Originally posted by Elamarna
View Post
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.
Comment