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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[caz]

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

The fact???

This woman had twelve pieces of cloth on her person, and a remaining piece of apron, when she walked to Mitre Square and met her killer. If the GS piece had any menstrual blood on it when she supposedly ditched it for being too soiled, she would have replaced it, no question. Even if she thought she was coming to the end of a period she'd have used a smaller piece of cloth or rag to be on the safe side. As I tried to explain before, to deaf ears, no woman of her age would know for sure how long the bleeding might still go on for, or if it might get heavier before stopping completely until next time. It's not a constant flow in any case, but stops and starts at irregular intervals. But Eddowes didn't have to guess or take any chances, because we know what she had among her possessions to take care of any accidents.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

and it is you twisting the evidence around if there had been any traces of blood or any other matter on the other side he would have mentioned it, otherwise, there was no point in him describing the apron piece in the way that he did he would have said it was stained on the other side

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact???

This woman had twelve pieces of cloth on her person, and a remaining piece of apron, when she walked to Mitre Square and met her killer. If the GS piece had any menstrual blood on it when she supposedly ditched it for being too soiled, she would have replaced it, no question. Even if she thought she was coming to the end of a period she'd have used a smaller piece of cloth or rag to be on the safe side. As I tried to explain before, to deaf ears, no woman of her age would know for sure how long the bleeding might still go on for, or if it might get heavier before stopping completely until next time. It's not a constant flow in any case, but stops and starts at irregular intervals. But Eddowes didn't have to guess or take any chances, because we know what she had among her possessions to take care of any accidents.

Love,

Caz
X

Not if she realised that her period had now ceased and the blood spotting could be evidence of that, so she didnt need to apply another piece of rag

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

and no evidence to show anything was on the other side otherwise he would have said so when describing the piece

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

and no evidence to show anything was on the other side otherwise he would have said so when describing the piece

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

...Why would he?

I can't wait to see the reasoning of a seasoned beat cop in action. Why precisely would he have described random blood spotting on the other side, when the interesting portion was the side that showed evidence of the knife being wiped. Do tell us PC Marriott.

[caz]

Not if she realised that her period had now ceased and the blood spotting could be evidence of that, so she didnt need to apply another piece of rag

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

She would not have 'realised' this, Trev, if there was any menstrual blood spotting on the piece left in GS. She wasn't in her twenties for God's sake, with clockwork regular periods. All the evidence points to her being between periods at the time of her murder - that's if she was still having them at all.

Most women I know would keep some sanitary protection handy at all times, up to several months after their last ever period, because of the unpredictable nature of the menopause. Periods can disappear for a month or two then reappear with little or no notice, ranging from very light to extremely heavy. It's impossible to predict when it will all end without a blood test to confirm - as my GP bluntly put it - "there's no going back".

Read and learn, Trev. Read and learn. If I had my way, I'd put it all in a Janet and John book.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

...Why would he?

I can't wait to see the reasoning of a seasoned beat cop in action. Why precisely would he have described random blood spotting on the other side, when the interesting portion was the side that showed evidence of the knife being wiped. Do tell us PC Marriott.

Pc Long who found the apron piece "The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood."
there is no mention of the apron piece being heavily bloodstained

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

...Why would he?

I can't wait to see the reasoning of a seasoned beat cop in action. Why precisely would he have described random blood spotting on the other side, when the interesting portion was the side that showed evidence of the knife being wiped. Do tell us PC Marriott.

Afternoon Ally,

How do you expect PC Marriott to reveal anything more useful than the fact that he is a daft constable?

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

She would not have 'realised' this, Trev, if there was any menstrual blood spotting on the piece left in GS. She wasn't in her twenties for God's sake, with clockwork regular periods. All the evidence points to her being between periods at the time of her murder - that's if she was still having them at all.

Most women I know would keep some sanitary protection handy at all times, up to several months after their last ever period, because of the unpredictable nature of the menopause. Periods can disappear for a month or two then reappear with little or no notice, ranging from very light to extremely heavy. It's impossible to predict when it will all end without a blood test to confirm - as my GP bluntly put it - "there's no going back".

Read and learn, Trev. Read and learn. If I had my way, I'd put it all in a Janet and John book.

Love,

Caz
X

Would that be the same book where you wrote about the diary? the same book where your research was challenged by Lord Orsam

and just to conclude before I withdraw yet again from this topic, we have no definitive evidence as to why the killer would cut a piece of her apron at the crime scene and then keep the incriminating evidence on his person and walk with it for some distance before dispensing with it in a location where it might never have been found.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

and no evidence to show anything was on the other side otherwise he would have said so when describing the piece

Trevor, you're not using unreliable newspaper tittle-tattle to suggest Brown said there were only stains on one side of the apron, are you?

I'm not sure Brown's signed inquest deposition mentions anything about which side of the apron-piece any blood stains were on, only that "some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street".

[Herlock Sholmes]

and it is you twisting the evidence around if there had been any traces of blood or any other matter on the other side he would have mentioned it, otherwise, there was no point in him describing the apron piece in the way that he did he would have said it was stained on the other side

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If they wondered why the killer would have taken the cloth one option would have been to wipe the knife. So he mentions the smears which could be taken as evidence of this. He was talking about smears specifically. He wasn’t talking in general about the state of the cloth.

Joshua has already made this point but, from the inquest (the signed testimony that you are always quick to tell us outweighs newspaper articles:

“My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood. I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding – some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street. I believe the wounds on the face to have been done to disfigure the corpse.”

Maybe I need new glasses but I just can’t see the part where he says that there was staining on only one side. Perhaps they used invisible ink.