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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Feel free to provide evidence to back your claim that there were no Jewish sailors.

The absence of Jewish employment from the port transport industry, noted by Ben Tillet in evidence before the Select Committee on Sweating, owed much to violence and intimidation. If a Jew gets work at the Docks, a contemporary observed, he is so jeered and chaffed that he is obliged to give it up.

(David Englander, Policing the Ghetto Jewish East London, 1880-1920,
referring to Select Committee on Sweating; Stallard (1867, pp. 8-9))


Jews could not even obtain employment at London docks, let alone work on a ship.

[Abby Normal]

Hi there!

Just throwing this out there. If it wasn’t used as a sanitary napkin, then Jack cut the apron. If that’s true, why did he do it? I think it would be saturated with liquids from the kidney and womb if that was its purpose. If it wasn’t, what did he use to carry them in? And why cut the apron when he could’ve just wiped off there? He didn’t cut fabric from Annie Chapman as far as we know. So this is a deliberate act. Possibly to tie the graffito to the murder?

Columbo

yes precisely. and i think he proabaly used it to carry the organs in

[Columbo]

What don't you get? he is describing the apron piece if it had had blood or faecal matter on both sides he would have documented it

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi there!

Just throwing this out there. If it wasn’t used as a sanitary napkin, then Jack cut the apron. If that’s true, why did he do it? I think it would be saturated with liquids from the kidney and womb if that was its purpose. If it wasn’t, what did he use to carry them in? And why cut the apron when he could’ve just wiped off there? He didn’t cut fabric from Annie Chapman as far as we know. So this is a deliberate act. Possibly to tie the graffito to the murder?

Columbo

[caz]

Would that be the same book where you wrote about the diary? the same book where your research was challenged by Lord Orsam

Is that really the best you can do, Trev?

We wrote about the people in the diary story, giving their accounts on the record. Orsam was perfectly entitled to challenge any of those people's claims, as was anyone who had actually read the book.

You haven't read it, presumably because there are too many long words in it. Even Mike Barrett's drivel would have been way beyond your comprehension.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

and it is you twisting the evidence around if there had been any traces of blood or any other matter on the other side he would have mentioned it, otherwise, there was no point in him describing the apron piece in the way that he did he would have said it was stained on the other side

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If they wondered why the killer would have taken the cloth one option would have been to wipe the knife. So he mentions the smears which could be taken as evidence of this. He was talking about smears specifically. He wasn’t talking in general about the state of the cloth.

Joshua has already made this point but, from the inquest (the signed testimony that you are always quick to tell us outweighs newspaper articles:

“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 a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood. I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding – some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street. I believe the wounds on the face to have been done to disfigure the corpse.”

Maybe I need new glasses but I just can’t see the part where he says that there was staining on only one side. Perhaps they used invisible ink.

[Joshua Rogan]

and no evidence to show anything was on the other side otherwise he would have said so when describing the piece

Trevor, you're not using unreliable newspaper tittle-tattle to suggest Brown said there were only stains on one side of the apron, are you?

I'm not sure Brown's signed inquest deposition mentions anything about which side of the apron-piece any blood stains were on, only that "some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street".

[Trevor Marriott]

She would not have 'realised' this, Trev, if there was any menstrual blood spotting on the piece left in GS. She wasn't in her twenties for God's sake, with clockwork regular periods. All the evidence points to her being between periods at the time of her murder - that's if she was still having them at all.

Most women I know would keep some sanitary protection handy at all times, up to several months after their last ever period, because of the unpredictable nature of the menopause. Periods can disappear for a month or two then reappear with little or no notice, ranging from very light to extremely heavy. It's impossible to predict when it will all end without a blood test to confirm - as my GP bluntly put it - "there's no going back".

Read and learn, Trev. Read and learn. If I had my way, I'd put it all in a Janet and John book.

Love,

Caz
X

Would that be the same book where you wrote about the diary? the same book where your research was challenged by Lord Orsam

and just to conclude before I withdraw yet again from this topic, we have no definitive evidence as to why the killer would cut a piece of her apron at the crime scene and then keep the incriminating evidence on his person and walk with it for some distance before dispensing with it in a location where it might never have been found.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

...Why would he?

I can't wait to see the reasoning of a seasoned beat cop in action. Why precisely would he have described random blood spotting on the other side, when the interesting portion was the side that showed evidence of the knife being wiped. Do tell us PC Marriott.

Afternoon Ally,

How do you expect PC Marriott to reveal anything more useful than the fact that he is a daft constable?

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

...Why would he?

I can't wait to see the reasoning of a seasoned beat cop in action. Why precisely would he have described random blood spotting on the other side, when the interesting portion was the side that showed evidence of the knife being wiped. Do tell us PC Marriott.

Pc Long who found the apron piece "The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood."
there is no mention of the apron piece being heavily bloodstained

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

Not if she realised that her period had now ceased and the blood spotting could be evidence of that, so she didnt need to apply another piece of rag

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

She would not have 'realised' this, Trev, if there was any menstrual blood spotting on the piece left in GS. She wasn't in her twenties for God's sake, with clockwork regular periods. All the evidence points to her being between periods at the time of her murder - that's if she was still having them at all.

Most women I know would keep some sanitary protection handy at all times, up to several months after their last ever period, because of the unpredictable nature of the menopause. Periods can disappear for a month or two then reappear with little or no notice, ranging from very light to extremely heavy. It's impossible to predict when it will all end without a blood test to confirm - as my GP bluntly put it - "there's no going back".

Read and learn, Trev. Read and learn. If I had my way, I'd put it all in a Janet and John book.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

and no evidence to show anything was on the other side otherwise he would have said so when describing the piece

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

...Why would he?

I can't wait to see the reasoning of a seasoned beat cop in action. Why precisely would he have described random blood spotting on the other side, when the interesting portion was the side that showed evidence of the knife being wiped. Do tell us PC Marriott.

[Trevor Marriott]

He was talking SPECIFICALLY about marks that could have been made by wiping a knife. And those SPECIFIC kind of marks were only on one side.

and no evidence to show anything was on the other side otherwise he would have said so when describing the piece

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact???

This woman had twelve pieces of cloth on her person, and a remaining piece of apron, when she walked to Mitre Square and met her killer. If the GS piece had any menstrual blood on it when she supposedly ditched it for being too soiled, she would have replaced it, no question. Even if she thought she was coming to the end of a period she'd have used a smaller piece of cloth or rag to be on the safe side. As I tried to explain before, to deaf ears, no woman of her age would know for sure how long the bleeding might still go on for, or if it might get heavier before stopping completely until next time. It's not a constant flow in any case, but stops and starts at irregular intervals. But Eddowes didn't have to guess or take any chances, because we know what she had among her possessions to take care of any accidents.

Love,

Caz
X

Not if she realised that her period had now ceased and the blood spotting could be evidence of that, so she didnt need to apply another piece of rag

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

How hard can this be? The smears that had the appearance of a knife being wiped were on one side of the cloth. From that we can only assume that there were no such smears on the other side but not that there was no blood at all on the other side. There might have been blood but it wasn’t in smears. You persist in making an unfounded assumption to make your point.

and it is you twisting the evidence around if there had been any traces of blood or any other matter on the other side he would have mentioned it, otherwise, there was no point in him describing the apron piece in the way that he did he would have said it was stained on the other side

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

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

The fact???

This woman had twelve pieces of cloth on her person, and a remaining piece of apron, when she walked to Mitre Square and met her killer. If the GS piece had any menstrual blood on it when she supposedly ditched it for being too soiled, she would have replaced it, no question. Even if she thought she was coming to the end of a period she'd have used a smaller piece of cloth or rag to be on the safe side. As I tried to explain before, to deaf ears, no woman of her age would know for sure how long the bleeding might still go on for, or if it might get heavier before stopping completely until next time. It's not a constant flow in any case, but stops and starts at irregular intervals. But Eddowes didn't have to guess or take any chances, because we know what she had among her possessions to take care of any accidents.

Love,

Caz
X