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

[Elamarna]

And maybe they simply discarded the rags, when soiled, after all in Eddowes case according to you and others she wouldn't need to worry about washing and re-using as she has 12 pieces to fall back on, and I get accused of changing the goalposts

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The point is Trevor, I see nothing to support your claims as regards the use of sanitary towels or rags as call them.

The idea appears to be one you have produced yourself.

She wouldn't need to reuse, as she had 12!
Pardon?

12 would very possibly just cover 1 month, so unless she's replacing every month, I suggest they would be reused.

It's not us moving the goal posts , it's that you are playing a different game to everybody else. Applying rules no one else is aware of.

Again your post sadly demonstrates you have no real understanding of women's menstrual hygiene.

[Elamarna]

When you have a backup of 12 why would you? and if you are suggesting she would use and reuse one, why the need for 12? two would suffice, now let me see hmmmmmmmmm she did have 2 didn't she, the one found in GS and the one in her possessions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Seriously?
So you have her washing the towels every day, and drying them everyday.
(What if she used more than one or two a day.)

You just argued that washing was difficult, now you suggest it was done everyday, and you want people to consider your theories seriously?

It's not that you don't understand women's menstrual hygiene , you clear really know very little about it at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So prove what you are suggesting!

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel of excuses

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Its been done Trevor but you don’t practice what you preach. It’s you that won’t listen to other people because you have no concept of the possibility of you being wrong. Everyone on here has read the case that you’ve made and we’ve repeatedly pointed out the very obvious flaws. What you’ve done is posted a deliberately misleading photo/diagram falsely claiming that it was the only way that the apron could have been cut. It’s simply untrue and provably so. Added to that you have, with no basis in fact, sought to discredit witness that don’t support your theory - and no, it’s not a case of ‘not taking everything at face value’ it’s a case of inventing issues where we have no reason for believing any exist. It’s also not just a case of you ‘thinking outside the box’ either. It may have started out like that but it’s now become a crusade with you and the points that you’re making to defend your theory are becoming less and less reasonable.

Just 11 points which show that the ‘old accepted theory’ has been accepted for good reason.

1. PC Robinson testified to Kate wearing an apron.
2. PC Hutt testified to Kate wearing an apron.
3. Wilkinson testified to Kate wearing an apron.
4. The apron was discovered outside of her body as opposed to the other items found inside. So, as she wouldn’t have been carrying it around in her hand she was clearly wearing it. There is no there explanation.
5. As the Police without doubt believed that the GS piece came from the mortuary piece then they would have been equally interested in any missing piece and locating it would have been a priority. No missing piece was mentioned by anyone at any time.
6. Dr. Brown matched up the two pieces by means of a patch which had been attached to both pieces. There can have been no mistake.
7. We have no witness who saw Kate at the lodging house and she had no money for a bed.
8. It would seem strange to say the least for Kate to have left the police station then walked to her lodging house without money for a room, then almost immediately turned around and returned to an area that, as far as we know, she had no link to.
9. Why would the poverty-stricken Kate have chopped up her meagre clothing when she was in possession of 14 pieces of material that would have served the same suggested purpose.
10. There has to be at least a possibility that the message was written by the killer and so we would have to accept that it was written next to the rag coincidentally.
11. If Long was correct then the apron was dropped after 2.20 - after Eddowes was dead of course.

We’re going around in circles of course. I’m happy that everyone on here can see that you’re wrong on this. You’ll continue of course but perhaps one day you’ll stop and think “I wonder why all of these people who have been looking in detail at these crimes for 20, 30, 40 years always disagree with my theories?” Your just very obviously wrong on this one.

[Fiver]

I always answer the questions

You didn't answer the first time I asked the questions. Or the second.

Because she may have had the rags to sell as we do not know what material they were made out of and she is described as a hawker and that is someone who offers goods for sale besides according to the evidence she was in possession of 2 old pieces of white apron which at some point in the past had been cut from a full apron and not the one she was supposedly wearing

Why do you believe rages are more valuable than aprons?

Why do you think the apron was old?

Why do you ignore the evidence given under oath that the two pieces formed a complete apron?

Why do you ignore the evidence given under oath that Eddowes was wearing an apron?

And you still haven't answered the initial question - Why would Eddowes cut up an apron to use as a sanitary napkin when she already had 12 rags?

We do not know what material the apron pieces were made out of it is possible that it was of the type which was absorbent

You haven't answered the question - 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?

Rags were easy to come by which Victorian street women used for sanitary devices I am not aware of Victorian street women washing and re using sanitary rags

There's a lot you don't seem to know about women.

And you haven't answered the question - Why would Eddowes discard the apron piece instead of washing and reusing it?

She could have gone under the archway to go to the toilet and discarded it at that point as she was passing

If she was headed to the toilet, it would have been vastly more private to remove and discard the sanitary napkin in the toilet.

You haven't answered the question -Why would Eddowes choose so public a place - the entryway of a tenement - to remove and discard the apron piece?

I think it is right to assume the killer would have blood on both his hands having allegedly put his hands inside a blood-filled abdomen to remove organs if that is what in fact did happen

Why do you ignore the evidence given under oath that the abdomen would not be filled with blood?

Why are you assuming that the killer would reach into the abdomen with both hands instead of one?

You haven't answered the question - Why are you assuming the killer would have blood on both hands?

I am not assuming that, Dr Brown gives evidence that blood and faecal matter was on one side of the apron piece

That's not an accurate summary of Dr Brown's testimony. He never says there was no blood on the other side of the apron piece.

You haven't answered the question - Why are you assuming there was blood on only one side of the apron piece?

And why are you using Dr Brown as a witness when you have already assumed that he lied under oath about matching up the apron pieces?

Pc Long's testimony has to be taken at face value, was he where he says he was? did he pass by at the time he said he did? or was the apron piece there and he missed it after all we do not know the size of the piece

You haven't answered the question - 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?

[Trevor Marriott]

You mean the 2 halves of the apron that it has been proven that she was wearing on the night of her murder.

Ive said it before but logic and reason are towns that you never visit aren’t they? We can’t know where she would have washed them so perhaps she only had the opportunity to do so every few days? Maybe she’d only recently acquired these 12 pieces and hadn’t used them yet? And of course, we have no way of knowing that she was menstruating at the time which is simply a bit of speculation on your part - something that you criticise others for doing.

But whether or not she was is irrelevant because it has been stated in two different ways, firstly the 12 pieces could have been used by her and hence the number of pieces, now we have people saying that she wouldn't discard a used device but simply re-use it in which case she would need 12 its called changing the goalposts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Washing rags would be easily done, as there were plenty of shared stand pipes about the houses and streets. If the lodging houses didn't have access to water, then the occupants wouldn't have been able to make a cup of tea, so clearly Eddowes had access to water to wash her rags if she wished.

[Elamarna]

But whether or not she was is irrelevant because it has been stated in two different ways, firstly the 12 pieces could have been used by her and hence the number of pieces, now we have people saying that she wouldn't discard a used device but simply re-use it in which case she would need 12 its called changing the goalposts

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What on earth are you talking about ?

Having 12 pieces of cloth, in no way counters the argument that women might reuse towels.
That you fail to grasp the simple facts of menstruation becomes clearer by the post.

[Trevor Marriott]

You didn't answer the first time I asked the questions. Or the second.

Why do you believe rages are more valuable than aprons?

We dont know what the material the "rags" were made out of

Why do you think the apron was old?

Insp Collards list "“One Piece of Old White Apron.”

Why do you ignore the evidence given under oath that the two pieces formed a complete apron?

Because the evidence doesn't conclusively prove that

Why do you ignore the evidence given under oath that Eddowes was wearing an apron?

The evidence given was never tested to prove it conclusively

And you still haven't answered the initial question - Why would Eddowes cut up an apron to use as a sanitary napkin when she already had 12 rags?

Already answered this

You haven't answered the question - Why would Eddowes try to use non-absorbent cloth like an apron as a sanitary napkin?

We do not know the type of material the apron pieces were made out of some victorian aprons were made of material that would absorb fluids etc

There's a lot you don't seem to know about women.

And there's a lot you seem to not know about assessing and evaluating evidence

And you haven't answered the question - Why would Eddowes discard the apron piece instead of washing and reusing it?

because she had a replacement in her possessions and if you believe others on here she didn't need to wash and reuse it because she had 12 pieces of rag to use

If she was headed to the toilet, it would have been vastly more private to remove and discard the sanitary napkin in the toilet.

Public toilets were very few and far apart and were not free so as the saying goes "Needs must when the devil calls"

You haven't answered the question -Why would Eddowes choose so public a place - the entryway of a tenement - to remove and discard the apron piece?

At 2am it wasn't teeming with the general public

Why do you ignore the evidence given under oath that the abdomen would not be filled with blood?

That evidence has been misinterpreted if you stab someone in the abdomen with a long-bladed knife you will sever arteries and blood vessels which will bleed into the abdomen

Why are you assuming that the killer would reach into the abdomen with both hands instead of one?

Well according to the old accepted theory the killer would have had to reach into the abdomen with both hands to look for the organs then he would have to have taken hold of the organs with one hand and cut with the other

You haven't answered the question: Why do you assume the killer would have blood on both hands?

because if he were wearing gloves the actions above would have made it more difficult and if he wore gloves he would not have had to wipe his hands on the apron piece as some suggest

That's not an accurate summary of Dr Brown's testimony. He never says there was no blood on the other side of the apron piece.

he stated there was blood and faecal matter on one side of the GS piece

You haven't answered the question: Why do you assume there was blood on only one side of the apron piece?

See above answer

And why are you using Dr Brown as a witness when you have already assumed that he lied under oath about matching up the apron pieces?

There is no evidence to show the two pieces when matched made up a full apron

You haven't answered the question - 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?

That's another mystery within the mystery

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

What on earth are you talking about ?

Having 12 pieces of cloth, in no way counters the argument that women might reuse towels.
That you fail to grasp the simple facts of menstruation becomes clearer by the post.

Of course, it does if she had 12 rags why would simply not discard one after it was soiled and then use one of the others,

You are suggesting that she would use one and then wash it, then use another if she did that why would she carry around with her a number of rags which would never get used if she was washing and reusing one or two? besides it seems she had all that she owned on her person when she was murdered why would she carry around unnecessary items?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

Good lord. It has been explained to you MULTIPLE times. A woman could need up to 4-5 rags a day. Do you think she's going to be washing cloths 3 times a day? And even if she was, Do you know how long it takes for cloth to dry in cold, damp months? Dryers... didn't....exist.... in Victorian times.

Do you actually think, that a woman is going to shove a WET RAG up there to try and absorb more fluid? THINK for a minute. Stop arguing, actually engage a working brain cell and THINK. Even a lowly beat cop without a vagina of their own to reference should be able to reason their way through this.

This is honestly farcical at this point.

[Trevor Marriott]

Good lord. It has been explained to you MULTIPLE times. A woman could need up to 4-5 rags a day. Do you think she's going to be washing cloths 3 times a day? And even if she was, Do you know how long it takes for cloth to dry in cold, damp months? Dryers... didn't....exist.... in Victorian times.

Do you actually think, that a woman is going to shove a WET RAG up there to try and absorb more fluid? THINK for a minute. Stop arguing, actually engage a working brain cell and THINK. Even a lowly beat cop without a vagina of their own to reference should be able to reason their way through this.

This is honestly farcical at this point.

Well, that's not what a consultant gynaecologist has stated a woman of Eddowes age and lifestyle would still be menstruating but she may not have a full-blown period due to her being malnourished and her lifestyle. The apron piece was spotted with blood which would either corroborate that she was coming to the end of her period if she had a full-blown period or was having the type of period described and I am more inclined to listen to an expert who is an expert in female anatomy than you who are only speaking from personal experience

My brain is a fully working brain and it is a brain without blinkers which it seems you and others have fitted to yours, maybe you should take them off for a change and see a whole new world

and it still doesn't explain if she was washing and reusing a single device why she would need 12 pieces based on that she must have spent all her spare time washing and drying your explanation doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, that's not what a consultant gynaecologist has stated a woman of Eddowes age and lifestyle would still be menstruating but she may not have a full-blown period due to her being malnourished and her lifestyle. The apron piece was spotted with blood which would either corroborate that she was coming to the end of her period if she had a full-blown period or was having the type of period described and I am more inclined to listen to an expert who is an expert in female anatomy than you who are only speaking from personal experience

My brain is a fully working brain and it is a brain without blinkers which it seems you and others have fitted to yours, maybe you should take them off for a change and see a whole new world

You’re not wearing blinkers Trevor. More like a blindfold, as you keep stumbling around in the dark embarrassingly trying prop-up a theory that everyone is unanimous in classifying as a farce. Yours isn’t worthy of the name ‘theory.’ It’s a piece of utterly desperate silliness by someone obsessed with trying to come up with something new.

and it still doesn't explain if she was washing and reusing a single device why she would need 12 pieces based on that she must have spent all her spare time washing and drying your explanation doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

You are incapable of scrutiny. It’s beyond you.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you are trying to use a ‘may not’ to prove a point.

Staggering!

[Trevor Marriott]

So you are trying to use a ‘may not’ to prove a point.

Staggering!

I am exploring all scenarios unlike you who have your head buried in the sand and only surface to reiterate those immortal words you keep using "She was wearing an apron"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am exploring all scenarios unlike you who have your head buried in the sand and only surface to reiterate those immortal words you keep using "She was wearing an apron"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No you’re not. You’re indulging your ego. Your theory is bilge. If you don’t accept that then you’re simply being dishonest.

SHE WAS WEARING AN APRON.

Anyone who says that she wasn’t is a clown.

Ive had enough of this crap.

[Elamarna]

Of course, it does if she had 12 rags why would simply not discard one after it was soiled and then use one of the others,

You are suggesting that she would use one and then wash it, then use another if she did that why would she carry around with her a number of rags which would never get used if she was washing and reusing one or two? besides it seems she had all that she owned on her person when she was murdered why would she carry around unnecessary items?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You still fail to get the obvious Trevor, and insist on continuing the fantasy that you are the reasonable and objective one, and everyone else is wrong.

So once more, Eddowes had 12 cloths on her which she may have used for her periods.
I must say now I find your reference to them as rags to say much about you.

If she was using them as sanitary towels, (which is itself totally unproven, and is simply another of the non supported ideas you present as fact), she would, unless she was replacing each month, need to have the number on her she knew she would need. As you say, she carried all that she owned, so if she had regular need of sanitary towels she would carry her supply with her at ALL TIMES .
If however, she's not having periods, or not "ON" at the time Your theory fails completely.

She would probably not wash these daily, unless the daily use was high, but when a certain number, based on her experience of her periods, was reached , and how long the cloths took to dry.

Your lack of knowledge on women's health is astonishing, but I suppose it's what one expects from a failed comedian, who seems incapable of acknowledging reality, not just about the case, but about himself too