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

[Herlock Sholmes]

What don't you get? he is describing the apron piece if it had had blood or faecal matter on both sides he would have documented it

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He was talking SPECIFICALLY about marks that could have been made by wiping a knife. And those SPECIFIC kind of marks were only on one side.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 or knife had been wiped on it.”

We have been over this many times in the past and I do not intend to keep repeating myself I came her to clarify the misgiving some posters seem to have in relation to my plausible explantion

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How hard can this be? The smears that had the appearance of a knife being wiped were on one side of the cloth. From that we can only assume that there were no such smears on the other side but not that there was no blood at all on the other side. There might have been blood but it wasn’t in smears. You persist in making an unfounded assumption to make your point.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Well why would he simply refer to one side, if a hand had been wiped on it or a knife I would suggest that if that did happen whoever wiped their hand or knife must have had to hold the apron piece in one hand or between their hands in order to do so and if both hands were bloodied then I would suggest transference to both sides could not have been avoided.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't see any problem with this at all. This was a murder inquest, and Dr Brown was linking the portion of the apron to the murder by expressing his opinion that a bloodied hand or knife had been wiped on it, and that when put together with the remainder of the apron, the two parts matched. In his expert opinion, having examined the portion of apron, it had been used to wipe blood off a hand or a knife.

So, the apron portion bore the hallmarks as stated. He does not say anything to suggest that the other side was pristine. He does not seem to have felt that it had been used as a sanitary cloth, and neither do the other experts present at the post mortem.

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact that there was staining on a portion of the apron on one side only does not preclude that other areas of the cloth were saturated through and through. If the apron was bunched up when stained this is more than likely to have been the case.

What don't you get? he is describing the apron piece if it had had blood or faecal matter on both sides he would have documented it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

'The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.' - T.H. Huxley

Well the evidence is there in plain sight but some are blind that they cannot see

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Enigma]

'The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.' - T.H. Huxley

[Enigma]

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 or knife had been wiped on it.”

The fact that there was staining on a portion of the apron on one side only does not preclude that other areas of the cloth were saturated through and through. If the apron was bunched up when stained this is more than likely to have been the case.

[FISHY1118]

Well if you accept the fact that the apron piece had been deposited by her in GS before she returned to Mitre Square and met her demise.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nonsense Trevor, and you know it. Stop this absurdity for goodness sake grow up. .

[Trevor Marriott]

But that aside, as we’ve told you, there is no evidence that there was only blood on one side in the first place except another example of you misinterpreting evidence. So it’s a game changer based on a baseless assumption, which is par-for-the-course with you.

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 or knife had been wiped on it.”

We have been over this many times in the past and I do not intend to keep repeating myself I came her to clarify the misgiving some posters seem to have in relation to my plausible explantion

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You say might not have been the case but it just might have

Isn't it logical that if the killer removed the organs he would have to have put both his hands inside the abdomen firstly to locate the organs and then hold the abdominal wall open sufficiently for him to then take hold of them with one hand and then use the other hand to cut and remove the organs, and then handling them outside the body?

I am sorry but I can see no way that the killer could not have failed to get blood on both his hands and that blood transferred to both sides of the apron piece. Let's forget the gloves belief, and the killer carefully folding the apron piece having cut it. The killer was in a high state of alert it would have been hard enough to locate and extract these organs under normal circumstances given the light available to him let alone being handicapped by wearing gloves or taking time to fold the apron piece. So I am right to question why there is only blood and faecal matter on one side of the apron piece and suggest the alternative as a plausible explanation

The blood and faecal matter as described on one side of the apron piece only is without a doubt a game changer!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The emboldened part is typical of your reasoning. Firstly, I didn’t say that I believed that the killer had worn gloves, I simply mentioned a possibility. But I wish that you would explain how the wearing of gloves during a crime is such a far-fetched, ‘out there consideration? I’m struggling with this one Trevor - a killer, of let’s say average intelligence, plans to kill and mutilate women in the street. Understandably he doesn’t want to get caught. So he think of things that might get him caught. Being seen with blood on his hands is an obvious one of course. He thinks to himself “if only some item of clothing had been invented that I could wear on my hands to prevent them getting covered in blood. I mean, the head has such an item - a hat, so why not hands?………oh wait a minute…….gloves…..why didn’t I think of that earlier?”

Nowhere near impossible Trevor……so possible……and far more likely than any of your theories.

And the ‘careful’ folding. For a start you’ve added the word carefully (which I never used) to make it seem less likely. Why didn’t you go the whole hog and say that I’d suggested that the killer folded the apron piece into a swan? It needn’t have been folded at all. For gods sake Trevor you really will argue that black is white. Put a piece of cloth on the floor, put paint on your hands, pick up the cloth with one hand from the middle then wipe your hands. Hey presto blood on one side only.

But that aside, as we’ve told you, there is no evidence that there was only blood on one side in the first place except another example of you misinterpreting evidence. So it’s a game changer based on a baseless assumption, which is par-for-the-course with you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well if you accept the fact that the apron piece had been deposited by her in GS before she returned to Mitre Square and met her demise.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s not a fact. It’s a theory postulated by yourself based on the misinterpretation and the manipulation of evidence, the wilful discrediting of witnesses, a complete disregard for reason and common sense and a desperate and laughable claim to know more about feminine hygiene issues than women who actually, physically experience those issues. The theory has been completely and thoroughly debunked leaving only one person believing that it still holds water.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Doc has already dealt with this. It doesn’t say that there wasn’t any blood on both sides, only that there was a smudge that looked as if a knife had been wiped on it which was only on one side. You have invented a point.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, Dr Brown mentioned the smears on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped, which was relevant to the inquest. Does he say "and the other side was completely clean"?

Well why would he simply refer to one side, if a hand had been wiped on it or a knife I would suggest that if that did happen whoever wiped their hand or knife must have had to hold the apron piece in one hand or between their hands in order to do so and if both hands were bloodied then I would suggest transference to both sides could not have been avoided.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, Dr Brown mentioned the smears on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped, which was relevant to the inquest. Does he say "and the other side was completely clean"?

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ll ask a specific question. As she carried the rest of her possessions inside her clothing but the piece of apron was found outside of her clothing and in a position, according to Collard, which indicated that she’d been wearing it, do you think that she was, for some inexplicable reason, carry this piece of apron in her hand as she walked through Mitre Square? If not, how could this one item alone have been removed from her possessions by the killer yet he left the rest of the items (or did he conveniently put them back?)

Well if you accept the fact that the apron piece had been deposited by her in GS before she returned to Mitre Square and met her demise.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk