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

[Trevor Marriott]

Pardon?

He is shown the two portions, are you seriously suggesting he could not tell if they formed a whole apron?

They were produced in paper bags

So it doesn't say the two portions were held up, nor does it say they were not, it says he was shown BOTH portions. That clearly let him make his conclusion.

But we do not know the full circumstances as t what happened and how he came to that conclusion

So now you want to question what he said he believed, despite the fact it's a sworn and signed deposition.

There is nothing in his signed deposition regarding the apron pieces it was reported in the times newspaper

But it's not just this issue.

He along with others claims she was wearing an apron at the police station, this is in the signed depositions, yet you chose not to believe it, not for any sound reason, but because it does not fit your theory.

It's not that I choose to not believe it I have to ask how those officers when asked several days later could remember if she was wearing an apron at the police station when almost every woman was wearing a white apron and what distinguished it so as to make them remember days later and on the subject of police officers, Sgt Byfield who was the station Sgt and was responsible for booking her into custody and releasing her makes no mention of her wearing an apron.

Why do we not just dismiss all the evidence and depositions that don't fit your theory?

The depositions and their content cannot be questioned because the witnesses would have been asked to read them before signing them

Ignore solid historical sources in favour of your opinion. Even if we did the theory that she was using this cloth as a sanitary towels fails to pass even the mildest scrutiny.

How the apron piece is described is consistent with its being used in the way described and not to wipe hands or a knife on

The arguments around the 12 separate pieces of cloth you present are not simply ludicrous but totally unrealistic.

I dont present any arguments for the 12 pieces firstly we do not know the makeup of the material so we can't say for what purpose she had them with her for, bearing in mind she was described as a hawker so depending on the quality of the material she could have had them with her to sell to make money

Please do not attempt to hide behind your unnamed expert, as you did in previous posts. The idea that women do not know if 12 towels is excessive is insulting. And as I said anyone whose lived with a woman, maybe had to purchase said products, knows that 12 is not unrealistic.
Yet you KNOW better.

I am not hiding behind any of my experts a consultant gynaecologist stated that blood spotting in some women is a part of the menstrual process and furthermore that expert also stated that women of the class of Eddowes who were malnourished and living the lifestyle she did may not have had a full-on period. if you don't accept that as fact then you are not considering other alternatives as you keep telling me a Historian is supposed to do

The idea that having used this large cloth , she would simply dispose of it in the street, despite the fact it could be reused is comical.
Theory , with no common sense or even basic knowledge, applied .

Now, who's making things up to suit, there is no evidence to show the size of either piece of the apron and it wasn't discarded in the street. She had the time and the opportunity to make her way back in the direction of her lodgings in Flower and Dean Street passing through GS on her way and as she was not seen by anyone after leaving the police station my explanation cannot be dismissed outright.

Again your post simply shows the bias you employ to push your theory.

It may be a theory according to you but it cannot be dismissed outright

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801832]

Basically Trevor you are saying that everyone apart from yourself is too stupid to evaluate evidence. We see exactly what you see but we assess the whole in a fair way, or at least we attempt to. If we see half a dozen newspaper reports but in one particular version one of them is worded differently or omits a particular point you focus solely on that one when it suits you to shout ‘unsafe.’ Whereas a more reasoned approach would allow a fairer and far more likely conclusion. Or you focus on a triviality and interpret it in an unreasonable and biased way. A perfect example is Collard’s use of the word ‘apparently.’ You react as if this rings alarm bells when it actually makes perfect sense. The apron piece had been cut so it obviously couldn’t have still been properly attached to her body but the fact that it was found outside of her clothing (as opposed to inside like the rest of the items) leaves no other conclusion but that she was wearing it. Therefore entirely reasonably he uses the word ‘apparently.’ She clearly had been wearing it but she couldn’t have been said to have actually been wearing it after it had been cut by the killer. This is obvious stuff. There is no mystery about it.

It can’t be simply a case of disregarding all newspaper accounts or of accepting them wholesale. We make a judgment but we have to do it without bias and this is something that you repeatedly fail to do. You arrive at a theory and then try to discredit and dismiss anything that doesn’t fit. So it’s actually you that’s propping up a theory. You take a defend-at-all-cost approach. How many times has this been apparent. I’ll use an obvious one that I’ve made before. You aim to discredit and throw doubt on two police officers who spent time with Eddowes (Hutt and Robinson) who both saw her wearing an apron. You say “how could they remember it?” And yet when we discus whether Kelly’s heart was missing or not (it was) you seek to rely on Reid who was remembering back 8 years previously! This is cherry picking.

I am not cherry picking and there is a big difference between a police officer being actively engaged in the investigation of Kelly's murder who had a hands-on approach who would have certainly known at the time of her murder whether anyone took her heart as something like that he would have remembered till his dying day more than a couple of officers who were asked to remember if a victim was wearing an item of clothing days later.

Put on the spot if you are honest could you remember what colour shirt you were wearing on Monday?

If Brown's testimony is to be accepted then the mortuary piece had a string attached and was a corner of the apron but the GS piece did not have a string attached
So how do we explain this, If the killer had wanted to cut a piece of an apron from an apron she was wearing, where is the most obvious place to cut a piece it has to be from the bottom of the apron. So that being said please explain how the only part of the apron found on her or in her possessions was a corner piece with only one string attached. what happened to the remaining 75% of the apron how did the killer manage to cut 75% of the apron and if he had cut and taken away the rest of the apron why is there no string on the GS piece?

And not forgetting that her killer pulled her clothes up around her waist so that any apron she had been wearing would have been furthest away from him and less accessible, and before you come back and say he could have cut the apron before the mutilations if that had been the case he would have cut a piece from the bottom and we would then see evidence of the remaining part of the apron still around her waist and visual evidence of the apron strings being cut, but both pieces of the apron strings would still be joined at some point.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But he could not have been shown the whole apron which he stated he would be able to recognise if he were shown it because it could not have been shown to him as a full apron only two pieces, and unless someone physically held it up so as to see it was the full apron which there is no evidence to support this, and besides having been shown the two pieces how was he able to identify it as the one she was wearing the two pieces were from a white apron and there was nothing disclosed which made it different or identifiable from any other white apron. In reality he could have been show two other pieces of whiet apron and he would still have said the same

I am not disputing he was shown two pieces which by the time he gave his evidence he would have already known that two pieces had been found and matched what I am disputing is the positive ID of a full apron and I also note that the testimony you refer to was not in his official testimony but was reported in The Times and may not be as accurate as you profess

On another note Dr Brown describes the Mortuary piece as having a string attached and you can tie an apron with just one string

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your claim he could not be shown the WHOLE apron is I am afraid yet another examexample of your flawed ability to analyse evidence.

Of course he could have been shown the WHOLE apron, and apparently he was.
That you believe he could not be shown the WHOLE apron is NOTHING more than you theory driven arguments, it portrays a completely closed mind, and a degree of ignorance, which surprises me.

As I said before, let's reject everything that does not fit your theory. Evidence is only safe if it agrees with you.

[Elamarna]

It may be a theory according to you but it cannot be dismissed outright

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It may be a theory according to me?

What else is it?
It's an idea you have put forward, I lacks any supporting evidence.
That you can even say it's a theory according to me, shows just how poorly equipped you are to debate. It also implies you think it's more than theory, the sheer arrogance of that, along with your claim.that historians lack your abilities is truly astounding.

[Fiver]

Being experienced does not make you good.

"A mule that has been on 100 campaigns with Frederick the Great is still a mule "

[Fiver]

I dont have to prove anything to you, or anybody else on here

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So that would be zero, then.

[Elamarna]

I am not hiding behind any of my experts a consultant gynaecologist stated that blood spotting in some women is a part of the menstrual process and furthermore that expert also stated that women of the class of Eddowes who were malnourished and living the lifestyle she did may not have had a full-on period. if you don't accept that as fact then you are not considering other alternatives as you keep telling me a Historian is supposed to do

I see, originally you said 12 was excessive according to the informatiin you had from.your expert.
Now I see you.provide qualifiers such as "some" and " may, not have" ; that is very different.

Sadly, but not surprisingly that is not how you originally presented the argument.

Most who challenged your claim, pointed out that all women are individual, that is taking all alternatives into account.

Now, who's making things up to suit, there is no evidence to show the size of either piece of the apron and it wasn't discarded in the street. She had the time and the opportunity to make her way back in the direction of her lodgings in Flower and Dean Street passing through GS on her way and as she was not seen by anyone after leaving the police station my explanation cannot be dismissed outright

No.one quoted a specific size, just large, which is subjective.
Are you seriously suggesting it was a small napkin like piece?

You appear to boast that your theory cannot be dismissed outright, almost like it's a game.
If the best I could do was say you can't dismiss my theory , without presenting even half convincing evidence to support it, rather than simply trying to rubbish other theories, again with no convincing evidence I would be ashamed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801834]

I am not cherry picking and there is a big difference between a police officer being actively engaged in the investigation of Kelly's murder who had a hands-on approach who would have certainly known at the time of her murder whether anyone took her heart as something like that he would have remembered till his dying day more than a couple of officers who were asked to remember if a victim was wearing an item of clothing days later.

Put on the spot if you are honest could you remember what colour shirt you were wearing on Monday?

If Brown's testimony is to be accepted then the mortuary piece had a string attached and was a corner of the apron but the GS piece did not have a string attached
So how do we explain this, If the killer had wanted to cut a piece of an apron from an apron she was wearing, where is the most obvious place to cut a piece it has to be from the bottom of the apron. So that being said please explain how the only part of the apron found on her or in her possessions was a corner piece with only one string attached. what happened to the remaining 75% of the apron how did the killer manage to cut 75% of the apron and if he had cut and taken away the rest of the apron why is there no string on the GS piece?

Brown said:

“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”

This didn’t mean that his attention was drawn to the apron as if he’d never seen it before, it means that his attention was drawn to the blood spots which were located at the corner of the apron where the string was attached.

And not forgetting that her killer pulled her clothes up around her waist so that any apron she had been wearing would have been furthest away from him and less accessible, and before you come back and say he could have cut the apron before the mutilations if that had been the case he would have cut a piece from the bottom and we would then see evidence of the remaining part of the apron still around her waist and visual evidence of the apron strings being cut, but both pieces of the apron strings would still be joined at some point.

You’re just making things up to suit….again. It’s entirely possible that in cutting the apron before the mutilations he simply put the knife under the waistband and cut either down and across (through the patch which you studiously avoid all mention of) or probably more likely as Wickerman suggested diagonally from waistband to the side (through the patch which you studiously avoid all mention of)

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Only you claim to know exactly how the apron was cut which is something that you can’t possibly know but you write as if you do know and present a diagram misleadingly as if it’s the only possible option. And you use this invention to prove a non-existent point.

Eddowes was wearing an apron. Three witnesses who saw her prove it. The fact that it was outside of her clothing proves it. The fact that she wouldn’t have destroyed clothing (especially carrying so many cloths) proves it. The fact that there’s no mention of a missing pieces proves that there wasn’t one. Your theory is a piece of utterly baseless speculation based on inventions and the poor interpretation of evidence. The fact that no one agrees with you should tell you this but your huge ego won’t allow you to consider the possibility that you might be wrong and that everyone else is right.

You really don’t do yourself any favours on this forum Trevor. There can be no single poster who is so universally disagreed with.

[Trevor Marriott]

Your claim he could not be shown the WHOLE apron is I am afraid yet another examexample of your flawed ability to analyse evidence.

Of course he could have been shown the WHOLE apron, and apparently he was.
That you believe he could not be shown the WHOLE apron is NOTHING more than you theory driven arguments, it portrays a completely closed mind, and a degree of ignorance, which surprises me.

As I said before, let's reject everything that does not fit your theory. Evidence is only safe if it agrees with you.

There is no ignorance on my part but the same cannot be said for you and others who cannot or will not consider anything that goes against the old theory

I would suggest the burden of proof lies with you and all the others to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts and evidence regarding the old accepted theories surrounding this specific murder can be totally relied on. Look at it another way if you had a suspect on trial for this murder how do you think your evidence as it stands would stand up in court, I can tell you it wouldn't last 5 mins

In concluding

From my perspective the official inquest depositions are incomplete, and newspaper reports, if we are to believe what is set out in those reports clearly conflict with each other and are unsafe, The evidence given by Police officers is questionable

So I fail to see how you can safely rely on all those facts surrounding the murder of Eddowes, and not just in relation to the apron issue

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801841]

Only you claim to know exactly how the apron was cut which is something that you can’t possibly know but you write as if you do know and present a diagram misleadingly as if it’s the only possible option. And you use this invention to prove a non-existent point.

Eddowes was wearing an apron. Three witnesses who saw her prove it. The fact that it was outside of her clothing proves it. The fact that she wouldn’t have destroyed clothing (especially carrying so many cloths) proves it. The fact that there’s no mention of a missing pieces proves that there wasn’t one. Your theory is a piece of utterly baseless speculation based on inventions and the poor interpretation of evidence. The fact that no one agrees with you should tell you this but your huge ego won’t allow you to consider the possibility that you might be wrong and that everyone else is right.

You really don’t do yourself any favours on this forum Trevor. There can be no single poster who is so universally disagreed with.

I think given the same situation for cutting a piece of apron from someone wearing it would be as I stated from the bottom these other suggestions have been put forward to prop up the killer taking it.

Cutting a piece from the bottom is the most logical and the most practical and besides Eddowes was wearing a top coat which she probaly had done up making it difficult for the killer to make a cut from the waistband diagonally across

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no ignorance on my part but the same cannot be said for you and others who cannot or will not consider anything that goes against the old theory


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because you’re infallible of course.

Id say that it’s you that will only consider your own theories. You simply can’t accept that what you describe as ‘old established theories’ just might be right or that the reason that they have become ‘established’ is that hundreds of intelligent people have examined the evidence over and over again and have come to the unavoidable conclusion that the available evidence points conclusively in one direction.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801843]

I think given the same situation for cutting a piece of apron from someone wearing it would be as I stated from the bottom these other suggestions have been put forward to prop up the killer taking it.

Cutting a piece from the bottom is the most logical and the most practical and besides Eddowes was wearing a top coat which she probaly had done up making it difficult for the killer to make a cut from the waistband diagonally across

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No it’s not. The most logical is for the killer to have grabbed the waistband and cut down. How could he have cut from the bottom? Holding the bottom in one had would have left the apron flopping around. I’d go so far as to say that cutting from the bottom would have impossible. The suggestion can safely be eliminated. Along with your theory.

[Elamarna]

There is no ignorance on my part but the same cannot be said for you and others who cannot or will not consider anything that goes against the old theory

Full circle, why do you think people support the current theory over your suggestion?
I asked before, you did not answer then.

So again what do people gain from this, or are you suggesting some grandiose conspiracy to keep you quiet?

I would suggest the burden of proof lies with you and all the others to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts and evidence regarding the old accepted theories surrounding this specific murder can be totally relied on.

That's not the way it works, the old theory as you so disparaging call it is based on evidence, that you don't accept that evidence is your opinion.
Such means the onus is on you to provide compelling evidence that the theory is clearly wrong, evidence which stands up to serious scrutiny.
Despite you continuing to repeat a few points over and over, you have not convinced the vast majority of people that the current theory is flaw, unreliable or unsafe.
In those circumstances it is for you to convince the majority, that's how theories work.

Look at it another way if you had a suspect on trial for this murder how do you think your evidence as it stands would stand up in court, I can tell you it wouldn't last 5 mins

In your opinion that is, again the arrogance you demonstrate is astounding.

In concluding

From my perspective the official inquest depositions are incomplete, and newspaper reports, if we are to believe what is set out in those reports clearly conflict with each other and are unsafe, The evidence given by Police officers is questionable

As you say in YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

That you claim everything which does not support your theory is flawed , unsafe or questionable is the classic closed mind.

So I fail to see how you can safely rely on all those facts surrounding the murder of Eddowes, and not just in relation to the apron issue

I see, your comments simply demonstrates to me how you have allowed imagination to rule your views.

[Trevor Marriott]

Full circle, why do you think people support the current theory over your suggestion?
I asked before, you did not answer then.

Because they wont accept that the evidence they seek to rely on is unsafe

So again what do people gain from this, or are you suggesting some grandiose conspiracy to keep you quiet?

Thats not going to happen

That's not the way it works, the old theory as you so disparaging call it is based on evidence, that you don't accept that evidence is your opinion.
Such means the onus is on you to provide compelling evidence that the theory is clearly wrong, evidence which stands up to serious scrutiny.

Equally, it is for you to prove the old accepted theory correct The original evidence does not stand up to serious scrutiny

Despite you continuing to repeat a few points over and over, you have not convinced the vast majority of people that the current theory is flaw, unreliable or unsafe.
In those circumstances it is for you to convince the majority, that's how theories work.

And those seeking to protect the old theory keep doing the same

In your opinion that is, again the arrogance you demonstrate is astounding.

It's not arrogance it is attempting to show you and others that there could be a more plausible explanation than the old one

As you say in YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

That you claim everything which does not support your theory is flawed , unsafe or questionable is the classic closed mind.

That's not true I highlight the flaws in the evidence in all of the murders, and No I don't claim that at all but I do claim that much of this evidence is unsafe to totally rely on




I see, your comments simply demonstrate to me how you have allowed imagination to rule your views.

There is no imagination on my part and it might be advisable for there to be on your part so you can see exactly what I am suggesting

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

Hey guys, this topic was already a dead horse a few hundred posts ago. It might be time for everyone connected to it to move on. It has deteriorated into nothing but a pissing match at this point. Let it go.

c.d.