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

[harry]

Even if the P.C. Long called to assist, saw the apron piece in Long's possession,he could not swear as to how P.C.Long came to have it.Long was reportedly alone until joined by that P.C.
As to those viewing the body in Mitre Square,the significant point to me, is none testified to Eddowes wearing an apron at that time.
Collards evidence,as Trevor has said,is ambiguous,and does not clearly show an apron being worn.
The body,when Brown supposedly made his discovery,was nude,having been stripped beforehand,so Brown could not match with an apron,or piece of apron being worn.

[Dickere]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Steve

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

That is incorrect

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.

If you think that you have been misinformed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

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.

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.

[harry]

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.

[DJA]

Everybody knows there's no Sanitary Clause

[Elamarna]

all this with your belief that the killer by reason of his actions and what was done to the victim only managed to get small traces of faecal matter and smears /spot of blood on one side of the apron piece, and you have the audacity to challenge my opinion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you might explain why the killer is alleged to have cut the apron piece in the first instance because so far all the suggestions you personally have come up with have not come up to proof. i.e folding the apron piece, wearing gloves, taking off gloves, taking off coat, putting the coat back on, removing organs while wearing gloves, and then handling the apron piece with bloody hands/gloves, putting gloves back in coat pocket, all this with your belief that the killer by reason of his actions and what was done to the victim only managed to get small traces of faecal matter and smears /spot of blood on one side of the apron piece, and you have the audacity to challenge my opinion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We don’t know why he cut the apron piece but we know that the apron piece ended up in Goulston Street and the only way that it could have gotten there is because the killer dropped it there. Just because we can’t give a reason doesn’t change the fact.

The suggestion that the killer could get staining on one side of a cloth is absolutely possible. It’s only your refusal to accept the obvious that keeps you going on about it. Put a cloth down, grab it with one hand so it bunches up, then wipe the other hand on it too and there’s every chance that you will only stain one side. It’s just a fact. And as there was only staining on one side, and we know that the killer took the apron and dropped it in Goulston Street then staining on one side has to be possible. It happened….so it’s possible. Your ‘sanitary’ explanation just doesn’t work whichever way we look at it. So if we eliminate that…..we are left with the obvious. Which you appear to be allergic too.

Why do you have to resort to exaggerations to dismiss any mention of gloves or a jacket/coat? As if it would have been some huge, time-consuming operation when it would have been a matter of 5 seconds. I haven’t claimed the suggestion as a fact but it’s immeasurably more grounded in reason than your ‘sanitary’ theory. Why is it so far fetched that a man killing women outdoors, with all of the risks involved, might have considered ways of reducing the risk of capture? Can that really be a foreign concept to an ex-police officer? Is it so ‘far out’ for the killer to have thought ‘what would I do if someone saw blood on my hands or my clothing? What if I had to pass a Constable in the street and I have blood on my shirt?” How could he prevent this? By putting a pair of gloves in his jacket/coat pocket. It hardly requires a Professor Moriarty to come up with it does it? So he strangles his victim….takes off his jacket (2 seconds)…. takes the gloves from his pocket and puts them on (3 seconds)…..mutilates the victim……..puts the gloves in his jacket pocket and puts the jacket on (5 seconds) Result….no blood on hands and any staining to the upper part of his body covered. It’s not even close to far fetched.

[Elamarna]

The saying people in glass houses springs to mind!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh dear, when I make a mistake, I put my hands up and say so.
If shown to be incorrect, I amend.
And of course I present speculation as just that, my ideas, my opinions.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

It's 2016, lasted at least 6 months on and off. I actually spent 3 months of it in Barbados.
Have a search for it, it's amazing.


Steve

The saying people in glass houses springs to mind!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m sorry but to me your decades of reviewing statements counts for little when we consider some of your suggestions on here. I think that you just go out of your way to invent new theories and then defend them at the cost of all sense of judgment and just for the sake of it.

A part of a murder victims apron is cut away then discovered a few streets away. How did it get there to be discovered around an hour after her body was found? Two police officers said that she was wearing an apron before her arrest.

Any suggestion, other than the killer dropped it, is not worthy of consideration unless you can produce positive evidence that someone else dropped it there. And you can’t.

Therefore……the killer dropped it…….only conclusion…….end of debate.

But you will still defend the indefensible at all costs which is worse than the alleged offence of defending the old established theories imo.

So you might explain why the killer is alleged to have cut the apron piece in the first instance because so far all the suggestions you personally have come up with have not come up to proof. i.e folding the apron piece, wearing gloves, taking off gloves, taking off coat, putting the coat back on, removing organs while wearing gloves, and then handling the apron piece with bloody hands/gloves, putting gloves back in coat pocket, all this with your belief that the killer by reason of his actions and what was done to the victim only managed to get small traces of faecal matter and smears /spot of blood on one side of the apron piece, and you have the audacity to challenge my opinion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I missed that photo incident debate , a bit befor my time here ,but if it was anything like the "Eddowes face mutilation before her death debate " it must have been a ripper . Pun intended.

It's 2016, lasted at least 6 months on and off. I actually spent 3 months of it in Barbados.
Have a search for it, it's amazing.


Steve

[FISHY1118]

As I said you are fully entitled to view YOUR opinions, but those opinions are yours.

So when you say something is proven to be flawed, often that is simply your opinion Trevor, yet you present it as hard, solid fact, when it's no such thing.

Why you insist now on arguing that your opinion is paramount I fail to understand , but then recalling the photo incident, maybe it's not that hard at all.

Steve

I missed that photo incident debate , a bit befor my time here ,but if it was anything like the "Eddowes face mutilation before her death debate " it must have been a ripper . Pun intended.

[Elamarna]

And I am entitled to voice my opinion and to defend that opinion just the same as others do theirs having regard to the fact that I have decades of reviewing statements in criminal cases and I still do on a daily basis I think I am more than capable of identifying flaws in witnesses' statements.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As I said you are fully entitled to view YOUR opinions, but those opinions are yours.

So when you say something is proven to be flawed, often that is simply your opinion Trevor, yet you present it as hard, solid fact, when it's no such thing.

Why you insist now on arguing that your opinion is paramount I fail to understand , but then recalling the photo incident, maybe it's not that hard at all.

Steve