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

[Trevor Marriott]

Inspector Collard of the City Police and Dr Brown both testified that Eddowes had been wearing an apron that was missing a piece and that the Goulston Street piece fit with the piece still attached to the body.

That is incorrect

PC Watkin of the City Police, watchman Morris, PC Holland of the City Police, PC Harvey of the City Police, Sgt Jones of the City Police, and Dr Sequiera saw Eddowes' body before it was moved from the murder site. Davis, the mortuary keeper saw the body when it arrived. If Colland and Brown were lying about Eddowes wearing an apron, the other seven men would have known they were lying.

If you think that you have been misinformed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you prove, I mean actually prove that such is NOT possible?

Steve

You are the one disputing it, its for you to prove that I am wrong

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dickere]

You are the one disputing it, its for you to prove that I am wrong

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, you should know that.

[harry]

Even if the P.C. Long called to assist, saw the apron piece in Long's possession,he could not swear as to how P.C.Long came to have it.Long was reportedly alone until joined by that P.C.
As to those viewing the body in Mitre Square,the significant point to me, is none testified to Eddowes wearing an apron at that time.
Collards evidence,as Trevor has said,is ambiguous,and does not clearly show an apron being worn.
The body,when Brown supposedly made his discovery,was nude,having been stripped beforehand,so Brown could not match with an apron,or piece of apron being worn.

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you prove, I mean actually prove that such is NOT possible?

Steve

I have attached a series of photos taken in a mortuary to prove my theory, as can be seen the blood is not blood red it is deoxygenated due to it not coming directly from a freshly killed body.

The first series is to negate the theory that the killer wiped his bloody knife on the apron piece, and as can be seen with blood on both his hands and how he would have had to hold the knife and the apron piece he could not have failed to transfer blood onto both sides of the apron piece

The second series shows just how much blood would have likely been on his hands after having them inside the abdomen and trying to remove organs this series also shows the effect on a piece of material by wiping bloody hands on it. Now I appreciate that the pic showing bloody hands may be an exaggeration due to the expert wearing rubber gloves which as can be seen blood is less absorbed by these types of gloves. So the first series shows the effect on a cloth with less blood residue on the hands

The point of this exercise was to show that the description of the apron piece was not consistent with it being used to wipe a bloody knife or to wipe blood-stained hands and these pictures clearly show that no matter how the killer held the apron piece and for what purpose he could not have failed to transfer blood onto both side of the apron piece

and like I have said before if he wanted to wipe his knife or his hands he could have done that on her clothing before leaving the crime scene

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, you should know that.

But I am not prosecuting I am the one defending my theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

What are the real truths that one poster claims?To me a real truth is established fact Something that cannot be denied.As I have pointed out in regard to the apron piece,almost everything about it,as Trevor states,is belief,and it is belief stemming from the statements of just two persons,Dr Brown and P.C.Long.Brown claims the apron piece was part of an apron in possession of Eddowes,and long claims he found the piece in a building in Goulston Street.Those two pieces of evidence still needs to be proven.Both maybe correct,but maybe isn't enough,it doesn't amount to proven.

Brown said:

“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.”

So when he fitted the two pieces together he saw that the mortuary piece had a patch sown on it which he said had also been sown to the Goulston Street piece. So there was either still a piece of the patch on the Goulston Street piece or he could see the corresponding stitches. Either way, he could see that the patch connected the two pieces. This proves that the GS piece came from the mortuary piece.

[Herlock Sholmes]

PC Long of the Metropolitan police testified under oath that he found the apron part in Goulston Street. Before he left the site, he called over another officer to watch the site. If Long was lying about having the apron piece at that time, the other constable probably would have noticed.

Inspector Collard of the City Police and Dr Brown both testified that Eddowes had been wearing an apron that was missing a piece and that the Goulston Street piece fit with the piece still attached to the body.

PC Watkin of the City Police, watchman Morris, PC Holland of the City Police, PC Harvey of the City Police, Sgt Jones of the City Police, and Dr Sequiera saw Eddowes' body before it was moved from the murder site. Davis, the mortuary keeper saw the body when it arrived. If Colland and Brown were lying about Eddowes wearing an apron, the other seven men would have known they were lying.

PC’s Hutt and Robinson’s both testified that she was wearing an apron that night. Robinson arrested her and walked with her to the station and Hutt was on duty at the station and locked her up and released her and probably checked on her while she was there. For some strange reason Trevor considers these ‘unsafe.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have attached a series of photos taken in a mortuary to prove my theory, as can be seen the blood is not blood red it is deoxygenated due to it not coming directly from a freshly killed body.

The first series is to negate the theory that the killer wiped his bloody knife on the apron piece, and as can be seen with blood on both his hands and how he would have had to hold the knife and the apron piece he could not have failed to transfer blood onto both sides of the apron piece

The second series shows just how much blood would have likely been on his hands after having them inside the abdomen and trying to remove organs this series also shows the effect on a piece of material by wiping bloody hands on it. Now I appreciate that the pic showing bloody hands may be an exaggeration due to the expert wearing rubber gloves which as can be seen blood is less absorbed by these types of gloves. So the first series shows the effect on a cloth with less blood residue on the hands

The point of this exercise was to show that the description of the apron piece was not consistent with it being used to wipe a bloody knife or to wipe blood-stained hands and these pictures clearly show that no matter how the killer held the apron piece and for what purpose he could not have failed to transfer blood onto both side of the apron piece

and like I have said before if he wanted to wipe his knife or his hands he could have done that on her clothing before leaving the crime scene

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But this proves nothing Trevor. That the GS piece came from Eddowes apron in Mitre Square is proven. That the killer dropped it is proven (Eddowes simply wouldn’t have cut a valued clothing item in 2 when she was carrying - 1 piece of flannel, 1piece of blue and white shirting, 1 piece of coarse white linen and 12 pieces of white rag (not to mention 2 handkerchiefs) So we know that the killer dropped it. What he took it for is a question that we can only speculate. But the killer definitely took it and he definitely dropped it in Goulston Street and it definitely was only stained on one side. We can’t fill the gaps.

[Trevor Marriott]

PC’s Hutt and Robinson’s both testified that she was wearing an apron that night. Robinson arrested her and walked with her to the station and Hutt was on duty at the station and locked her up and released her and probably checked on her while she was there. For some strange reason Trevor considers these ‘unsafe.’

We have gone over this before they gave their inquest testimony 5 days later why should they remember 5 days later whether or not she was wearing an apron there was nothing significant about her apron for them to remember that far back especially as most women at that time wore white aprons.

Their testimony is all over the place and unsafe they were shown a piece of the apron which they identified as coming from the one she was wearing but they could not know and identify the one she was wearing because there was nothing about it that made it recognisable, in fact they could have been shown any piece of apron and they would still have said it was hers.

They could not stand up and say they could not remember if or not she was wearing an apron because that would put a dent in the police theory that the killer cut it from her and deposited it in GS. They were simply going along with the police theory.

Can you remember what colour shirt you were wearing 5 days ago?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But this proves nothing Trevor. That the GS piece came from Eddowes apron in Mitre Square is proven. That the killer dropped it is proven (Eddowes simply wouldn’t have cut a valued clothing item in 2 when she was carrying - 1 piece of flannel, 1piece of blue and white shirting, 1 piece of coarse white linen and 12 pieces of white rag (not to mention 2 handkerchiefs) So we know that the killer dropped it. What he took it for is a question that we can only speculate. But the killer definitely took it and he definitely dropped it in Goulston Street and it definitely was only stained on one side. We can’t fill the gaps.

Of course, we can fill the gaps we can produce facts and evidence to disprove it, but the fact of the matter is you cannot give a plausible explanation as to why the killer would cut a piece of her apron in the first place and then deposit it 10 mins later in an out of the way location which it might never have been found.

and of course not forgetting that cutting a piece of an apron she was wearing would cause him great difficulty because as I keep saying the apron would have been the hardest of clothing to cut because the clothes were up above her waist and the apron would have been the furthest item of clothing away from him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have gone over this before they gave their inquest testimony 5 days later why should they remember 5 days later whether or not she was wearing an apron there was nothing significant about her apron for them to remember that far back especially as most women at that time wore white aprons.

Their testimony is all over the place and unsafe they were shown a piece of the apron which they identified as coming from the one she was wearing but they could not know and identify the one she was wearing because there was nothing about it that made it recognisable, in fact they could have been shown any piece of apron and they would still have said it was hers.

They could not stand up and say they could not remember if or not she was wearing an apron because that would put a dent in the police theory that the killer cut it from her and deposited it in GS. They were simply going along with the police theory.

Can you remember what colour shirt you were wearing 5 days ago?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yet again you say one thing that’s difficult to credit coming from anyone let alone a former police officer. Why would they follow a ‘theory’ that got them nowhere? It’s not as if they were trying to ‘fit up’ a suspect. They wanted to catch the killer so re-enforcing an unsafe theory makes no sense. The police already knew that the GS piece came from Eddowes apron they didn’t need the ‘theory’ backing up.

Their testimony isn’t ‘all over the place.’ The problem is that one of them misspoke. He said that the apron piece that he was shown at the inquest was the one. What he should have said was “well it certainly looks like it but I can’t be certain.” But he simply assumed that they wouldn’t have introduced another piece and so assumed that it must have been the same one…..which it clearly was. And because of this one slightly inaccurate response you deem their whole testimony ‘unsafe.’ It’s pretty desperate Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course, we can fill the gaps we can produce facts and evidence to disprove it, but the fact of the matter is you cannot give a plausible explanation as to why the killer would cut a piece of her apron in the first place and then deposit it 10 mins later in an out of the way location which it might never have been found.

and of course not forgetting that cutting a piece of an apron she was wearing would cause him great difficulty because as I keep saying the apron would have been the hardest of clothing to cut because the clothes were up above her waist and the apron would have been the furthest item of clothing away from him.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How would the apron have been the hardest to get at? It was worn on the outside and so, if he cut it before proceeding to mutilate, it would have been the easiest.

Killer strangles victim…….cuts a piece of cloth and puts it in his pocket blood free….wipes his hands on her clothing removing most of it…….goes to Goulston Street…….spots a bit of blood/faeces somewhere on his person…….wipes it off leaving the traces found on the cloth, by which time the remaining blood on his hands had dried.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet again you say one thing that’s difficult to credit coming from anyone let alone a former police officer. Why would they follow a ‘theory’ that got them nowhere? It’s not as if they were trying to ‘fit up’ a suspect. They wanted to catch the killer so re-enforcing an unsafe theory makes no sense. The police already knew that the GS piece came from Eddowes apron they didn’t need the ‘theory’ backing up.

Their testimony isn’t ‘all over the place.’ The problem is that one of them misspoke. He said that the apron piece that he was shown at the inquest was the one. What he should have said was “well it certainly looks like it but I can’t be certain.” But he simply assumed that they wouldn’t have introduced another piece and so assumed that it must have been the same one…..which it clearly was. And because of this one slightly inaccurate response you deem their whole testimony ‘unsafe.’ It’s pretty desperate Trevor.

The theory was factored on the misguided belief that the killer dropped the apron piece and an indication as to which direction of travel he took after the murder

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

How would the apron have been the hardest to get at? It was worn on the outside and so, if he cut it before proceeding to mutilate, it would have been the easiest.

Why would he do that there is no logical explanation for him to do that, if he was conscious of the fact that he might end up with blood on his hands or knife then he could have decided in advance to wipe his hands and knife on her outer clothing without the need to go to all the trouble of cutting a piece "just in case" and we see no evidence of aprons or clothing being cut in any of the other murders

Killer strangles victim…….cuts a piece of cloth and puts it in his pocket blood free….wipes his hands on her clothing removing most of it…….goes to Goulston Street…….spots a bit of blood/faeces somewhere on his person…….wipes it off leaving the traces found on the cloth, by which time the remaining blood on his hands had dried.

Nice try, now who is fitting the facts to suit a theory this reeks of desperation to prop up the old theory

He couldn't have put the piece in his pocket as you suggest because according to another one of your made-up theories he had taken his coat off

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk