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

[Trevor Marriott]

We have pointed this out to you numerous times but you simply plough on. Nowhere does it say that the apron was stained only on one side. If you say that there’s evidence that this was the case could you provide it for us please.

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

[Trevor Marriott]

That’s an assumption on your part and evidence has been provided on here to show that this might not have been the case. So why do you keep repeating it as if it’s a fact?

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!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jeff
late me make my position on this issue quite clear because the attempts to pour scorn on the suggestion are clouding the issue.

We know Eddowes was arrested that afternoon for being drunk she was then placed in a cell

It is a known fact that Victorian street women used rags when menstruating.

It is also a known fact that when drunk persons are arrested and placed in a cell they fall asleep and become incontinent.

Eddowes could have been in the final stages of menstruation when arrested and could still have been using a piece of rag for that purpose

The GS piece was described as having blood spots and faecal matter on just one side, now to me that indicates it could have been used by her as suggested and had been between her legs for that purpose it was also described as being wet. One thing we do not know is the size of the GS piece.

A consultant gynaecologist states that blood spotting is a part of the menstrual cycle in some women especially emaciated women to which Eddowes was of that class.

So following Eddowes being released there are no sightings of her, so she had the time and the opportunity to make her way back to her lodgings at Flower and Dean street and in doing so one route would have taken her via Goulston Street. If as I postulate she could have realised the rag was soiled she could have quite easily gone under the archway to go to the toilet and in doing so deposited it at the same time. Knowing that her period was at an end she decided to not replace it, deciding to then make her way back to the city where she met her killer why she didn't go to her lodgings is another mystery within this mystery.

The problem I have with the killer cutting and taking it away has been discussed at length here but I cannot see how the killer after cutting her throat and ripping open her abdomen and allegedly then putting both his hands in a blood-filled abdomen to remove organs could have failed to leave traces of blood on both sides of the apron piece. It would make no difference whether he cut the apron piece before the mutilations or after because he would still have to handle the apron piece with both bloodstained hands at some point. The doctor suggested that the blood and faecal matter so described could have been a result of a hand or a knife being wiped on it but I say again for that to have taken place the apron piece would have to have been held in both hands and traces of blood or faecal matter on both sides

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We have pointed this out to you numerous times but you simply plough on. Nowhere does it say that the apron was stained only on one side. If you say that there’s evidence that this was the case could you provide it for us please.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jeff
late me make my position on this issue quite clear because the attempts to pour scorn on the suggestion are clouding the issue.

We know Eddowes was arrested that afternoon for being drunk she was then placed in a cell

It is a known fact that Victorian street women used rags when menstruating.

It is also a known fact that when drunk persons are arrested and placed in a cell they fall asleep and become incontinent.

Eddowes could have been in the final stages of menstruation when arrested and could still have been using a piece of rag for that purpose

The GS piece was described as having blood spots and faecal matter on just one side, now to me that indicates it could have been used by her as suggested and had been between her legs for that purpose it was also described as being wet. One thing we do not know is the size of the GS piece.

A consultant gynaecologist states that blood spotting is a part of the menstrual cycle in some women especially emaciated women to which Eddowes was of that class.

So following Eddowes being released there are no sightings of her, so she had the time and the opportunity to make her way back to her lodgings at Flower and Dean street and in doing so one route would have taken her via Goulston Street. If as I postulate she could have realised the rag was soiled she could have quite easily gone under the archway to go to the toilet and in doing so deposited it at the same time. Knowing that her period was at an end she decided to not replace it, deciding to then make her way back to the city where she met her killer why she didn't go to her lodgings is another mystery within this mystery.

The problem I have with the killer cutting and taking it away has been discussed at length here but I cannot see how the killer after cutting her throat and ripping open her abdomen and allegedly then putting both his hands in a blood-filled abdomen to remove organs could have failed to leave traces of blood on both sides of the apron piece. It would make no difference whether he cut the apron piece before the mutilations or after because he would still have to handle the apron piece with both bloodstained hands at some point. The doctor suggested that the blood and faecal matter so described could have been a result of a hand or a knife being wiped on it but I say again for that to have taken place the apron piece would have to have been held in both hands and traces of blood or faecal matter on both sides

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

putting both his hands in a blood-filled abdomen to remove organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That’s an assumption on your part and evidence has been provided on here to show that this might not have been the case. So why do you keep repeating it as if it’s a fact?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Caz,

Ages ago I had asked Trevor the same thing, where is the replacement cloth at the crime scene? In case Trevor doesn't get back to you this time, to summarize his response then, he suggested that she had completed her cycle and that was the last cloth she used. I found that hard to believe on both a realistic level (that it seemed to me that she would only stop applying a sanitary cloth after there were no more signs of bleeding), and it also seemed like way too many "just so's" for my liking (he speculates she was menstruating's, he speculates the apron piece was used as a sanitary item, and then when that leads to a reasonable prediction - there should be another one at the crime scene - he adds another speculation to explain why that prediction failed).

In the end, the sanitary item hypothesis has been fully explored and considered, and it comes up short at every turn. It is simply not a good explanation given everything we know, as it fails on the biological analysis, the economic analysis, the human behavior analysis, and from the crime scene evidence analysis. Was it worth suggesting? Sure, any idea that hasn't been looked at and which at first blush could provide new insights is a hypothesis worth looking at. And if it fails, that's fine, one has closed off an idea that could mislead, or be used to cast doubt, and that is a contribution. In my view, this idea, when considered from an objective stance, doesn't hold up and can be safely set aside.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
late me make my position on this issue quite clear because the attempts to pour scorn on the suggestion are clouding the issue.

We know Eddowes was arrested that afternoon for being drunk she was then placed in a cell

It is a known fact that Victorian street women used rags when menstruating.

It is also a known fact that when drunk persons are arrested and placed in a cell they fall asleep and become incontinent.

Eddowes could have been in the final stages of menstruation when arrested and could still have been using a piece of rag for that purpose

The GS piece was described as having blood spots and faecal matter on just one side, now to me that indicates it could have been used by her as suggested and had been between her legs for that purpose it was also described as being wet. One thing we do not know is the size of the GS piece.

A consultant gynaecologist states that blood spotting is a part of the menstrual cycle in some women especially emaciated women to which Eddowes was of that class.

So following Eddowes being released there are no sightings of her, so she had the time and the opportunity to make her way back to her lodgings at Flower and Dean street and in doing so one route would have taken her via Goulston Street. If as I postulate she could have realised the rag was soiled she could have quite easily gone under the archway to go to the toilet and in doing so deposited it at the same time. Knowing that her period was at an end she decided to not replace it, deciding to then make her way back to the city where she met her killer why she didn't go to her lodgings is another mystery within this mystery.

The problem I have with the killer cutting and taking it away has been discussed at length here but I cannot see how the killer after cutting her throat and ripping open her abdomen and allegedly then putting both his hands in a blood-filled abdomen to remove organs could have failed to leave traces of blood on both sides of the apron piece. It would make no difference whether he cut the apron piece before the mutilations or after because he would still have to handle the apron piece with both bloodstained hands at some point. The doctor suggested that the blood and faecal matter so described could have been a result of a hand or a knife being wiped on it but I say again for that to have taken place the apron piece would have to have been held in both hands and traces of blood or faecal matter on both sides

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Very safely put aside at that.

[JeffHamm]

...
You still haven't offered any explanation for Eddowes not using any sanitary protection when she was found dead. If she was menstruating and had used the apron piece for that purpose, before discarding it in Goulston St earlier that evening, as you want to believe, she'd have needed to replace it with a fresh piece of cloth or rag, which would still have been in place when she was attacked.

...

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Ages ago I had asked Trevor the same thing, where is the replacement cloth at the crime scene? In case Trevor doesn't get back to you this time, to summarize his response then, he suggested that she had completed her cycle and that was the last cloth she used. I found that hard to believe on both a realistic level (that it seemed to me that she would only stop applying a sanitary cloth after there were no more signs of bleeding), and it also seemed like way too many "just so's" for my liking (he speculates she was menstruating's, he speculates the apron piece was used as a sanitary item, and then when that leads to a reasonable prediction - there should be another one at the crime scene - he adds another speculation to explain why that prediction failed).

In the end, the sanitary item hypothesis has been fully explored and considered, and it comes up short at every turn. It is simply not a good explanation given everything we know, as it fails on the biological analysis, the economic analysis, the human behavior analysis, and from the crime scene evidence analysis. Was it worth suggesting? Sure, any idea that hasn't been looked at and which at first blush could provide new insights is a hypothesis worth looking at. And if it fails, that's fine, one has closed off an idea that could mislead, or be used to cast doubt, and that is a contribution. In my view, this idea, when considered from an objective stance, doesn't hold up and can be safely set aside.

- Jeff

[Dickere]

Glad someone was paying attention, Dickere.

Can you ride tandem?

Love,

Caz
X

You hum it and I'll play it, as the aardvark might have said.

[caz]

Glad someone was paying attention, Dickere.

You are clearly made of more absorbent stuff than Trev - or his preferred sanitary protection.

Can you ride tandem?

Trev's idea of a menstrual cycle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ESVA9EgTSM

Love,

Caz
X

[Dickere]

Well as a matter of fact, I had already said that much, Trev, but it's hardly my fault if you can't absorb what has been posted. Here it is again:



I don't need to prove what the 12 pieces of rag were doing in Eddowes's possession. The point is that she could have used them for sanitary protection if a period had come unexpectedly.

You still haven't offered any explanation for Eddowes not using any sanitary protection when she was found dead. If she was menstruating and had used the apron piece for that purpose, before discarding it in Goulston St earlier that evening, as you want to believe, she'd have needed to replace it with a fresh piece of cloth or rag, which would still have been in place when she was attacked.

If you hadn't worked this much out before, do yourself a favour and absorb this basic fact of life before you return with any more gems from the realms of fantasy.

Love,

Caz
X

Like for uses of absorb

[caz]

Caz

I feel happy in the realms of fantasy than having to keep reading your failed attempts at sarcastic humour

And as I said before no two women's menstrual periods or their menstrual cycle will be the same and that is an irrefutable medical fact that even you have to agree with.

Well as a matter of fact, I had already said that much, Trev, but it's hardly my fault if you can't absorb what has been posted. Here it is again:

As a woman approaches the menopause, there is no way for her or for anyone else to predict how this will affect the regularity and flow of her periods. Both will differ for every woman, and can even differ wildly from one cycle to the next for the same woman.

I don't need to prove what the 12 pieces of rag were doing in Eddowes's possession. The point is that she could have used them for sanitary protection if a period had come unexpectedly.

You still haven't offered any explanation for Eddowes not using any sanitary protection when she was found dead. If she was menstruating and had used the apron piece for that purpose, before discarding it in Goulston St earlier that evening, as you want to believe, she'd have needed to replace it with a fresh piece of cloth or rag, which would still have been in place when she was attacked.

If you hadn't worked this much out before, do yourself a favour and absorb this basic fact of life before you return with any more gems from the realms of fantasy.

Love,

Caz
X

[mpriestnall]

Yes, the one that got away. Problem got help from his mum.

[DJA]

Jack the Kipper?

[mpriestnall]

A gratuitous (and admittedly OT) Ian Dury reference but the WM's case largely centers around Astrakhan Man "cooking his kipper in another gentleman's grill".

Carry on...