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

[Ally]

For a very long time there has been a measure of proof in murder,that is,'Beyond a reasonable doubt'.That shouldn'tbe a problem with most persons,as the final decision is left with Judges and juries.Is there reasonable doubt in regard to the apron piece,and the claims of Brown and long?Trevor and I think there is.

Some people think there's reasonable doubt that the Earth is round. That doesn't mean rational people should consider their "doubt" seriously. Especially if their "doubt" is based on an absurd and dirt stupid premise that doesn't withstand the most basic whiff of plausibility.

Catherine Eddowes did not use the discarded apron piece as a sanitary napkin. To consider this, one would have to give equal likelihood to a woman in modern times with 12 tampons in her purse deciding to rip up her one shirt and destroy it and use that instead. The idea is just dumb. It's stupid. It's idiotic. It's moronic. No woman, not even a drunk, impoverished Victorian woman, is that flipping stupid. The idea that Catherine Eddowes would have destroyed a valuable (to her) garment to shove up her crotch, when she had the equivalent of 12 tampons in her pockets... is DUMB.

Unless you think Catherine Eddowes was a gibbering moron? Is that what y'all are claiming? She's too stupid to use what she already has on hand so she's going to destroy a valuable garment instead of using what she's already got?

[FISHY1118]

Ally, probably the best response on the topic yet . How on earth do some people try to convince others of such idiotic behavior just to support their theory to the death is beyond any rational understanding . For God sake let it go guys ,this is the kind of garbage that causes so much heated insulting back and forth on this forum . Its not healthy.

Have a theory by all means, but ffs make it a worthwhile one worthy of some intelligent debating . I'd take the royal conspiracy theory over Eddowes sanitary pad usage and the bloody initials on Mary Kellys wall and forearm shite anyday..

[harry]

Why address your post to me Ally.Have I claimed the apron piece supposedly found by Long was used as a sanitary napkin?
I am certainly of the opinion that it didn't need 12 pieces,or 12 different sanitary pads,and my reasons for believing that have alreadybeen posted.
I have been asked to provide reasons why Brown or Long need to have lied.I do not know.I also do not know why the Ripper killed victims,but does that mean there were no murders?

[Trevor Marriott]

Some people think there's reasonable doubt that the Earth is round. That doesn't mean rational people should consider their "doubt" seriously. Especially if their "doubt" is based on an absurd and dirt stupid premise that doesn't withstand the most basic whiff of plausibility.

Catherine Eddowes did not use the discarded apron piece as a sanitary napkin. To consider this, one would have to give equal likelihood to a woman in modern times with 12 tampons in her purse deciding to rip up her one shirt and destroy it and use that instead. The idea is just dumb. It's stupid. It's idiotic. It's moronic. No woman, not even a drunk, impoverished Victorian woman, is that flipping stupid. The idea that Catherine Eddowes would have destroyed a valuable (to her) garment to shove up her crotch, when she had the equivalent of 12 tampons in her pockets... is DUMB.

Unless you think Catherine Eddowes was a gibbering moron? Is that what y'all are claiming? She's too stupid to use what she already has on hand so she's going to destroy a valuable garment instead of using what she's already got?

No one is specifically suggesting that she destroyed her apron, the issues are firstly was she wearing an apron in the first instance? and if she wasn't could she have simply been in possession prior to her arrest of two old pieces of an old white apron one of which she had been using as a sanitary device.

There is no evidence to show that when Dr Brown matched the two pieces they made up a full apron, so the evidence suggesting she was wearing an apron and that the killer cut a piece and took it away depositing it is unsafe to totally rely on. The witnesses' testimony used to support the killer taking the apron piece is also unsafe and conflicting which regrettably I keep having to keep repeating

Insp Collard-"Apparently wearing"
Brown "A corner piece with a string attached" You can't tie an apron with one string
Collards list "One old piece of old white apron in possessions" so that tends to prove that she had in her possession at some point in time 2 old pieces of white apron

The crime scene sketch of the body shows no apron

Furthermore, she had the time and the opportunity to make her way in the direction of Flower and Dean Street after she left the police station that journey would have taken her right past GS giving her the opportunity to discard the soiled sanitary device under the archway, why she didn't manage to secure entry to her lodgings is unknown and on that, we can only speculate but it should not be dismissed.

and it is significant that there was only blood and faecal matter on one side and which is consistent with it being used as a sanitary device, as has been discussed despite the killer cutting her throat ripping open her abdomen and allegedly putting his hand's into a blood-filled abdomen he avoided transferring any blood onto both sides of the apron piece

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

For a very long time there has been a measure of proof in murder,that is,'Beyond a reasonable doubt'.That shouldn'tbe a problem with most persons,as the final decision is left with Judges and juries.Is there reasonable doubt in regard to the apron piece,and the claims of Brown and long?Trevor and I think there is.

I’d say that there wasn’t really a shred of ‘reasonable’ doubt that the apron piece was drop in Goulston Street by the killer.

Was there any likelihood of the Police lying about this issue? - I’d say that the combination of it being so unlikely (as they wouldn’t have benefitted in any way from doing so) and the fact that we have no evidence of them lying, that we can say no.

Is there any likelihood that Brown could have mistakenly matched the two pieces? - Again, I’d say definitely not. We have a knife cut which wouldn’t have been perfectly straight (which would aid alignment) and the fact that there was a patch attached to both parts. So for Brown to have been mistaken we would need an entirely unconnected piece of apron with a patch of the correct material in the exact corresponding spot and cut through in exactly the same way. So this can be dismissed.

Could Eddowes have used the cloth as a sanitary towel? - Then we would have to believe that this dirt poor woman (wearing every meagre item that she owned) would have cut and destroyed an item of clothing whilst at the time carrying some 14 pieces of cloth which could have served the same purpose. Added to this she had no knife in her possession and the fact that this suggestion would require her returning to the lodging house completely unseen on release only to turn immediately back around and return to the area of Mitre Square. So we can dismiss this as unlikely in the extreme.

So no Harry. There isn’t a shred of reasonable doubt that the killer dropped the apron. Why he did so is anyone’s guess.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one is specifically suggesting that she destroyed her apron, the issues are firstly was she wearing an apron in the first instance? and if she wasn't could she have simply been in possession prior to her arrest of two old pieces of an old white apron one of which she had been using as a sanitary device.

We have two police witnesses who were adamant that she was wearing an apron immediately prior to her murder. If you give weight to Inspector Reid’s 8 year old reminiscences why do you seek to discredit Hutt and Robinson who both spent extended time in Eddowes company a very few days previously. Whist all witnesses should be assessed simply labelling one’s that are inconvenient as ‘unsafe’ for no reason gets us nowhere.

There is no evidence to show that when Dr Brown matched the two pieces they made up a full apron, so the evidence suggesting she was wearing an apron and that the killer cut a piece and took it away depositing it is unsafe to totally rely on. The witnesses' testimony used to support the killer taking the apron piece is also unsafe and conflicting which regrettably I keep having to keep repeating

Yes there is evidence. The Police absolutely believed that she was wearing an apron (correctly) and so if the 2 pieces didn’t make up a full apron then they would have absolutely believed that there was a missing piece which, like the GS piece, would be considered a clue. No one mentions this missing piece and there’s certainly no mention of any search being undertaken for it. Because it didn’t exist. The apron clearly, obviously didn’t make up a full day.

Insp Collard-"Apparently wearing"
Brown "A corner piece with a string attached" You can't tie an apron with one string
Collards list "One old piece of old white apron in possessions" so that tends to prove that she had in her possession at some point in time 2 old pieces of white apron

‘Apparently wearing’ is a phrase that you read far too much into. At the crime scene the piece had been cut away so it clearly and obviously it had been cut loose but the position of it indicated that she had been wearing it before she was attacked. You should also note that the apron was found outside her clothing as opposed to the other pieces which weren’t.

The crime scene sketch of the body shows no apron

Come on Trevor. It’s hardly a detailed drawing.

Furthermore, she had the time and the opportunity to make her way in the direction of Flower and Dean Street after she left the police station that journey would have taken her right past GS giving her the opportunity to discard the soiled sanitary device under the archway, why she didn't manage to secure entry to her lodgings is unknown and on that, we can only speculate but it should not be dismissed.

And if she couldn’t secure entry someone would have seen her. We also have to ask why she would have walked back to Flower and Dean Street, then turned immediately back around and headed back to an area that, as far as I know, she had no known connection to The City? It makes no sense.

and it is significant that there was only blood and faecal matter on one side and which is consistent with it being used as a sanitary device, as has been discussed despite the killer cutting her throat ripping open her abdomen and allegedly putting his hand's into a blood-filled abdomen he avoided transferring any blood onto both sides of the apron piece

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And you, for some strange reason, dismiss the possibility that he put the cloth in his pocket before he began the mutilations and so before his hands were bloody.

[Trevor Marriott]

And you, for some strange reason, dismiss the possibility that he put the cloth in his pocket before he began the mutilations and so before his hands were bloody.

But even if he had done that he would have to have taken it out of his pocket with blood stains on his hands and I fail to see how blood could not have been transferred to both sides of the apron piece

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

Why address your post to me Ally.Have I claimed the apron piece supposedly found by Long was used as a sanitary napkin?

You're arguing in conjunction with Trevor, whose entire premise is based on this. If you have an alternate theory as to how the apron piece was used and got to Goulston Street, feel free to share it now.

I am certainly of the opinion that it didn't need 12 pieces,or 12 different sanitary pads,and my reasons for believing that have alreadybeen posted.

It?? It didn't need 12 pieces? By It do you mean Catherine Eddowes didn't need 12 sanitary napkins? Because if so, once again, the evidence, all testimony from doctors of the time, and again Women who ACTUALLY know what they are talking about, say you're wrong. You're wrong "It" does need 12 sanitary pads.

I have been asked to provide reasons why Brown or Long need to have lied.I do not know.I also do not know why the Ripper killed victims,but does that mean there were no murders?

There's actually evidence of murders. There's no evidence they lied. See the difference? One idea is evidence based. One is waffling nonsense, based on a premise of Stupid.

[Ally]

No one is specifically suggesting that she destroyed her apron,

You have specifically suggested this. https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=44 At around the 1 hour 15 minute mark thereabouts you'll find you, in your own voice and your own words explaining why you didn't think the killer discarded the apron in GS... "catherine eddowes could have cut or ripped that apron herself" and used it as a "temporary" sanitary napkin.

So, you're wrong.

There is no evidence to show that when Dr Brown matched the two pieces they made up a full apron,

There's also no evidence to suggest that Catherine Eddowes was anywhere near goulston street or used it as a sanitary napkin.

. The witnesses' testimony used to support the killer taking the apron piece is also unsafe and conflicting which regrettably I keep having to keep repeating

You're wrong.

Insp Collard-"Apparently wearing"
Brown "A corner piece with a string attached" You can't tie an apron with one string

It's really so interesting how you parse words to try and attach fantastical meaning that don't apply. HE said the piece was a corner piece with A string attached...it had been cut from the whole and matched back to the apron. He doesn't say there wasn't another string, does he? Absence of spelling out the obvious (obvious to the rational that is) doesn't negate it being the obvious or rational conclusion.

Collards list "One old piece of old white apron in possessions" so that tends to prove that she had in her possession at some point in time 2 old pieces of white apron

No it's indicative that one piece was in Collard's possession, and one was lying in goulston street, after the killer discarded it.

The crime scene sketch of the body shows no apron

The crime scene sketch of the body doesn't show the three skirts she was wearing. Does that mean she wasn't?

Furthermore, she had the time and the opportunity to make her way in the direction of Flower and Dean Street after she left the police station that journey would have taken her right past GS giving her the opportunity to discard the soiled sanitary device under the archway, why she didn't manage to secure entry to her lodgings is unknown and on that, we can only speculate but it should not be dismissed.

And why would she have discarded the soiled sanitary napkin, when she could have washed and reused it Trevor? Things weren't as disposable back then as they were now. It's so amusing that you apparently think Victorian era women just went around discarding their menstral rags on the ground. The streets would have been running with rags of blood. You wouldn't have been able to walk.

and it is significant that there was only blood and faecal matter on one side and which is consistent with it being used as a sanitary device, as has been discussed despite the killer cutting her throat ripping open her abdomen and allegedly putting his hand's into a blood-filled abdomen he avoided transferring any blood onto both sides of the apron piece

I know others have repeatedly explained how stupid this is to you, so I won't bother. I'm just going to point out again... the stupidity of this claim. It's stupid.

[Joshua Rogan]

and it is significant that there was only blood and faecal matter on one side

Can you point to where it is reported that there were stains ONLY on one side of the cloth?

allegedly putting his hand's into a blood-filled abdomen

Once again, it is only you who is alleging the abdomen was filled with blood. Dr Brown disagreed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But even if he had done that he would have to have taken it out of his pocket with blood stains on his hands and I fail to see how blood could not have been transferred to both sides of the apron piece

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well if Long was correct and the apron wasn’t there at 2.20 then it seems to me to be entirely possible that when he did take it out of his pocket (and note that I’m not stating that that’s what he did, I’m only suggesting it as possible) his hands would have dried; in part or in full. So perhaps if and when he used the cloth he was rubbing off dry or almost dry blood from his hands or from his knife?

I really don’t understand why you can’t see that it’s easily possible to grab and use a folded or bunched up piece of cloth and only get staining on one side?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Debate is one thing, but it’s more than a little bizarre when we have 2 men basically telling a woman that she’s deficient in knowledge about menstruation.

[Elamarna]

Debate is one thing, but it’s more than a little bizarre when we have 2 men basically telling a woman that she’s deficient in knowledge about menstruation.

It's not as if those men are medically qualified even.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not as if those men are medically qualified even.

Steve

True.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.


And then…


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 should have double checked this before. I just assumed that Trevor was correct in his assertion. Good points as ever Joshua.