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

[Varqm]

So if that be correct Dc Halse was not present when the body was stripped which makes his testimony suspect!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No it does not,where is it wrong.That does not change anything,they were there making a simple observation,way better than your imagination.You do not even have a picture of the apron ,it's position in the body in situ and in the mortuary and the blood in it.Your observation is not even remotely comparable to theirs.
Ok Trevor lets just say you were there.

[Abby Normal]

But I am an experienced investigator

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

prove it. where ? when? for how long? how many murders did you solve? what was your solve rate?
i want documented evidence. name one person/ victim whos murder you personally have solved.


And just what the hell is a "murder squad detective"??

[Trevor Marriott]

One other point, you claim the reports are often contradictory, but on the issue of the apron, the "Conflict" is NOT REALLY conflict, it's tgat some contain information that other don't, that is what one would expect from different reporters and editors.

You also do not seem to realise that most researchers differniate between general press reports and court and inquest reports.
The later are normally treated as primarily sources with regards to the inquest.

Steve

and that's the problem researchers are using newspaper reports to prop up the theory and these may not be accurate as I have already proved conclusively in a previous post

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The depositions in this case, lack.detail, the same is true in most cases where a deposition is available.
However, the signed depositions in this case, not withstanding a lack.of some detail clearly say that 1. Eddowes was wearing an apron at the police station.

Not in the case of Dr Browns deposition
2. That the two apron portions were the apron worn by EDDOWES.

The two pieces of apron matched
3. When asked if it was the same apron, the reply was the witness would need to see the whole apron to be sure.
The witness was shown both pieces and agree it was the apron.

The witness was shown two pieces there is no evidence to show they made up a full apron

By definition the witness would not be able to do this if the apron was incomplete. Therefore it was complete, and of.

The witness was not shown a complete apron he was shown two pieces of an old apron which in reality could have come from any old apron, so how would that witness be able to identify it as being worn by Eddowes there were 2 old white apron pieces the witness was not asked what was identifying about the apron she was wearing for him to be sure the two pieces came from an apron she was supposed wearing? this testimony is unsafe

When comparing depositions to press reports, the thing to remember is a deposition was not in the 19th century a complete record of what was said, the court recorders often lacked the skills to take a full verbatim version. Fortunately that is not now the case you do not appear to take this on board

I do take it on board and I fully accept what you say but the accuracy of what is reported has to be questioned I gave the perfect example in a previous post

One of the skills of an historian and researcher is the ability to work with sources that may not always be consistent, Normally we look not only multiple reports, but for serperate sources( reporters)

But if you use multiple newspaper reports that have shown to be conflicting and inaccurate where does that leave you in the grand scheme of things as a historian?

The reports are only unsafe in your view, because you are not an historian.

But I am an experienced investigator

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact that it was found outside of her clothing proves that she was wearing it (as opposed to how she carried the other items) which in turn proves that it was a whole apron.

The killer rifled her possessions before leaving how do we know that as I suggest she was simply in possession of one old piece of white apron, and that is confirmed by the mortuary piece being listed among her possessions and that is the piece referred to being found outside her body

The fact of the sheer ludicrousness of the suggestion that she’d have cut up an apron whilst being in possession of 14 other items that she could have used further strengthens the point that she was wearing it.

That is not the issue the issue is that at some point in time before her arrest she was in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some point in time had been cut from a full apron and she was using one as a sanitary device which she was wearing in custody and on release she herself discarded it in GS

The pieces of material she had in her possession are academic to this scenario

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.

[Trevor Marriott]

Per Collard,the body was not touched until the doctors arrive, the doctors,Brown and Sequiera,saw the body moved into the conveyance,and stripped by the the mortuary attendant in front of the two doctors above and himself.

So if that be correct Dc Halse was not present when the body was stripped which makes his testimony suspect!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

"Yes, but you don’t go!" - Pirates of Penzance

The only one manipulating evidence to prop up a theory is you. It makes one wonder how safe the cases you worked on were.



There is no official evidence for anything related to the case. Every source is unsafe, including the ones you use.

Your blatant double standard is obvious.

So is your complete failure to understand historical research. History consists of examining the surviving sources, weighing them, and coming up with the most probable answers. If we were to merely say safe or unsafe, then nothing in history can be proven safe.

Your repeated refusal to answer questions is also obvious.

* Why would Eddowes cut up an apron to use as a sanitary napkin when she already had 12 rags?

* 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?

* Why would Eddowes choose so public a place - the entryway of a tenement - to remove and discard the apron piece?

* Why are you assuming the killer would have blood on both hands?

* Why are you assuming there was blood on only one side of the apron piece?

* 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?

hi fiver
"It makes one wonder how safe the cases you worked on were."

in trevors favorite response: unsafe

[Varqm]

Where is the documentary evidence for that happening,Varqm.

Where else,look in the inquest for Collards testimony.

[harry]

Where is the documentary evidence for that happening,Varqm.

[Varqm]

I have read the Inquest testimonies.I am aware of who were witnesses.I am now waiting for a list of the numerous witnesse who ,it is claimed,testified she was wearing an apron.
Dr Brown did not testify that he observed an apron piece at the murder scene,nor did any one else.Robinson's sighting was hours before her death,and his,'To the best of my belief',falls well short of beyond reasonable doubt.Collards list is the only tie to what he might have saw.There is no record he watched while the body was disrobed by the mortuary attendents,and their knowledge has not been disclosed.Brown alone,claims he matched two apron pieces.
Now if Fiver or mister ninety nine and a half per cent wish to discuss other alledged witnesses,just disclose their names,and I will reply.
Herlock talks about reasoning.I suppose because he can dribble,kick,or head a ball,that puts him on the same level as a professional footballer..Compared to Trevor's knowledge of police work,Herlock is a rank amatuer

Per Collard,the body was not touched until the doctors arrive, the doctors,Brown and Sequiera,saw the body moved into the conveyance,and stripped by the the mortuary attendant in front of the two doctors above and himself.

[harry]

I have read the Inquest testimonies.I am aware of who were witnesses.I am now waiting for a list of the numerous witnesse who ,it is claimed,testified she was wearing an apron.
Dr Brown did not testify that he observed an apron piece at the murder scene,nor did any one else.Robinson's sighting was hours before her death,and his,'To the best of my belief',falls well short of beyond reasonable doubt.Collards list is the only tie to what he might have saw.There is no record he watched while the body was disrobed by the mortuary attendents,and their knowledge has not been disclosed.Brown alone,claims he matched two apron pieces.
Now if Fiver or mister ninety nine and a half per cent wish to discuss other alledged witnesses,just disclose their names,and I will reply.
Herlock talks about reasoning.I suppose because he can dribble,kick,or head a ball,that puts him on the same level as a professional footballer..Compared to Trevor's knowledge of police work,Herlock is a rank amatuer

[Enigma]

But history is there to be challenged and not readily accepted as being how it is written, and as a Historian when you come across conflicting reports which do you believe, in this case you clearly believe the reports that support your own belief.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Any competent historian when confronted with conflicting reports will place more reliance on that which the more credible. The historian's personal belief should be formed on the best evidence, and not pick and choose that which suits a preconceived theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

One other point, you claim the reports are often contradictory, but on the issue of the apron, the "Conflict" is NOT REALLY conflict, it's tgat some contain information that other don't, that is what one would expect from different reporters and editors.

You also do not seem to realise that most researchers differniate between general press reports and court and inquest reports.
The later are normally treated as primarily sources with regards to the inquest.

Steve

Thats not true, all I have seen on this topic is reserchers quoting extracts from newspaper reports to prop up the old theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The depositions in this case, lack.detail, the same is true in most cases where a deposition is available.
However, the signed depositions in this case, not withstanding a lack.of some detail clearly say that 1. Eddowes was wearing an apron at the police station.
2. That the two apron portions were the apron worn by EDDOWES.
3. When asked if it was the same apron, the reply was the witness would need to see the whole apron to be sure.
The witness was shown both pieces and agree it was the apron.
By definition the witness would not be able to do this if the apron was incomplete. Therefore it was complete, and of.

Your interpretation of the evidence is clearly not the same as my interpretation and I can see flaws in the testimony that you are not able to see or dont want to see

When comparing depositions to press reports, the thing to remember is a deposition was not in the 19th century a complete record of what was said, the court recorders often lacked the skills to take a full verbatim version. Fortunately that is not now the case you do not appear to take this on board

Again we disagree, in the case of Eddowes inquest testimony as can be seen Dr Brown's testimony is very lengthy and in great detail are you suggesting that whoever took it down either missed some of the testimony or simply took it down wrong if that be the case then we cannot rely on any of it as being correct, and why should the person charged with taking the depositions down decide on what to take down and what to leave out?

And why should we accept without question the newspaper reports which add further dialogue from the inquest which you refer to as being accurate after all one misplaced word can change the whole face of an investigation as an example.

Dr Browns signed deposition
“My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached

Telegraph report
Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

You can see one misplaced word can change how the evidence is evaluated

One of the skills of an historian and researcher is the ability to work with sources that may not always be consistent, Normally we look not only multiple reports, but for serperate sources( reporters)

But where there are inconsistencies, how do you then decide which is right and which is wrong? as has been said before unless a reporter sat in the inquest and attempted to write down what was said any newspaper report filed outside of a reporter being present is hearsay

The reports are only unsafe in your view, because you are not an historian.

But history is there to be challenged and not readily accepted as being how it is written, and as a Historian when you come across conflicting reports which do you believe, in this case you clearly believe the reports that support your own belief.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

The press reports are unsafe, and as can be seen often conflict with each other so I fully understand what you say but in this case, we have signed depositions and it is wrong to suggest that what is printed in a newspaper report was actually said in the way it has been reported. of reported correctly

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

One other point, you claim the reports are often contradictory, but on the issue of the apron, the "Conflict" is NOT REALLY conflict, it's tgat some contain information that other don't, that is what one would expect from different reporters and editors.

You also do not seem to realise that most researchers differniate between general press reports and court and inquest reports.
The later are normally treated as primarily sources with regards to the inquest.

Steve