using sanitary rags

Could you please provide the evidence that rags were easy to come by? And could you please provide evidence of your expertise in Victorian women’s hygiene?

She could have gone under the archway to go to the toilet and discarded it at that point as she was passing

Or……as you’re brilliant suggestion is that she walked from the police station to the lodging house and turned right back and returned to Mitre Square we could ask why she didn’t do it in the outside loo at the lodging house? Or you could tell us why she’d have gone there with no cash? Or why no one saw her there?

Ill tell you why Trevor. Because she went nowhere near the lodging house that night.

I think it is right to assume the killer would have blood on both his hands having allegedly put his hands inside a blood-filled abdomen to remove organs if that is what in fact did happen

More dishonesty. Dr. Brown, who was actually there and examined the body, said that the abdomen wouldn’t have been blood-filled. So again you claim to know more than the experts. Why not ask Dr. Biggs? Is it because you know that Biggs wouldn’t call Brown a liar as you appear to be doing?

I am not assuming that, Dr Brown gives evidence that blood and faecal matter was on one side of the apron piece

Here’s Brown’s signed testimony that you keep saying is the only thing that we should use:

“It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood. 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 – some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street. I believe the wounds on the face to have been done to disfigure the corpse.” FGordonBrown

I see no mention of there only being staining on one side. No one said it. It’s just that you have the evidence reading skills of a toddler.

Pc Long's testimony has to be taken at face value, was he where he says he was? did he pass by at the time he said he did? or was the apron piece there and he missed it after all we do not know the size of the piece

The phrase ‘taken at face value’ means to accept something as it’s written or said. You’ve used the phrase incorrectly.