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

[Trevor Marriott]

The depositions in this case, lack.detail, the same is true in most cases where a deposition is available.
However, the signed depositions in this case, not withstanding a lack.of some detail clearly say that 1. Eddowes was wearing an apron at the police station.

Not in the case of Dr Browns deposition
2. That the two apron portions were the apron worn by EDDOWES.

The two pieces of apron matched
3. When asked if it was the same apron, the reply was the witness would need to see the whole apron to be sure.
The witness was shown both pieces and agree it was the apron.

The witness was shown two pieces there is no evidence to show they made up a full apron

By definition the witness would not be able to do this if the apron was incomplete. Therefore it was complete, and of.

The witness was not shown a complete apron he was shown two pieces of an old apron which in reality could have come from any old apron, so how would that witness be able to identify it as being worn by Eddowes there were 2 old white apron pieces the witness was not asked what was identifying about the apron she was wearing for him to be sure the two pieces came from an apron she was supposed wearing? this testimony is unsafe

When comparing depositions to press reports, the thing to remember is a deposition was not in the 19th century a complete record of what was said, the court recorders often lacked the skills to take a full verbatim version. Fortunately that is not now the case you do not appear to take this on board

I do take it on board and I fully accept what you say but the accuracy of what is reported has to be questioned I gave the perfect example in a previous post

One of the skills of an historian and researcher is the ability to work with sources that may not always be consistent, Normally we look not only multiple reports, but for serperate sources( reporters)

But if you use multiple newspaper reports that have shown to be conflicting and inaccurate where does that leave you in the grand scheme of things as a historian?

The reports are only unsafe in your view, because you are not an historian.

But I am an experienced investigator

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

One other point, you claim the reports are often contradictory, but on the issue of the apron, the "Conflict" is NOT REALLY conflict, it's tgat some contain information that other don't, that is what one would expect from different reporters and editors.

You also do not seem to realise that most researchers differniate between general press reports and court and inquest reports.
The later are normally treated as primarily sources with regards to the inquest.

Steve

and that's the problem researchers are using newspaper reports to prop up the theory and these may not be accurate as I have already proved conclusively in a previous post

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

But I am an experienced investigator

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

prove it. where ? when? for how long? how many murders did you solve? what was your solve rate?
i want documented evidence. name one person/ victim whos murder you personally have solved.


And just what the hell is a "murder squad detective"??

[Varqm]

So if that be correct Dc Halse was not present when the body was stripped which makes his testimony suspect!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No it does not,where is it wrong.That does not change anything,they were there making a simple observation,way better than your imagination.You do not even have a picture of the apron ,it's position in the body in situ and in the mortuary and the blood in it.Your observation is not even remotely comparable to theirs.
Ok Trevor lets just say you were there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
.

The fact that it was found outside of her clothing proves that she was wearing it (as opposed to how she carried the other items) which in turn proves that it was a whole apron.

The killer rifled her possessions before leaving how do we know that as I suggest she was simply in possession of one old piece of white apron, and that is confirmed by the mortuary piece being listed among her possessions and that is the piece referred to being found outside her body

So the killer rifles through her possessions - well over 20 items which he considerately puts back were he found them but he forgot to put the apron back; leaving it in such a position that leaves officers like Collard concluding that she’d been wearing it. Get real Trevor. This is more desperation on your part.

The fact of the sheer ludicrousness of the suggestion that she’d have cut up an apron whilst being in possession of 14 other items that she could have used further strengthens the point that she was wearing it.
That is not the issue the issue is that at some point in time before her arrest she was in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some point in time had been cut from a full apron and she was using one as a sanitary device which she was wearing in custody and on release she herself discarded it in GS

The pieces of material she had in her possession are academic to this scenario.

So you are now stating this universally disbelieved theory as if it’s a fact? You can try this tactic as much as you like Trevor but it won’t work. You need to learn to evaluate evidence. She was wearing the apron. The evidence tells us this very clearly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But I am an experienced investigator

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You disguise it well.

[DJA]

prove it. where ? when? for how long? how many murders did you solve? what was your solve rate?
i want documented evidence. name one person/ victim whos murder you personally have solved.


And just what the hell is a "murder squad detective"??

But funny.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801784]

But history is there to be challenged and not readily accepted as being how it is written, and as a Historian when you come across conflicting reports which do you believe, in this case you clearly believe the reports that support your own belief.

Actually, that's not what an historian does, a good historian does not allow their bias to influence their interpretation.
If something argues against your view point, you not only accept it, but mention it.
Sadly we all know you are not an historian.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;n801810]

But history is there to be challenged and not readily accepted as being how it is written, and as a Historian when you come across conflicting reports which do you believe, in this case you clearly believe the reports that support your own belief.

Actually, that's not what an historian does, a good historian does not allow their bias to influence their interpretation.
It cleary does in your case

If something argues against your view point, you not only accept it, but mention it.
and then you reject it as you have done here

Sadly we all know you are not an historian.

and by your assessment of the facts and the evidence and your conclusions, you are not a very good one

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact that it was found outside of her clothing proves that she was wearing it (as opposed to how she carried the other items) which in turn proves that it was a whole apron.

It was a piece of apron

The killer rifled her possessions before leaving how do we know that as I suggest she was simply in possession of one old piece of white apron, and that is confirmed by the mortuary piece being listed among her possessions and that is the piece referred to being found outside her body

So the killer rifles through her possessions - well over 20 items which he considerately puts back were he found them but he forgot to put the apron back; leaving it in such a position that leaves officers like Collard concluding that she’d been wearing it. Get real Trevor. This is more desperation on your part.

She had a number of possessions which were in pockets or ticking bags, how do you know that the killer was not rifling her pockets perhaps looking for money and in doing so tipped out the old piece of white apron that she had in her possession then that piece of the apron would have been found outside the body as described

The fact of the sheer ludicrousness of the suggestion that she’d have cut up an apron whilst being in possession of 14 other items that she could have used further strengthens the point that she was wearing it.
That is not the issue the issue is that at some point in time before her arrest she was in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some point in time had been cut from a full apron and she was using one as a sanitary device which she was wearing in custody and on release she herself discarded it in GS

The pieces of material she had in her possession are academic to this scenario.

So you are now stating this universally disbelieved theory as if it’s a fact? You can try this tactic as much as you like Trevor but it won’t work. You need to learn to evaluate evidence. She was wearing the apron. The evidence tells us this very clearly.

The only desperation I see here is you in trying to prop up the old theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

prove it. where ? when? for how long? how many murders did you solve? what was your solve rate?
i want documented evidence. name one person/ victim whos murder you personally have solved.


And just what the hell is a "murder squad detective"??

I dont have to prove anything to you, or anybody else on here

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But history is there to be challenged and not readily accepted as being how it is written, and as a Historian when you come across conflicting reports which do you believe, in this case you clearly believe the reports that support your own belief.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why are you after all these years incapable or unwilling to use the quote facility.
It makes replying so much easier

Your interpretation of the evidence is clearly not the same as my interpretation and I can see flaws in the testimony that you are not able to see or dont want to see

No, you see flaws that are seen just by you, they do not actually exist as genuine flaws

Again we disagree, in the case of Eddowes inquest testimony as can be seen Dr Brown's testimony is very lengthy and in great detail are you suggesting that whoever took it down either missed some of the testimony or simply took it down wrong if that be the case then we cannot rely on any of it as being correct, and why should the person charged with taking the depositions down decide on what to take down and what to leave out?

And why should we accept without question the newspaper reports which add further dialogue from the inquest which you refer to as being accurate after all one misplaced word can change the whole face of an investigation as an example.

Dr Browns signed deposition
“My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached

Telegraph report
Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

You can see one misplaced word can change how the evidence is evaluated

Do you really not understand the the court recorders were not attempting a full verbatim report, that would almost certainly require that all had some form.of shorthand.

Look at the evidence, verbatim exchanges are often completely left out, or seriously truncated in signed depositions, are you suggesting that the court press reporters simply invented the exchanges?

But where there are inconsistencies, how do you then decide which is right and which is wrong? as has been said before unless a reporter sat in the inquest and attempted to write down what was said any newspaper report filed outside of a reporter being present is hearsay

That you seem to fail to grasp that the press reports of the inquests, were written by journalists who sat at the inquest sand recorded what was said is astounding.

Papers who did not have there own reports present bought in copy from those which did, you know syndication.

Indeed there are threads in this forum which clearly show which reports at the Nichols inquest were written by which reporter.

To suggest the inquest reports are hearsay, is not only poor methodology , but demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and ignorance of how court/inquest reporting worked and is treated by serious historians.

[Elamarna]

Thats not true, all I have seen on this topic is reserchers quoting extracts from newspaper reports to prop up the old theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No , it's completely true.
Of course you reply does not actually address the post it's meant to be replying to.
That you are unable to tell the difference between general press reports and specific inquest reports is totally astounding.

[Elamarna]

But I am an experienced investigator

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Being experienced does not make you good.

[Elamarna]

and that's the problem researchers are using newspaper reports to prop up the theory and these may not be accurate as I have already proved conclusively in a previous post

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You have not proved anything conclusively,
that you believe you have clearly shows how poor your abilities at interpretation and analysis are.