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

[Trevor Marriott]

What this also shows, is that given the two parts were produced, if there was still parts missing (Trevor's claim is that the two pieces didn't make up a whole apron) this would have been immediately obvious to the entire inquest, raising questions about why the police were not searching for the third (or more) missing pieces on the possibility that, if found, they would leave a more detailed "bread crumb trail".

There are very few things in this case that we have sufficient evidence to actually make a call on, but Kate's wearing of an apron and the fact that the portion found in Mitre Square and G.S. comprised the complete apron is at least one of them. In my view I think it's fine to be cautious about when the G.S. piece was deposited there, and I think it prudent to consider two lines of inquiry, but I see no merit in the suggestion that she wasn't wearing an apron, or that there were any pieces unaccounted for. If we go that route, we might as well just ignore all testimony and make up whatever story we fancy. I fail to see how that could be an accurate approach.

- Jeff

The testimony is unsafe for the reasons that have been put forward which for some reason researchers cannot or will not accept.

You nor anyone else cannot show any evidence that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron, The introduction by some of a missing piece is another desperate attempt to prop up the old theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But we have an expert gynaecologist whose valued opinion has to be considered

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sorry Trevor, but having been married twice, even I, as a mere man know that anyone saying 12 pads is excessive, is talking nonsense, or maybe the question is being asked wrong.


Steve

[JeffHamm]

Yes there is!

At the inquest, PC Robinson confirmed that Eddowes was wearing an apron at the police station. He was asked if he could identify it, and he said he could if he saw "the whole of it". The two parts were produced, and he identified it. PC Hutt confirmed that she was wearing the apron when she left the station, and that he believed that the "apron" shown to PC Robinson was the one she was wearing. No-one at the inquest said anything to suggest that the whole apron was not available, nor that the two parts did not make up a full apron. Why would a police officer ask to be shown a "whole apron" if the police were aware that they did not have the whole apron? It makes no sense whatever!

The police evidence is quite clear - Two different officers independantly swore she was wearing the apron, and the only available evidence suggests that the whole apron was available at the inquest. There is therefore a complete absence of evidence that the two parts did not make up the whole apron.

You can, of course, claim that the sworn evidence of the two officers, and the total absence of any suggestion at the inquest that the apron was not complete is "unsafe", but you cannot claim that there is "no evidence".

I don't accept the suggestion that the inquest was several days after the murder, and the PC's memories could have been hazy. The officers would have been asked shortly afterwards for a description of Eddowes and all related events, so questions about the apron weren't sudden and unexpected at the inquest. They would have made their observations within 24 hours of the event.

What this also shows, is that given the two parts were produced, if there was still parts missing (Trevor's claim is that the two pieces didn't make up a whole apron) this would have been immediately obvious to the entire inquest, raising questions about why the police were not searching for the third (or more) missing pieces on the possibility that, if found, they would leave a more detailed "bread crumb trail".

There are very few things in this case that we have sufficient evidence to actually make a call on, but Kate's wearing of an apron and the fact that the portion found in Mitre Square and G.S. comprised the complete apron is at least one of them. In my view I think it's fine to be cautious about when the G.S. piece was deposited there, and I think it prudent to consider two lines of inquiry, but I see no merit in the suggestion that she wasn't wearing an apron, or that there were any pieces unaccounted for. If we go that route, we might as well just ignore all testimony and make up whatever story we fancy. I fail to see how that could be an accurate approach.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Jeff and Doc,

There can be no doubt on this. Everything points us inescapably in one direction. That Eddowes was wearing an apron on the evening that she died is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. That the Goulston Street piece and the mortuary piece combined to make a whole apron is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. And that the killer of Eddowes dropped the apron piece in Goulston Street is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

There’s so much that is nowhere near proven in this case and worthy of discussion and further investigation and yet we keep finding ourselves drawn back into arguing against this lame duck theory which, as far as I can see, only two people on the planet give any time to.

Pick a topic someone……please

[Doctored Whatsit]

The two pieces matched that there is no doubt but there is no evidence to show that the two pieces made up a full apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes there is!

At the inquest, PC Robinson confirmed that Eddowes was wearing an apron at the police station. He was asked if he could identify it, and he said he could if he saw "the whole of it". The two parts were produced, and he identified it. PC Hutt confirmed that she was wearing the apron when she left the station, and that he believed that the "apron" shown to PC Robinson was the one she was wearing. No-one at the inquest said anything to suggest that the whole apron was not available, nor that the two parts did not make up a full apron. Why would a police officer ask to be shown a "whole apron" if the police were aware that they did not have the whole apron? It makes no sense whatever!

The police evidence is quite clear - Two different officers independantly swore she was wearing the apron, and the only available evidence suggests that the whole apron was available at the inquest. There is therefore a complete absence of evidence that the two parts did not make up the whole apron.

You can, of course, claim that the sworn evidence of the two officers, and the total absence of any suggestion at the inquest that the apron was not complete is "unsafe", but you cannot claim that there is "no evidence".

I don't accept the suggestion that the inquest was several days after the murder, and the PC's memories could have been hazy. The officers would have been asked shortly afterwards for a description of Eddowes and all related events, so questions about the apron weren't sudden and unexpected at the inquest. They would have made their observations within 24 hours of the event.

[JeffHamm]

Another point is that we know that she was wearing an apron because of what three police officers said. Hutt and Robinson who both saw her wearing one which Trevor tries to discredit with absolutely no grounds for doing so. And Collard who said:

“I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress.”

So it wasn’t hidden under her clothing or kept in an inside pocket it was outside of her clothing. So unless it’s being claimed that she was carrying it through the streets then this means that she was wearing it. And before he says it, because naturally Trevor like a good conspiracy theorist would, focuses on the word ‘apparently.’ it’s very obvious why he used that word. Because when her body was found it had been cut and was no longer properly attached to her body but seeing where it was found it was ‘apparent’ to him that she’d been wearing it.

This is such simple, obvious stuff, but one word spawns a theory. Get a grip.

There's more than just the 3 police officers.

Testimonies at the Eddowes’ inquest:
Day 1, Thursday, October 4, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888, Page 3)
Frederick William Wilkinson deposed: I am deputy of the lodging-house at Flower and Dean-street. I have known the deceased and Kelly during the last seven years. …I believe on Saturday morning Kate was wearing an apron. Nothing unusual struck me about her dress. …

Inspector Collard, of the City Police, said: At five minutes before two o'clock on Sunday morning last I received information at Bishopsgate-street Police-station that a woman had been murdered in Mitre-square. …
[Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased. (** In other papers this is reported as …corresponding with the apron apparently worn by the deceased. **; or words to that effect, the key being the word apparently)

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown was then called, and deposed: I am surgeon to the City of London Police. …
[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body. (**again, I believe this may be phrased differently in some papers **)

Day 2, Thursday, October 11, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1888, Page 2)
City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased. …
The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.
Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, City Police: I am gaoler at Bishopsgate station. On the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, at a quarter to ten o'clock, I took over our prisoners, among them the deceased. I visited her several times until five minutes to one on Sunday morning. …
[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.

And, the Coroner's last question makes it absolutely clear that there was no question in the eyes of the inquest that Kate was wearing an apron and the Goulston Street piece was part of it.


- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point is that we know that she was wearing an apron because of what three police officers said. Hutt and Robinson who both saw her wearing one which Trevor tries to discredit with absolutely no grounds for doing so. And Collard who said:

“I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress.”

So it wasn’t hidden under her clothing or kept in an inside pocket it was outside of her clothing. So unless it’s being claimed that she was carrying it through the streets then this means that she was wearing it. And before he says it, because naturally Trevor like a good conspiracy theorist would, focuses on the word ‘apparently.’ it’s very obvious why he used that word. Because when her body was found it had been cut and was no longer properly attached to her body but seeing where it was found it was ‘apparent’ to him that she’d been wearing it.

This is such simple, obvious stuff, but one word spawns a theory. Get a grip.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not admitting that at all, simply agreeing with what is wrongly suggested to prove a point

and where did all the blood go then because there was very little at the crime scene?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Attend a seance and ask Dr Brown. He had no issue with the suggestion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They came from the same old apron but didn't make up a full apron

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes they did. It’s proven. Game over. Pleeeeeeeeeeeese let this embarrassing nonsense go

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801600][QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801589]Following on from Joshua’s post #430

The Telegraph - PC Long

[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

Inquest testimony - PC Long

There appeared blood stains on it, one portion was wet,

The Times - PC Long

At about 2.55 he found a portion of an apron (produced as before). There were recent stains of blood on it.

None of these mention that there was staining on only one side.

But they all conflict with each other in description

Dr Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”
So which is the correct description?

Dr. Brown (The Times)

Mr. Crawford. – What conclusion do you draw from that? – Witness. – That the cut in the abdomen was made after death, and that there would not be much blood left to escape on the hands of the murderer.

So no blood filled abdomen abdomen according to Brown. Could there be a better witness?

I wish those who seek to negate these facts would read the facts and evidence before asking questions that have been asked many times before

If a person is stabbed in the abdomen several times and the abdomen ripped open those wounds would cause arteries and blood vessels to be severed thereby filling the abdomen with blood which the killer could not have avoided when rummaging around inside the abdomen looking for organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

They don’t conflict in the slightest. A perfect example of your inability to read evidence.

Amazing isn’t it…..a man who spent pages and pages trying to claim that Dr. Phillips knew more than he possibly could, before finally conceding the point, now tries to claim that this Victorian Doctor was clueless.

Typical of you. Unsafe witnesses when it suits you. Unsafe evidence when it suits you. Now an unsafe Doctor when it suits you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The two pieces matched that there is no doubt but there is no evidence to show that the two pieces made up a full apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes there is!!

There was no mention of a missing piece and the police absolutely believed that the killer took the piece to Goulston Street. So where is the mention of a missing piece? Where is the instruction to the police to look for a second piece?

This is evidence that the piece and the GS piece and the mortuary piece made up a whole apron but not a scrap of evidence to say that they didn’t.

Have you ever produced evidence? Oh yes, the evidence of the string which you had attached to the wrong piece. So no….you haven’t produced evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

And I wish those who seek to bolster their own theories would use actual facts and evidence rather than their imaginations.


Not if those arteries and blood vessels have already been emptied due to severance of the carotid artery.

Glad to see that you're now finally admitting that the killer was looking for organs.

Not admitting that at all, simply agreeing with what is wrongly suggested to prove a point

and where did all the blood go then because there was very little at the crime scene?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

I wish those who seek to negate these facts would read the facts and evidence before asking questions that have been asked many times before

And I wish those who seek to bolster their own theories would use actual facts and evidence rather than their imaginations.

If a person is stabbed in the abdomen several times and the abdomen ripped open those wounds would cause arteries and blood vessels to be severed thereby filling the abdomen with blood

Not if those arteries and blood vessels have already been emptied due to severance of the carotid artery.

which the killer could not have avoided when rummaging around inside the abdomen looking for organs[/B]

Glad to see that you're now finally admitting that the killer was looking for organs.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's odd that neither you nor Harry seem to realize his opinions contradict your theory.

If Dr Brown was wrong and the two pieces came from different aprons, then the Goulston Street apron piece did not belong to Catherine Eddowes and your theory cannot be correct.

They came from the same old apron but didn't make up a full apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801589]Following on from Joshua’s post #430

The Telegraph - PC Long

[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

Inquest testimony - PC Long

There appeared blood stains on it, one portion was wet,

The Times - PC Long

At about 2.55 he found a portion of an apron (produced as before). There were recent stains of blood on it.

None of these mention that there was staining on only one side.

But they all conflict with each other in description

Dr Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”
So which is the correct description?

Dr. Brown (The Times)

Mr. Crawford. – What conclusion do you draw from that? – Witness. – That the cut in the abdomen was made after death, and that there would not be much blood left to escape on the hands of the murderer.

So no blood filled abdomen abdomen according to Brown. Could there be a better witness? [QUOTE]

I wish those who seek to negate these facts would read the facts and evidence before asking questions that have been asked many times before

If a person is stabbed in the abdomen several times and the abdomen ripped open those wounds would cause arteries and blood vessels to be severed thereby filling the abdomen with blood which the killer could not have avoided when rummaging around inside the abdomen looking for organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk