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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Jeff and Doc,

There can be no doubt on this. Everything points us inescapably in one direction. That Eddowes was wearing an apron on the evening that she died is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. That the Goulston Street piece and the mortuary piece combined to make a whole apron is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. And that the killer of Eddowes dropped the apron piece in Goulston Street is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

There’s so much that is nowhere near proven in this case and worthy of discussion and further investigation and yet we keep finding ourselves drawn back into arguing against this lame duck theory which, as far as I can see, only two people on the planet give any time to.

Pick a topic someone……please

[JeffHamm]

Yes there is!

At the inquest, PC Robinson confirmed that Eddowes was wearing an apron at the police station. He was asked if he could identify it, and he said he could if he saw "the whole of it". The two parts were produced, and he identified it. PC Hutt confirmed that she was wearing the apron when she left the station, and that he believed that the "apron" shown to PC Robinson was the one she was wearing. No-one at the inquest said anything to suggest that the whole apron was not available, nor that the two parts did not make up a full apron. Why would a police officer ask to be shown a "whole apron" if the police were aware that they did not have the whole apron? It makes no sense whatever!

The police evidence is quite clear - Two different officers independantly swore she was wearing the apron, and the only available evidence suggests that the whole apron was available at the inquest. There is therefore a complete absence of evidence that the two parts did not make up the whole apron.

You can, of course, claim that the sworn evidence of the two officers, and the total absence of any suggestion at the inquest that the apron was not complete is "unsafe", but you cannot claim that there is "no evidence".

I don't accept the suggestion that the inquest was several days after the murder, and the PC's memories could have been hazy. The officers would have been asked shortly afterwards for a description of Eddowes and all related events, so questions about the apron weren't sudden and unexpected at the inquest. They would have made their observations within 24 hours of the event.

What this also shows, is that given the two parts were produced, if there was still parts missing (Trevor's claim is that the two pieces didn't make up a whole apron) this would have been immediately obvious to the entire inquest, raising questions about why the police were not searching for the third (or more) missing pieces on the possibility that, if found, they would leave a more detailed "bread crumb trail".

There are very few things in this case that we have sufficient evidence to actually make a call on, but Kate's wearing of an apron and the fact that the portion found in Mitre Square and G.S. comprised the complete apron is at least one of them. In my view I think it's fine to be cautious about when the G.S. piece was deposited there, and I think it prudent to consider two lines of inquiry, but I see no merit in the suggestion that she wasn't wearing an apron, or that there were any pieces unaccounted for. If we go that route, we might as well just ignore all testimony and make up whatever story we fancy. I fail to see how that could be an accurate approach.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

But we have an expert gynaecologist whose valued opinion has to be considered

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sorry Trevor, but having been married twice, even I, as a mere man know that anyone saying 12 pads is excessive, is talking nonsense, or maybe the question is being asked wrong.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

What this also shows, is that given the two parts were produced, if there was still parts missing (Trevor's claim is that the two pieces didn't make up a whole apron) this would have been immediately obvious to the entire inquest, raising questions about why the police were not searching for the third (or more) missing pieces on the possibility that, if found, they would leave a more detailed "bread crumb trail".

There are very few things in this case that we have sufficient evidence to actually make a call on, but Kate's wearing of an apron and the fact that the portion found in Mitre Square and G.S. comprised the complete apron is at least one of them. In my view I think it's fine to be cautious about when the G.S. piece was deposited there, and I think it prudent to consider two lines of inquiry, but I see no merit in the suggestion that she wasn't wearing an apron, or that there were any pieces unaccounted for. If we go that route, we might as well just ignore all testimony and make up whatever story we fancy. I fail to see how that could be an accurate approach.

- Jeff

The testimony is unsafe for the reasons that have been put forward which for some reason researchers cannot or will not accept.

You nor anyone else cannot show any evidence that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron, The introduction by some of a missing piece is another desperate attempt to prop up the old theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry Trevor, but having been married twice, even I, as a mere man know that anyone saying 12 pads is excessive, is talking nonsense, or maybe the question is being asked wrong. Steve

But I am not the one who made the suggestion that if she was menstruating she could have used the 12 pieces of rag for that purpose instead of her apron.

The issue is that was she simply in possession of two old pieces of an apron at some time before her arrest, one of which she was using as a sanitary device. The other piece of an apron was found in her possessions at the mortuary. The two pieces were never matched, and Browns description does not allow for a match

The official statement of Dr Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.

However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right-hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached, and would have been described as an old white apron with a piece missing, not as was described as old white apron piece, and would have been of significant size for the doctors and police to document it as just that. But because the piece found in Goulston Street matched the piece from the mortuary what was accounted for with the two pieces was in effect one half of an apron. see attached which has been posted before



The red line shows how the seams and the borders were matched

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

But I am not the one who made the suggestion that if she was menstruating she could have used the 12 pieces of rag for that purpose instead of her apron.

The issue is that was she simply in possession of two old pieces of an apron at some time before her arrest, one of which she was using as a sanitary device. The other piece of an apron was found in her possessions at the mortuary. The two pieces were never matched, and Browns description does not allow for a match

The official statement of Dr Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.

However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right-hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached, and would have been described as an old white apron with a piece missing, not as was described as old white apron piece, and would have been of significant size for the doctors and police to document it as just that. But because the piece found in Goulston Street matched the piece from the mortuary what was accounted for with the two pieces was in effect one half of an apron. see attached which has been posted before



The red line shows how the seams and the borders were matched

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just do one Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The testimony is unsafe for the reasons that have been put forward which for some reason researchers cannot or will not accept.

You nor anyone else cannot show any evidence that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron, The introduction by some of a missing piece is another desperate attempt to prop up the old theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We don’t accept it because you are wrong. You’re the one that can never admit when you’re wrong.

Only a fool would claim that the 2 pieces didn’t make a full apron and that Eddowes wasn’t wearing it at the time. The EVIDENCE shows this.

Three people (including 2 police officers saw her wearing it - how many do you need?)

Collard makes the point that it was found outside of her clothing. So it wasn’t concealed or in a pocket. Therefore she must have worn it.

The idea that she would have cut up a valuable piece of clothing when she had 14 pieces of material to use for sanitary purposes is simply a joke.

Dr. Brown matched up the 2 pieces, which included a patch. So zero chance of error. No mention of a missing piece because there wasn’t one as everyone but one person can see and understand.

The Police were 100% of the opinion that the killer dropped the apron piece in Goulston Street. Again, so why no mention of a missing piece, no call for a search for it and no mention of a search.

……

Im sorry if this annoys or offends but if you were a police officer you disguise it well. Some of the points that you make are simply embarrassing. You are so obsessed with your own theories that you’ll try absolutely anything to defend them. You apply stringent criteria to one witness or situation then completely neglect it when in suits you on another. You defend witnesses that suit you then try every trick in the book to discredit the ones that don’t.

There shouldn’t be a single, intelligent, thinking, reasoned, logical person on the entire planet that doesn’t accept the FACT that Eddowes was wearing that apron the night that she was killed and that the killer dropped it in Goulston Street.

[DJA]

Pretty sure the apron was cut diagonally.

[harry]

Lets get a few things straight.I have never claimed that the apron piece produced by Long was worn as a menstrual pad.
My postings are strictly my opinions,and if by chance they support Trevor that is coincidence.
On the question of how many different menstrual pads are needed,I go by the experience of my generation.That is that poor people were more apt to use home made reusable pieces of rag,and that as few as four pieces would be sufficient,not only to cover one menstrual period,but several.So I will say that 12 would be excessive.
My refusion to accept both Brown's and Long's evidence is that their claims are not supported by other persons.That is,there are no eye witnesses to either Brown's matching of two apron pieces,or Long's finding an apron in a building in Goulstan Street,so any evidence offered is purely circumstantial,and therefor open to doubt.Of course both could be telling the truth,but to insist that they were,or that their position in life makes it difficult to believe they woul lie,is going against known history.
In post 451,Herlock claims Eddowes was wearing an apron the evening she died.Strange claim that,seeing that she had been killed early in the day,and had been stripped of clothing long before evening arrived.

[DJA]

Just cannot wait for the replies

[FISHY1118]

Omg I've got the popcorn ready

[Fiver]

The testimony is unsafe for the reasons that have been put forward which for some reason researchers cannot or will not accept.

Your statement is meaningless, since based on your definition, all testimony related to the case is unsafe/

[Enigma]

This is like seeing a train wreck in slow motion. You know you should look away, but there is a grotesque fascination which makes it irresistible.

[JeffHamm]

This is like seeing a train wreck in slow motion. You know you should look away, but there is a grotesque fascination which makes it irresistible.

I always liked Homer Simson's version, "It's horrible, but you can't take your eyes away. It's like watching a monkey swallow a hand grenade." It has that sense of anticipa.......tion (to mix in a bit of Rocky Horror as well)

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Cmon Ally dont keep us in suspense