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

[Fiver]

There are only two states,proven or unproven,and the levelis are not set by me,but by law and judges.

History isn't decided in a court of law.

And the courts don't define what a reasonable doubt is.

History consists of examining the surviving sources, weighing them, and coming up with the most probable answers. If we were to merely say proven or unproven, then nothing in history can be proven.

What police thought of the apron episode would be documented,if such thoughts existed,so I await his presentation of such documentation.

The police were not a monolithic body. They varied in skill, experience, and knowledge; and they didn't all come to the same conclusions. They didn't all write down their conclusions and most or all of the official records have been lost.

There is in law enforcement such a thing as'Chain of evidence'.When applied to the apron,we can,I believe,start with the statement of one of the officers who detained Eddowes.He is honest enough to state it is a belief she was wearing an apron.I have addressed this in an earlier post.Through the various links we find there is no other witness who can prove she was wearing an apron.

Multiple witnesses that said that Eddowes was wearing an apron. Have you even read the Inquest?

Indeed there is a period prior to her death,when nothing is known about her.No inventory was taken at the murder scene,and Collards account leaves a lot to be desired.It is ambiguous.So how was Brown able to state Eddowes was wearing an apron.There is nothing to suggest he was a witness to her undressing.

Clearly you haven't read the witness testimony from the Inquest. Dr Brown was one of several people to see Eddowes body at Mitre Square. Brown's presence is supported by the testimony of other witnesses. Brown was also a witness to the undressing of Eddowes body. This is clear from his testimony and the testimony of other witnesses.

IWhat is remarkable in all this,is that doctors whose involvement should have been to assess the injuries and cause of death,appear to have taken over the investigation,and left the police as mere sightseers.

Where do you get the idea that the doctors took over the investigation?

[harry]

Well Fiver,
We are dicussinng murders .They are decided in courts of law.Proven or unproven is a result.

That is the problem. Police didn't leave written reports,and some are lost,therefor their thoughts cannot be known

Who are these multiple witnessses you claim saw Eddowes wearing an apron? List them.

Brwns observations about the apron was at the Mortuary,not at the murder scene.What other witnesses claim to have seen him Match apron pieces.

I said apparantly took over.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would have bet Mr ninety nine and a half percent,would have been the first poster to reply to my last post,and that he would protest and whine that my level of proof was too high.There are only two states,proven or unproven,and the levelis are not set by me,but by law and judges.

I don’t whine Harry but it would be good if, just for once, you wouldn’t fall into your usual habit of simply agreeing with Trevor no matter what he says purely because he’s a former Police Officer.

Firstly, as I’ve pointed out to you before, we are not in a Court of Law. Secondly, are you now saying that the Courts don’t employ ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as a standard in the requirement of proof? Did they change the Law without telling anyone? Be serious Harry. There would be almost no convictions otherwise.

He further states,the police at the time etc.What police thought of the apron episode would be documented,if such thoughts existed,so I await his presentation of such documentation.

What we know has already been posted on here. You also have access to it I’m sure.

There is in law enforcement such a thing as'Chain of evidence'.When applied to the apron,we can,I believe,start with the statement of one of the officers who detained Eddowes.He is honest enough to state it is a belief she was wearing an apron.I have addressed this in an earlier post.Through the various links we find there is no other witness who can prove she was wearing an apron.Indeed there is a period prior to her death,when nothing is known about her.No inventory was taken at the murder scene,and Collards account leaves a lot to be desired.It is ambiguous.So how was Brown able to state Eddowes was wearing an apron.There is nothing to suggest he was a witness to her undressing.
What is remarkable in all this,is that doctors whose involvement should have been to assess the injuries and cause of death,appear to have taken over the investigation,and left the police as mere sightseers.

Yes, we all understand about ‘chain of evidence’ and it would have been good to have a completely unbroken chain available to us but we don’t. But what we all have (allegedly) is the ability to make assessments of likelihood based on what we do know. So we have to employ intelligence, knowledge and reason. So ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ tells us that we don’t require this unbroken chain of evidence to make a reasoned judgment. This is what we need to consider Harry….

Three people are on record as seeing Eddowes wearing an apron immediately before she was killed.

The apron was found outside of her clothing unlike the other items that she was carrying. Therefore, unless we are suggesting that she was walking through the streets carrying a cut up apron, then this shows that she was wearing it rather than carrying it.

The Police had absolutely no reason to lie and have no advantage to gain by moving evidence.

Dr. Brown matched up two pieces of apron and they matched exactly. He did this by using the seems of a patch attached to both pieces as a guide in conjunction with a knife cut which can’t have been perfectly straight. So could he have been mistaken? No.

Evidence has been posted in previous posts of the apron being presented at the inquest as a whole apron.

As the Police absolutely accepted that the killer dropped the apron piece in Goulston Street, any missing piece would have been evidence too. They would have wanted to locate it. There is no mention of this. This alone strongly points at a complete apron.

The likelihood that the poverty stricken Eddowes, carrying 12 pieces of rag and 2 other items which could have been used, would have chopped up her own apron to use as a sanitary cloth. This suggestion is a ludicrous one which can and should be dismissed.

The above is only a brief overview of what we know. Very little is 100% perfect but this still doesn’t justify a nitpicking, bloody-minded, biased shout of ‘room for doubt.’ The alleged ‘room for doubt’ is so vanishingly, minutely small that it doesn’t even merit discussion. In a Court of Law a Jury would take all of 5 seconds to conclude that the apron was whole. Like Trevor you, true to form, continue to argue purely for the sake of it. Any suggestion that the apron wasn’t a whole one and that the GS piece was dropped by the killer is little short of laughable and it’s a sad reflection that some of us have wasted so much time having to explain this very obvious point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well Fiver,
We are dicussinng murders .They are decided in courts of law.Proven or unproven is a result.

That is the problem. Police didn't leave written reports,and some are lost,therefor their thoughts cannot be known

Who are these multiple witnessses you claim saw Eddowes wearing an apron? List them.

Brwns observations about the apron was at the Mortuary,not at the murder scene.What other witnesses claim to have seen him Match apron pieces.

I said apparantly took over.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, we all understand about ‘chain of evidence’ and it would have been good to have a completely unbroken chain available to us but we don’t. But what we all have (allegedly) is the ability to make assessments of likelihood based on what we do know. So we have to employ intelligence, knowledge and reason. So ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ tells us that we don’t require this unbroken chain of evidence to make a reasoned judgment. This is what we need to consider Harry….

Three people are on record as seeing Eddowes wearing an apron immediately before she was killed.

The apron was found outside of her clothing unlike the other items that she was carrying. Therefore, unless we are suggesting that she was walking through the streets carrying a cut up apron, then this shows that she was wearing it rather than carrying it.

The Police had absolutely no reason to lie and have no advantage to gain by moving evidence.

Dr. Brown matched up two pieces of apron and they matched exactly. He did this by using the seems of a patch attached to both pieces as a guide in conjunction with a knife cut which can’t have been perfectly straight. So could he have been mistaken? No.

Evidence has been posted in previous posts of the apron being presented at the inquest as a whole apron.

As the Police absolutely accepted that the killer dropped the apron piece in Goulston Street, any missing piece would have been evidence too. They would have wanted to locate it. There is no mention of this. This alone strongly points at a complete apron.

The likelihood that the poverty stricken Eddowes, carrying 12 pieces of rag and 2 other items which could have been used, would have chopped up her own apron to use as a sanitary cloth. This suggestion is a ludicrous one which can and should be dismissed.

The above is only a brief overview of what we know. Very little is 100% perfect but this still doesn’t justify a nitpicking, bloody-minded, biased shout of ‘room for doubt.’ The alleged ‘room for doubt’ is so vanishingly, minutely small that it doesn’t even merit discussion. In a Court of Law a Jury would take all of 5 seconds to conclude that the apron was whole. Like Trevor you, true to form, continue to argue purely for the sake of it. Any suggestion that the apron wasn’t a whole one and that the GS piece was dropped by the killer is little short of laughable and it’s a sad reflection that some of us have wasted so much time having to explain this very obvious point.

I know I said I was done with this but I had to come back briefly to comment on the pathetic manipulation of the evidence being posted here on this issue to prop up the old theory

First and foremost there is no official evidence to show that the two pieces when matched either at the mortuary or at the inquest ever made up a full apron

Researchers have been quoting newspaper reports which are unsafe in any event, and as can be seen even conflict with each other in their reports

There is no issue on the fact that Dr Brown matched the two pieces at the mortuary

Dr Browns signed official inquest testimony below which has to be accepted as being correct above all newspaper reports as he would have been asked to read it and sign it after he had given his evidence

“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 the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently fecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street.”

I have again posted the image showing how he matched the two pieces. A significant part of his testimony relates to the seams and the border being matched and how they were matched this is based on his official signed testimony

The red line shows the seams and the borders referred to and how they were matched on that basis and using that image there is no way that the two pieces could have made up a full apron either at the mortuary or at the inquest

And not forgetting the mortuary piece was found in her possessions and not on her body at the time they stripped the body and listed her clothing and possessions the GS piece had just been found in GS so if a piece of apron was found in her possessions it would not become relevant for many hours later when Dr Phillips brought it to the mortuary and by that time the body had been stripped and the clothing and possessions already listed so on that basis how could Dc Halse be aware that a piece of her apron was missing unless he was referring to the apron pice in her possessions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I know I said I was done with this but I had to come back briefly to comment on the pathetic manipulation of the evidence being posted here on this issue to prop up the old theory

First and foremost there is no official evidence to show that the two pieces when matched either at the mortuary or at the inquest ever made up a full apron

Researchers have been quoting newspaper reports which are unsafe in any event, and as can be seen even conflict with each other in their reports

There is no issue on the fact that Dr Brown matched the two pieces at the mortuary

Dr Browns signed official inquest testimony below which has to be accepted as being correct above all newspaper reports as he would have been asked to read it and sign it after he had given his evidence

“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 the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently fecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street.”

I have again posted the image showing how he matched the two pieces. A significant part of his testimony relates to the seams and the border being matched and how they were matched this is based on his official signed testimony

The red line shows the seams and the borders referred to and how they were matched on that basis and using that image there is no way that the two pieces could have made up a full apron either at the mortuary or at the inquest

And not forgetting the mortuary piece was found in her possessions and not on her body at the time they stripped the body and listed her clothing and possessions the GS piece had just been found in GS so if a piece of apron was found in her possessions it would not become relevant for many hours later when Dr Phillips brought it to the mortuary and by that time the body had been stripped and the clothing and possessions already listed so on that basis how could Dc Halse be aware that a piece of her apron was missing unless he was referring to the apron pice in her possessions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your image is NOT how the pieces matched, its how you believe they could have matched, in order for your theory to work.
Sorry, but again, claiming anything that does not support your theory is UNSAFE, is simply poor methodology, be that for historial research or even to a live investigation.

[Trevor Marriott]

Your image is NOT how the pieces matched, its how you believe they could have matched, in order for your theory to work.
Sorry, but again, claiming anything that does not support your theory is UNSAFE, is simply poor methodology, be that for historial research or even to a live investigation.

So pray tell us how they did match keeping in mind Dr Browns official testimony and not forgetting there is no mention of matching a hem in the decsription of the GS piece in the matching process another way to indicate a full apron there has to be a hem at the bottom of the apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know I said I was done with this but I had to come back briefly to comment on the pathetic manipulation of the evidence being posted here on this issue to prop up the old theory

And now you’re going to come up with the same old biased nonsense where you ignore the inconvenient simply to prop up a joke of a new theory. One that you appear to be alone in supporting.

First and foremost there is no official evidence to show that the two pieces when matched either at the mortuary or at the inquest ever made up a full apron

Researchers have been quoting newspaper reports which are unsafe in any event, and as can be seen even conflict with each other in their reports

There is no issue on the fact that Dr Brown matched the two pieces at the mortuary

Dr Browns signed official inquest testimony below which has to be accepted as being correct above all newspaper reports as he would have been asked to read it and sign it after he had given his evidence

“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 the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently fecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street.”

I have again posted the image showing how he matched the two pieces. A significant part of his testimony relates to the seams and the border being matched and how they were matched this is based on his official signed testimony

The red line shows the seams and the borders referred to and how they were matched on that basis and using that image there is no way that the two pieces could have made up a full apron either at the mortuary or at the inquest

Absolute rubbish. As Steve has already pointed out, this diagram is your own biased interpretation which doesn’t conform to the facts. We have no image of the cloth so your biased imaginings count for zero. Unbelievably you’ve actually quoted what Brown said but you still ignore where he says in black and white that he matched up the seams of the borders of the patched area of the apron. Why do you ‘delete’ this vital part of his statement if it’s not entirely intentional?

Also, as I’ve told you numerous times, the area on the edge of the apron is a hem and not a seam.

They matched perfectly. If there had been a missing piece it would undoubtedly have been mention. But it wasn’t. Because with 100% certainty it was a whole apron.

And not forgetting the mortuary piece was found in her possessions and not on her body at the time they stripped the body

And not forgetting, as you intentionally do, that the apron was found outside of her clothing in Mitre Square. Unlike the other cloths which were inside her clothing. So unless you are claiming that Catherine was walking through the streets carrying half an apron (which to be honest, wouldn’t surprise me) then the only explanation is that she was wearing it.

and listed her clothing and possessions the GS piece had just been found in GS so if a piece of apron was found in her possessions it would not become relevant for many hours later

Where the hell do you get ‘many hours’ from. It’s an invention. Long found the piece at 2.20 then reported it as soon as he’d performed a search (which would have taken minutes rather than hours!) Phillips had been called by Brown while he was still in Mitre Square.

when Dr Phillips brought it to the mortuary and by that time the body had been stripped and the clothing and possessions already listed so on that basis how could Dc Halse be aware that a piece of her apron was missing unless he was referring to the apron pice in her possessions.

At 2.20 Halse goes from Goulston Street to Mitre Square then accompanied Collard to the mortuary. He then:

“He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.”

He then went with Major Smith to Mitre Square where he heard that a piece had been found in Goulston Street. So even if the stripping of the body took an hour Halse would still have been fully aware that there was a piece missing from the mortuary piece and that a piece had been discovered in Goulston Street by around 3.45am.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There’s only one person manipulation or censoring evidence and that you Trevor. And you’re clearly doing it to prop up your ‘new unestablished theory.’

Welcome back.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So pray tell us how they did match keeping in mind Dr Browns official testimony and not forgetting there is no mention of matching a hem in the decsription of the GS piece in the matching process another way to indicate a full apron there has to be a hem at the bottom of the apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Theres no mention of a hem because Brown didn’t match it by the hem.

He matched it by the seams of the patch.

As he stated in his testimony.

Using words.

In English.

[Fiver]

Well Fiver,
We are dicussinng murders .They are decided in courts of law.Proven or unproven is a result.

Verdicts are proven or unproven. We aren't discussing verdicts. We are discussing witness testimony.

Who are these multiple witnessses you claim saw Eddowes wearing an apron? List them.

Post #360. Or just read the Inquest.

Brwns observations about the apron was at the Mortuary,not at the murder scene.

Clearly you still haven't read the Inquest.

"Inspector Collard arrived about two o'clock, and also Dr. Brown, surgeon to the police force." - PC Watkin

"I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two." - Dr Brown.

"On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.' - Dr Sequiera

What other witnesses claim to have seen him Match apron pieces.

If you have been paying attention, the Times shows that the pieces of the apron were assembled in open court for another witness.

Also Inspector Collard testified that "A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased."

Perhaps you should try actually reading the Inquest.

I said apparantly took over.

Moving the goalposts I see. How did the doctors apparently take over the investigation? If there was the slightest bit of truth to your accusation, you should easily be able to provide examples.

[Trevor Marriott]

Theres no mention of a hem because Brown didn’t match it by the hem.

He matched it by the seams of the patch.

As he stated in his testimony.

Using words.

In English.

But that matching doesn't show the size of the pieces or the patch and more importantly, they didn't make up a full apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Verdicts are proven or unproven. We aren't discussing verdicts. We are discussing witness testimony.


Post #360. Or just read the Inquest.

Clearly you still haven't read the Inquest.

"Inspector Collard arrived about two o'clock, and also Dr. Brown, surgeon to the police force." - PC Watkin

"I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two." - Dr Brown.

"On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.' - Dr Sequiera


If you have been paying attention, the Times shows that the pieces of the apron were assembled in open court for another witness.

Also Inspector Collard testified that "A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased."

Perhaps you should try actually reading the Inquest.

Moving the goalposts I see. How did the doctors apparently take over the investigation? If there was the slightest bit of truth to your accusation, you should easily be able to provide examples.

Please stop using testimony from newspapers when there are officially signed depositions which are far more accurate

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

I know I said I was done with this but I had to come back briefly to comment on the pathetic manipulation of the evidence being posted here on this issue to prop up the old theory

"Yes, but you don’t go!" - Pirates of Penzance

The only one manipulating evidence to prop up a theory is you. It makes one wonder how safe the cases you worked on were.

First and foremost there is no official evidence to show that the two pieces when matched either at the mortuary or at the inquest ever made up a full apron

Researchers have been quoting [U][B]newspaper reports which are unsafe in any event, and as can be seen even conflict with each other in their reports

There is no official evidence for anything related to the case. Every source is unsafe, including the ones you use.

Your blatant double standard is obvious.

So is your complete failure to understand historical research. History consists of examining the surviving sources, weighing them, and coming up with the most probable answers. If we were to merely say safe or unsafe, then nothing in history can be proven safe.

Your repeated refusal to answer questions is also obvious.

* Why would Eddowes cut up an apron to use as a sanitary napkin when she already had 12 rags?

* Why would Eddowes try to use non-absorbent cloth like an apron as a sanitary napkin?

* Why would Eddowes discard the apron piece instead of washing and reusing it?

* Why would Eddowes choose so public a place - the entryway of a tenement - to remove and discard the apron piece?

* Why are you assuming the killer would have blood on both hands?

* Why are you assuming there was blood on only one side of the apron piece?

* Why are you assuming a theory where PC Long misses spotting the apron piece twice is more credible than a theory where PC Long only missed seeing it once or never missed seeing it?

[Fiver]

Please stop using testimony from newspapers when there are officially signed depositions which are far more accurate

I am using newspaper reports because that is all we have. The official trial transcript and the witness depositions have been lost.

[Elamarna]

Please stop using testimony from newspapers when there are officially signed depositions which are far more accurate

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Actually, the press often include more than the official papers, which do not by nature give full verbatim exchanges.
That you ignore such just shows how poor you methodology and actual understanding is.