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

[Elamarna]

Let me try and be conciliatory here Trevor.

You present a theory that the condition of the Apron is not consistent with it being taken to Goulston Street by the killer.

You make arguments to back that view up, but they are from a limited viewpoint.

The assumptions you make, I detailed in a previous post.
However, you appear to ignore those points, and instead present a series of photos, clearly planned and staged to illustrate your argument. I like that I must say.

However, those photos, do not and cannot do anything other the illustrate the point you wish to make.
They do not show alternative methods for wiping hands, or for wiping a knife( wiping the knife, always seems a weak option to me anyway).
More importantly they do not show all the methods of handling the cloth, do they?

To a great degree you undermine your own argument by accepting that the killer could have wiped his hands and knife, on other parts of her clothing. If he had done such, then the idea that he would then have to mark the apron on both sides fails rather spectacularly.

The problem is we do not know the purpose for taking the apron, and I suspect never will; which means trying to judge how it would be marked is a fruitless exercise.

If as some have suggested it was taken to demonstrate to the police, that the message was from the killer( one I do not agree with, as I remain unconvinced the killer wrote the GSG, but one I do not complete dismiss as being improbable.) then all of the arguments you make are rendered irrelevant.

My dear Trevor, and I do actually like you , you have allowed your belief in your own ideas to override the level that is required to achieve proof.
Present your ideas as that, your theories, but it's your insistence that you are correct that and everyone else is wrong, that you have proved issues, when you simply have not, that explains the response you get.

I loved your use of 5 experts to discuss the medical issues, I believe that is by far the best thing you have every done in.this field, and it needs to be applauded far more than it as been.


Steve

[Elamarna]

I have attached a series of photos taken in a mortuary to prove my theory, as can be seen the blood is not blood red it is deoxygenated due to it not coming directly from a freshly killed body.

The first series is to negate the theory that the killer wiped his bloody knife on the apron piece, and as can be seen with blood on both his hands and how he would have had to hold the knife and the apron piece he could not have failed to transfer blood onto both sides of the apron piece

The second series shows just how much blood would have likely been on his hands after having them inside the abdomen and trying to remove organs this series also shows the effect on a piece of material by wiping bloody hands on it. Now I appreciate that the pic showing bloody hands may be an exaggeration due to the expert wearing rubber gloves which as can be seen blood is less absorbed by these types of gloves. So the first series shows the effect on a cloth with less blood residue on the hands

The point of this exercise was to show that the description of the apron piece was not consistent with it being used to wipe a bloody knife or to wipe blood-stained hands and these pictures clearly show that no matter how the killer held the apron piece and for what purpose he could not have failed to transfer blood onto both side of the apron piece

and like I have said before if he wanted to wipe his knife or his hands he could have done that on her clothing before leaving the crime scene

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your photos simply demonstrate one method of wiping the blade, and wiping the blade is not the only option suggested is it.

Second set show one method of wiping bloodied hands.

3rd set again show one method of handling the cloth.

However, these are not the only possible methods.

Like normal Trevor, you simplify everything.

The piece of cloth in most of the photos is not the correct size by looking at it.and therefore is not a true competitor for your test. If it is tye correct size and material, i of course withdraw that statement.

Again you assume both hands were be covered in blood, which need not be so, indeed you also say he could have wiped his hands on something else before leaving the site, which I agree with btw.


Your comment that the blood is not "Blood Red" because its deoxyginated is totally pointless. like many who attempt to make biological points, you yourself dont actually understand the science involved.

Your photos demonstrate nothing other than you ability to believe your take on issues is the only take.

Steve

[Elamarna]

You are the one disputing it, its for you to prove that I am wrong

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not so, because you have not proved that the ideas you claim are flawed are.

If you are going to claim something is proven to be flawed, it's for you to prove it.

In this case you have claimed that NO matter what the use of the apron, if the killer dropped it, there must be blood on both sides.
You have not proved that, it's simply your opinion.
Given the purpose for taking the apron is unknown, to suggest it must be marked on both side is a speculative conclusion, based on incomplete evidence

As such it remains just your opinion.


Steve

[Aethelwulf]

and of course not forgetting that cutting a piece of an apron she was wearing would cause him great difficulty because as I keep saying the apron would have been the hardest of clothing to cut because the clothes were up above her waist and the apron would have been the furthest item of clothing away from him.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Desperate nonsense. The crims must have been really bricking it when they knew Big T was after them. lol

[Trevor Marriott]

How would the apron have been the hardest to get at? It was worn on the outside and so, if he cut it before proceeding to mutilate, it would have been the easiest.

Why would he do that there is no logical explanation for him to do that, if he was conscious of the fact that he might end up with blood on his hands or knife then he could have decided in advance to wipe his hands and knife on her outer clothing without the need to go to all the trouble of cutting a piece "just in case" and we see no evidence of aprons or clothing being cut in any of the other murders

Killer strangles victim…….cuts a piece of cloth and puts it in his pocket blood free….wipes his hands on her clothing removing most of it…….goes to Goulston Street…….spots a bit of blood/faeces somewhere on his person…….wipes it off leaving the traces found on the cloth, by which time the remaining blood on his hands had dried.

Nice try, now who is fitting the facts to suit a theory this reeks of desperation to prop up the old theory

He couldn't have put the piece in his pocket as you suggest because according to another one of your made-up theories he had taken his coat off

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet again you say one thing that’s difficult to credit coming from anyone let alone a former police officer. Why would they follow a ‘theory’ that got them nowhere? It’s not as if they were trying to ‘fit up’ a suspect. They wanted to catch the killer so re-enforcing an unsafe theory makes no sense. The police already knew that the GS piece came from Eddowes apron they didn’t need the ‘theory’ backing up.

Their testimony isn’t ‘all over the place.’ The problem is that one of them misspoke. He said that the apron piece that he was shown at the inquest was the one. What he should have said was “well it certainly looks like it but I can’t be certain.” But he simply assumed that they wouldn’t have introduced another piece and so assumed that it must have been the same one…..which it clearly was. And because of this one slightly inaccurate response you deem their whole testimony ‘unsafe.’ It’s pretty desperate Trevor.

The theory was factored on the misguided belief that the killer dropped the apron piece and an indication as to which direction of travel he took after the murder

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course, we can fill the gaps we can produce facts and evidence to disprove it, but the fact of the matter is you cannot give a plausible explanation as to why the killer would cut a piece of her apron in the first place and then deposit it 10 mins later in an out of the way location which it might never have been found.

and of course not forgetting that cutting a piece of an apron she was wearing would cause him great difficulty because as I keep saying the apron would have been the hardest of clothing to cut because the clothes were up above her waist and the apron would have been the furthest item of clothing away from him.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How would the apron have been the hardest to get at? It was worn on the outside and so, if he cut it before proceeding to mutilate, it would have been the easiest.

Killer strangles victim…….cuts a piece of cloth and puts it in his pocket blood free….wipes his hands on her clothing removing most of it…….goes to Goulston Street…….spots a bit of blood/faeces somewhere on his person…….wipes it off leaving the traces found on the cloth, by which time the remaining blood on his hands had dried.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have gone over this before they gave their inquest testimony 5 days later why should they remember 5 days later whether or not she was wearing an apron there was nothing significant about her apron for them to remember that far back especially as most women at that time wore white aprons.

Their testimony is all over the place and unsafe they were shown a piece of the apron which they identified as coming from the one she was wearing but they could not know and identify the one she was wearing because there was nothing about it that made it recognisable, in fact they could have been shown any piece of apron and they would still have said it was hers.

They could not stand up and say they could not remember if or not she was wearing an apron because that would put a dent in the police theory that the killer cut it from her and deposited it in GS. They were simply going along with the police theory.

Can you remember what colour shirt you were wearing 5 days ago?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yet again you say one thing that’s difficult to credit coming from anyone let alone a former police officer. Why would they follow a ‘theory’ that got them nowhere? It’s not as if they were trying to ‘fit up’ a suspect. They wanted to catch the killer so re-enforcing an unsafe theory makes no sense. The police already knew that the GS piece came from Eddowes apron they didn’t need the ‘theory’ backing up.

Their testimony isn’t ‘all over the place.’ The problem is that one of them misspoke. He said that the apron piece that he was shown at the inquest was the one. What he should have said was “well it certainly looks like it but I can’t be certain.” But he simply assumed that they wouldn’t have introduced another piece and so assumed that it must have been the same one…..which it clearly was. And because of this one slightly inaccurate response you deem their whole testimony ‘unsafe.’ It’s pretty desperate Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

But this proves nothing Trevor. That the GS piece came from Eddowes apron in Mitre Square is proven. That the killer dropped it is proven (Eddowes simply wouldn’t have cut a valued clothing item in 2 when she was carrying - 1 piece of flannel, 1piece of blue and white shirting, 1 piece of coarse white linen and 12 pieces of white rag (not to mention 2 handkerchiefs) So we know that the killer dropped it. What he took it for is a question that we can only speculate. But the killer definitely took it and he definitely dropped it in Goulston Street and it definitely was only stained on one side. We can’t fill the gaps.

Of course, we can fill the gaps we can produce facts and evidence to disprove it, but the fact of the matter is you cannot give a plausible explanation as to why the killer would cut a piece of her apron in the first place and then deposit it 10 mins later in an out of the way location which it might never have been found.

and of course not forgetting that cutting a piece of an apron she was wearing would cause him great difficulty because as I keep saying the apron would have been the hardest of clothing to cut because the clothes were up above her waist and the apron would have been the furthest item of clothing away from him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

PC’s Hutt and Robinson’s both testified that she was wearing an apron that night. Robinson arrested her and walked with her to the station and Hutt was on duty at the station and locked her up and released her and probably checked on her while she was there. For some strange reason Trevor considers these ‘unsafe.’

We have gone over this before they gave their inquest testimony 5 days later why should they remember 5 days later whether or not she was wearing an apron there was nothing significant about her apron for them to remember that far back especially as most women at that time wore white aprons.

Their testimony is all over the place and unsafe they were shown a piece of the apron which they identified as coming from the one she was wearing but they could not know and identify the one she was wearing because there was nothing about it that made it recognisable, in fact they could have been shown any piece of apron and they would still have said it was hers.

They could not stand up and say they could not remember if or not she was wearing an apron because that would put a dent in the police theory that the killer cut it from her and deposited it in GS. They were simply going along with the police theory.

Can you remember what colour shirt you were wearing 5 days ago?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have attached a series of photos taken in a mortuary to prove my theory, as can be seen the blood is not blood red it is deoxygenated due to it not coming directly from a freshly killed body.

The first series is to negate the theory that the killer wiped his bloody knife on the apron piece, and as can be seen with blood on both his hands and how he would have had to hold the knife and the apron piece he could not have failed to transfer blood onto both sides of the apron piece

The second series shows just how much blood would have likely been on his hands after having them inside the abdomen and trying to remove organs this series also shows the effect on a piece of material by wiping bloody hands on it. Now I appreciate that the pic showing bloody hands may be an exaggeration due to the expert wearing rubber gloves which as can be seen blood is less absorbed by these types of gloves. So the first series shows the effect on a cloth with less blood residue on the hands

The point of this exercise was to show that the description of the apron piece was not consistent with it being used to wipe a bloody knife or to wipe blood-stained hands and these pictures clearly show that no matter how the killer held the apron piece and for what purpose he could not have failed to transfer blood onto both side of the apron piece

and like I have said before if he wanted to wipe his knife or his hands he could have done that on her clothing before leaving the crime scene

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But this proves nothing Trevor. That the GS piece came from Eddowes apron in Mitre Square is proven. That the killer dropped it is proven (Eddowes simply wouldn’t have cut a valued clothing item in 2 when she was carrying - 1 piece of flannel, 1piece of blue and white shirting, 1 piece of coarse white linen and 12 pieces of white rag (not to mention 2 handkerchiefs) So we know that the killer dropped it. What he took it for is a question that we can only speculate. But the killer definitely took it and he definitely dropped it in Goulston Street and it definitely was only stained on one side. We can’t fill the gaps.

[Herlock Sholmes]

PC Long of the Metropolitan police testified under oath that he found the apron part in Goulston Street. Before he left the site, he called over another officer to watch the site. If Long was lying about having the apron piece at that time, the other constable probably would have noticed.

Inspector Collard of the City Police and Dr Brown both testified that Eddowes had been wearing an apron that was missing a piece and that the Goulston Street piece fit with the piece still attached to the body.

PC Watkin of the City Police, watchman Morris, PC Holland of the City Police, PC Harvey of the City Police, Sgt Jones of the City Police, and Dr Sequiera saw Eddowes' body before it was moved from the murder site. Davis, the mortuary keeper saw the body when it arrived. If Colland and Brown were lying about Eddowes wearing an apron, the other seven men would have known they were lying.

PC’s Hutt and Robinson’s both testified that she was wearing an apron that night. Robinson arrested her and walked with her to the station and Hutt was on duty at the station and locked her up and released her and probably checked on her while she was there. For some strange reason Trevor considers these ‘unsafe.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

What are the real truths that one poster claims?To me a real truth is established fact Something that cannot be denied.As I have pointed out in regard to the apron piece,almost everything about it,as Trevor states,is belief,and it is belief stemming from the statements of just two persons,Dr Brown and P.C.Long.Brown claims the apron piece was part of an apron in possession of Eddowes,and long claims he found the piece in a building in Goulston Street.Those two pieces of evidence still needs to be proven.Both maybe correct,but maybe isn't enough,it doesn't amount to proven.

Brown said:

“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.”

So when he fitted the two pieces together he saw that the mortuary piece had a patch sown on it which he said had also been sown to the Goulston Street piece. So there was either still a piece of the patch on the Goulston Street piece or he could see the corresponding stitches. Either way, he could see that the patch connected the two pieces. This proves that the GS piece came from the mortuary piece.

[Trevor Marriott]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, you should know that.

But I am not prosecuting I am the one defending my theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you prove, I mean actually prove that such is NOT possible?

Steve

I have attached a series of photos taken in a mortuary to prove my theory, as can be seen the blood is not blood red it is deoxygenated due to it not coming directly from a freshly killed body.

The first series is to negate the theory that the killer wiped his bloody knife on the apron piece, and as can be seen with blood on both his hands and how he would have had to hold the knife and the apron piece he could not have failed to transfer blood onto both sides of the apron piece

The second series shows just how much blood would have likely been on his hands after having them inside the abdomen and trying to remove organs this series also shows the effect on a piece of material by wiping bloody hands on it. Now I appreciate that the pic showing bloody hands may be an exaggeration due to the expert wearing rubber gloves which as can be seen blood is less absorbed by these types of gloves. So the first series shows the effect on a cloth with less blood residue on the hands

The point of this exercise was to show that the description of the apron piece was not consistent with it being used to wipe a bloody knife or to wipe blood-stained hands and these pictures clearly show that no matter how the killer held the apron piece and for what purpose he could not have failed to transfer blood onto both side of the apron piece

and like I have said before if he wanted to wipe his knife or his hands he could have done that on her clothing before leaving the crime scene

www.trevormarriott.co.uk