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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jeff
late me make my position on this issue quite clear because the attempts to pour scorn on the suggestion are clouding the issue.

We know Eddowes was arrested that afternoon for being drunk she was then placed in a cell

It is a known fact that Victorian street women used rags when menstruating.

It is also a known fact that when drunk persons are arrested and placed in a cell they fall asleep and become incontinent.

Eddowes could have been in the final stages of menstruation when arrested and could still have been using a piece of rag for that purpose

The GS piece was described as having blood spots and faecal matter on just one side, now to me that indicates it could have been used by her as suggested and had been between her legs for that purpose it was also described as being wet. One thing we do not know is the size of the GS piece.

A consultant gynaecologist states that blood spotting is a part of the menstrual cycle in some women especially emaciated women to which Eddowes was of that class.

So following Eddowes being released there are no sightings of her, so she had the time and the opportunity to make her way back to her lodgings at Flower and Dean street and in doing so one route would have taken her via Goulston Street. If as I postulate she could have realised the rag was soiled she could have quite easily gone under the archway to go to the toilet and in doing so deposited it at the same time. Knowing that her period was at an end she decided to not replace it, deciding to then make her way back to the city where she met her killer why she didn't go to her lodgings is another mystery within this mystery.

The problem I have with the killer cutting and taking it away has been discussed at length here but I cannot see how the killer after cutting her throat and ripping open her abdomen and allegedly then putting both his hands in a blood-filled abdomen to remove organs could have failed to leave traces of blood on both sides of the apron piece. It would make no difference whether he cut the apron piece before the mutilations or after because he would still have to handle the apron piece with both bloodstained hands at some point. The doctor suggested that the blood and faecal matter so described could have been a result of a hand or a knife being wiped on it but I say again for that to have taken place the apron piece would have to have been held in both hands and traces of blood or faecal matter on both sides

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ll ask a specific question. As she carried the rest of her possessions inside her clothing but the piece of apron was found outside of her clothing and in a position, according to Collard, which indicated that she’d been wearing it, do you think that she was, for some inexplicable reason, carry this piece of apron in her hand as she walked through Mitre Square? If not, how could this one item alone have been removed from her possessions by the killer yet he left the rest of the items (or did he conveniently put them back?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jeff
late me make my position on this issue quite clear because the attempts to pour scorn on the suggestion are clouding the issue.

We know Eddowes was arrested that afternoon for being drunk she was then placed in a cell

It is a known fact that Victorian street women used rags when menstruating.

It is also a known fact that when drunk persons are arrested and placed in a cell they fall asleep and become incontinent.

Eddowes could have been in the final stages of menstruation when arrested and could still have been using a piece of rag for that purpose

The GS piece was described as having blood spots and faecal matter on just one side, now to me that indicates it could have been used by her as suggested and had been between her legs for that purpose it was also described as being wet. One thing we do not know is the size of the GS piece.

A consultant gynaecologist states that blood spotting is a part of the menstrual cycle in some women especially emaciated women to which Eddowes was of that class.

So following Eddowes being released there are no sightings of her, so she had the time and the opportunity to make her way back to her lodgings at Flower and Dean street and in doing so one route would have taken her via Goulston Street. If as I postulate she could have realised the rag was soiled she could have quite easily gone under the archway to go to the toilet and in doing so deposited it at the same time. Knowing that her period was at an end she decided to not replace it, deciding to then make her way back to the city where she met her killer why she didn't go to her lodgings is another mystery within this mystery.

The problem I have with the killer cutting and taking it away has been discussed at length here but I cannot see how the killer after cutting her throat and ripping open her abdomen and allegedly then putting both his hands in a blood-filled abdomen to remove organs could have failed to leave traces of blood on both sides of the apron piece. It would make no difference whether he cut the apron piece before the mutilations or after because he would still have to handle the apron piece with both bloodstained hands at some point. The doctor suggested that the blood and faecal matter so described could have been a result of a hand or a knife being wiped on it but I say again for that to have taken place the apron piece would have to have been held in both hands and traces of blood or faecal matter on both sides

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We have pointed this out to you numerous times but you simply plough on. Nowhere does it say that the apron was stained only on one side. If you say that there’s evidence that this was the case could you provide it for us please.

[Trevor Marriott]

That’s an assumption on your part and evidence has been provided on here to show that this might not have been the case. So why do you keep repeating it as if it’s a fact?

You say might not have been the case but it just might have

Isn't it logical that if the killer removed the organs he would have to have put both his hands inside the abdomen firstly to locate the organs and then hold the abdominal wall open sufficiently for him to then take hold of them with one hand and then use the other hand to cut and remove the organs, and then handling them outside the body?

I am sorry but I can see no way that the killer could not have failed to get blood on both his hands and that blood transferred to both sides of the apron piece. Let's forget the gloves belief, and the killer carefully folding the apron piece having cut it. The killer was in a high state of alert it would have been hard enough to locate and extract these organs under normal circumstances given the light available to him let alone being handicapped by wearing gloves or taking time to fold the apron piece. So I am right to question why there is only blood and faecal matter on one side of the apron piece and suggest the alternative as a plausible explanation

The blood and faecal matter as described on one side of the apron piece only is without a doubt a game changer!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

We have pointed this out to you numerous times but you simply plough on. Nowhere does it say that the apron was stained only on one side. If you say that there’s evidence that this was the case could you provide it for us please.

Dr Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ll ask a specific question. As she carried the rest of her possessions inside her clothing but the piece of apron was found outside of her clothing and in a position, according to Collard, which indicated that she’d been wearing it, do you think that she was, for some inexplicable reason, carry this piece of apron in her hand as she walked through Mitre Square? If not, how could this one item alone have been removed from her possessions by the killer yet he left the rest of the items (or did he conveniently put them back?)

Well if you accept the fact that the apron piece had been deposited by her in GS before she returned to Mitre Square and met her demise.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Dr Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, Dr Brown mentioned the smears on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped, which was relevant to the inquest. Does he say "and the other side was completely clean"?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, Dr Brown mentioned the smears on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped, which was relevant to the inquest. Does he say "and the other side was completely clean"?

Well why would he simply refer to one side, if a hand had been wiped on it or a knife I would suggest that if that did happen whoever wiped their hand or knife must have had to hold the apron piece in one hand or between their hands in order to do so and if both hands were bloodied then I would suggest transference to both sides could not have been avoided.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Doc has already dealt with this. It doesn’t say that there wasn’t any blood on both sides, only that there was a smudge that looked as if a knife had been wiped on it which was only on one side. You have invented a point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well if you accept the fact that the apron piece had been deposited by her in GS before she returned to Mitre Square and met her demise.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s not a fact. It’s a theory postulated by yourself based on the misinterpretation and the manipulation of evidence, the wilful discrediting of witnesses, a complete disregard for reason and common sense and a desperate and laughable claim to know more about feminine hygiene issues than women who actually, physically experience those issues. The theory has been completely and thoroughly debunked leaving only one person believing that it still holds water.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You say might not have been the case but it just might have

Isn't it logical that if the killer removed the organs he would have to have put both his hands inside the abdomen firstly to locate the organs and then hold the abdominal wall open sufficiently for him to then take hold of them with one hand and then use the other hand to cut and remove the organs, and then handling them outside the body?

I am sorry but I can see no way that the killer could not have failed to get blood on both his hands and that blood transferred to both sides of the apron piece. Let's forget the gloves belief, and the killer carefully folding the apron piece having cut it. The killer was in a high state of alert it would have been hard enough to locate and extract these organs under normal circumstances given the light available to him let alone being handicapped by wearing gloves or taking time to fold the apron piece. So I am right to question why there is only blood and faecal matter on one side of the apron piece and suggest the alternative as a plausible explanation

The blood and faecal matter as described on one side of the apron piece only is without a doubt a game changer!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The emboldened part is typical of your reasoning. Firstly, I didn’t say that I believed that the killer had worn gloves, I simply mentioned a possibility. But I wish that you would explain how the wearing of gloves during a crime is such a far-fetched, ‘out there consideration? I’m struggling with this one Trevor - a killer, of let’s say average intelligence, plans to kill and mutilate women in the street. Understandably he doesn’t want to get caught. So he think of things that might get him caught. Being seen with blood on his hands is an obvious one of course. He thinks to himself “if only some item of clothing had been invented that I could wear on my hands to prevent them getting covered in blood. I mean, the head has such an item - a hat, so why not hands?………oh wait a minute…….gloves…..why didn’t I think of that earlier?”

Nowhere near impossible Trevor……so possible……and far more likely than any of your theories.

And the ‘careful’ folding. For a start you’ve added the word carefully (which I never used) to make it seem less likely. Why didn’t you go the whole hog and say that I’d suggested that the killer folded the apron piece into a swan? It needn’t have been folded at all. For gods sake Trevor you really will argue that black is white. Put a piece of cloth on the floor, put paint on your hands, pick up the cloth with one hand from the middle then wipe your hands. Hey presto blood on one side only.

But that aside, as we’ve told you, there is no evidence that there was only blood on one side in the first place except another example of you misinterpreting evidence. So it’s a game changer based on a baseless assumption, which is par-for-the-course with you.

[Trevor Marriott]

But that aside, as we’ve told you, there is no evidence that there was only blood on one side in the first place except another example of you misinterpreting evidence. So it’s a game changer based on a baseless assumption, which is par-for-the-course with you.

Dr Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it.”

We have been over this many times in the past and I do not intend to keep repeating myself I came her to clarify the misgiving some posters seem to have in relation to my plausible explantion

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Well if you accept the fact that the apron piece had been deposited by her in GS before she returned to Mitre Square and met her demise.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nonsense Trevor, and you know it. Stop this absurdity for goodness sake grow up. .

[Enigma]

Dr Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it.”

The fact that there was staining on a portion of the apron on one side only does not preclude that other areas of the cloth were saturated through and through. If the apron was bunched up when stained this is more than likely to have been the case.

[Enigma]

'The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.' - T.H. Huxley

[Trevor Marriott]

'The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.' - T.H. Huxley

Well the evidence is there in plain sight but some are blind that they cannot see

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk