The Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

A police officer is in pursuit of a murderer and stops two men in the street for questioning and now that's seen as diabolical?... And some of you have the nerve to wonder why hair brained ideas are considered as hair brained ideas? ...making supposition without any basis in reality at all.

And you look for credibility from your peers?

How about acting like you deserve it.

I look for nothing from those that cannot see themselves

[Monty]

Trevor,

Oh I'm in the kitchen, roasting me a Marriott hog.

Its obvious you have no idea re the case basics, as shown above re Halse. To question you must have a full understanding of both the statements and the policing of the time.

What you do is apply the modern to the old. You do not consider why things were done and for what reason.

Sure, shake up this 120 odd year old case. You have done so far, and proven?.....well, nothing really. Just ill thought out theories and half baked suggestions. And its gotten you a few buddies on the way.

However, when you really look beneath the bluff and bluster, there's nothing substantial. Heck, even Stewart and Paul have given up on you, only plebs like me will engage you now.

Come back to me when you've familiarised yourself with the facts.

Then we do business.

Monty

[John Bennett]

So let me get this right:

-Police reports are faulty and inaccurate because the police can't be relied on to be squeaky-clean.
-Senior police officers lie in their memoirs and private notes or are too befuddled by old age to be taken seriously.
-Doctor's examinations don't tell us the whole story.
-Press reports can be unreliable.

Well, if we get rid of all these sources (the contemporary material available to us from which we formulate a picture of the case in 1888), we are left with the very real possibility that the only way forward is to make it all up.

Now that's a real pity.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear Monty you are really in a pickle arent you another cartel member floundering in the water.

Trevor,

Oh I'm in the kitchen, roasting me a Marriott hog.

Its obvious you have no idea re the case basics, as shown above re Halse. To question you must have a full understanding of both the statements and the policing of the time.

What you do is apply the modern to the old. You do not consider why things were done and for what reason.

Sure, shake up this 120 odd year old case. You have done so far, and proven?.....well, nothing really. Just ill thought out theories and half baked suggestions. And its gotten you a few buddies on the way.

However, when you really look beneath the bluff and bluster, there's nothing substantial. Heck, even Stewart and Paul have given up on you, only plebs like me will engage you now.

A pleb well I couldnt have decsribed you better

Come back to me when you've familiarised yourself with the facts.

Then we do business.

If I ever needed to do that you would be the last person I would come back to.

You clearly do not understand policing full stop.


Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

So let me get this right:

-Police reports are faulty and inaccurate because the police can't be relied on to be squeaky-clean.
-Senior police officers lie in their memoirs and private notes or are too befuddled by old age to be taken seriously.
-Doctor's examinations don't tell us the whole story.
-Press reports can be unreliable.

Well, if we get rid of all these sources (the contemporary material available to us from which we formulate a picture of the case in 1888), we are left with the very real possibility that the only way forward is to make it all up.

Now that's a real pity.

John
Its not a question of making it up its a question of the original facts not standing up to close scrutiny for some of the reasons you stated above. It therefore opens up the door for new views and theories to be introduced for consideration. But sadly some dont want that to happen.

[Fleetwood Mac]

-Police reports are faulty and inaccurate because the police can't be relied on to be squeaky-clean.
-Senior police officers lie in their memoirs and private notes or are too befuddled by old age to be taken seriously.
-Doctor's examinations don't tell us the whole story.
-Press reports can be unreliable.

Well, if we get rid of all these sources (the contemporary material available to us from which we formulate a picture of the case in 1888), we are left with the very real possibility that the only way forward is to make it all up.

Now that's a real pity.

I think there's also such a thing as realism.

We have Long, Halse, Smith, McWilliam etc, add in the ingredient of newspaper reporting of the inquest, and it would be miraculous if something did not tie up somewhere. The very nature of human beings, not 100% efficient, means there will be an error somewhere.

From my reading of this, the times are not out of sync at all. It's clear that Halse is there around 2.20 and then makes his way to the scene via mortuary/mitre square/police station. Long is there around 2.20 and 2.55. I personally think the 'around' was said for a reason, as 'around' usually is, they didn't give an exact time because they couldn't give an exact time.

The only contradiction is Smith claims Halse found a policeman looking at the apron versus Halse was pointed to the spot. I personally think far more than that is needed to suggest a cover up of some description or Halse's involvement.

I am quite surprised that people are expecting the official report to tally all ends up, and I'm aware of the getting their heads/reports together. In my profession, we do likewise, reports are submitted from which a senior report is created. Due to time constraints, human error etc, quite often something is transposed incorrectly.

I think though it's been an interesting discussion and surely there's nothing wrong with suggesting this and that, only to conclude it's unlikely. The conclusion I'd draw from this thread is the apron remains a mystery and there is simply not enough to support the 'foul play' argument, which I suppose leaves us with one of two ideas: as Tom said, he went inside and came back onto the streets, or he was never off the streets.

[John Bennett]

I think there's also such a thing as realism.

We have Long, Halse, Smith, McWilliam etc, add in the ingredient of newspaper reporting of the inquest, and it would be miraculous if something did not tie up somewhere. The very nature of human beings, not 100% efficient, means there will be an error somewhere.

That's very true. In fact there are enough contradictions and questions relating to the official reports as it is. Making sense of it all can be challenging and somebody somewhere is possibly wrong - but people stepping forward and saying that nobody could be trusted just adds even more unfounded confusion.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's very true. In fact there are enough contradictions and questions relating to the official reports as it is. Making sense of it all can be challenging and somebody somewhere is possibly wrong - but people stepping forward and saying that nobody could be trusted just adds even more unfounded confusion.

John

As I said before its not a case of nobody being trusted its a case of asking serious questions about all of the issues you highlighted including police officers who were involved in this either in a minor role or those right at the top.

As far as policemen are concerned I have been around them for 30 years or more i think I ought to know a bit a about them so when I say policemen can be less than liberal with the truth you should listen and take note. In many case over the years it has been proved that police officers have in fact lied and have resorted to sharp practices in order to obtain a conviction.

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Monty, quoted by Trevor Marriott

Trevor,

Oh I'm in the kitchen, roasting me a Marriott hog.

Its obvious you have no idea re the case basics, as shown above re Halse. To question you must have a full understanding of both the statements and the policing of the time.

What you do is apply the modern to the old. You do not consider why things were done and for what reason.

Sure, shake up this 120 odd year old case. You have done so far, and proven?.....well, nothing really. Just ill thought out theories and half baked suggestions. And its gotten you a few buddies on the way.

However, when you really look beneath the bluff and bluster, there's nothing substantial. Heck, even Stewart and Paul have given up on you, only plebs like me will engage you now.

A pleb well I couldnt have decsribed you better

Come back to me when you've familiarised yourself with the facts.

Then we do business.

If I ever needed to do that you would be the last person I would come back to.

You clearly do not understand policing full stop.

Monty

Cartel? Wow, Do you really want to tread that path again?

OK, have you any evidence supporting your false belief I am a member of a cartel? You sulked off before answering last time, you man enough to front up now or will you be using the avoidance tactic again?

Yeah, only plebs deal with you....and even my pateince is wearing thin.

If I ever needed to do that you would be the last person I would come back to.

You clearly do not understand policing full stop

I can imagine I am the last person you'd want to deal with. Even Im getting tired of showing you up. Then again, you seem to do a great job yourself, I really dont have to try.

John

As I said before its not a case of nobody being trusted its a case of asking serious questions about all of the issues you highlighted including police officers who were involved in this either in a minor role or those right at the top.

As far as policemen are concerned I have been around them for 30 years or more i think I ought to know a bit a about them so when I say policemen can be less than liberal with the truth you should listen and take note. In many case over the years it has been proved that police officers have in fact lied and have resorted to sharp practices in order to obtain a conviction.

There John, youve been told to listen to Trevor, end of.

Betcha glad you came back.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Cartel? Wow, Do you really want to tread that path again?

OK, have you any evidence supporting your false belief I am a member of a cartel? You sulked off before answering last time, you man enough to front up now or will you be using the avoidance tactic again?

Yeah, only plebs deal with you....and even my pateince is wearing thin.



I can imagine I am the last person you'd want to deal with. Even Im getting tired of showing you up. Then again, you seem to do a great job yourself, I really dont have to try.



There John, youve been told to listen to Trevor, end of.

Betcha glad you came back.

Monty

You show me up, in your dreams

[Trevor Marriott]

Cartel? Wow, Do you really want to tread that path again?

OK, have you any evidence supporting your false belief I am a member of a cartel? You sulked off before answering last time, you man enough to front up now or will you be using the avoidance tactic again?

Yeah, only plebs deal with you....and even my pateince is wearing thin.



I can imagine I am the last person you'd want to deal with. Even Im getting tired of showing you up. Then again, you seem to do a great job yourself, I really dont have to try.



There John, youve been told to listen to Trevor, end of.

Betcha glad you came back.

Monty

Well I am sure John is quite capable of listening to who he chooses.The worst thing he could do though is listen to you.

[John Bennett]

As far as policemen are concerned I have been around them for 30 years or more i think I ought to know a bit a about them so when I say policemen can be less than liberal with the truth you should listen and take note.

Irony?

Well I am sure John is quite capable of listening to who he chooses.

Oh, I am.

[Malcolm X]

.
Halse actually said, in full....

At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

Thus indicating he wasnt looking in doorways.
.
Monty

yes he wasn't looking in the doorways etc..... and why should he be !

he therefore didn't notice anything out of the ordinary, because a piece of cloth lying there means nothing to you, just a mess on the floor.

my guess is it was there, with only a very slim chance that JTR returned to Dutfields with it first...... i personally would have dumped it back at Dutfields, any time within the next week, with the graffiti too.

There was no need for him to dump it all in Ghoulston st, but i expect he didn't fancy stolling around for too long with that crucial evidence about his person, mind you; it looks like he kept his knife all the time, plus the organs too/ including the other organs on other nights (with regards to the other murders)

oh dear, yes JTR walked around with evidence of his crimes about his person didn't he.... so i'm not right am i

so why did he dump the cloth/ graffiti in Ghoulston st ? ..... i dont know, because i dont think the answer is that simple, i think i'm reading too much into this

. i saw you on tv the other day Marriott and you seemed quite sensible, but i cant believe that this is you right now making such a fool of yourself, and you've also ruined this thread !!!!

but it's not crazy theories that's your problem, because this is what the mystery of JTR needs, it's the childish bickering between you two that's killed this thread.

actually i'm not quite right am i, because you said that someone else might have taken Eddowes kidneys other than JTR..... FLIPPING HECK, get real please, who took them then.... the Tooth Fairy ?

[Trevor Marriott]

yes he wasn't looking in the doorways etc..... and why should he be !

he therefore didn't notice anything out of the ordinary, because a piece of cloth lying there means nothing to you, just a mess on the floor.

my guess is it was there, with only a very slim chance that JTR returned to Dutfields with it first...... i personally would have dumped it back at Dutfields, any time within the next week, with the graffiti too.

There was no need for him to dump it all in Ghoulston st, but i expect he didn't fancy stolling around for too long with that crucial evidence about his person, mind you; it looks like he kept his knife all the time, plus the organs too/ including the other organs on other nights (with regards to the other murders)

oh dear, yes JTR walked around with evidence of his crimes about his person didn't he.... so i'm not right am i

so why did he dump the cloth/ graffiti in Ghoulston st ? ..... i dont know, because i dont think the answer is that simple, i think i'm reading too much into this

. i saw you on tv the other day Marriott and you seemed quite sensible, but i cant believe that this is you right now making such a fool of yourself, and you've also ruined this thread !!!!

but it's not crazy theories that's your problem, because this is what the mystery of JTR needs, it's the childish bickering between you two that's killed this thread.

actually i'm not quite right am i, because you said that someone else might have taken Eddowes kidneys other than JTR..... FLIPPING HECK, get real please, who took them then.... the Tooth Fairy ?

The same person who removed your brain and prevented logical and sensible reasoning from prevailing

[Monty]

Well I am sure John is quite capable of listening to who he chooses.The worst thing he could do though is listen to you.

So you have no answer to my cartel question.

Your reputation grows and grows.

Monty