Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


    Absorbance of a material, denoted A, is given by

    where
    is the radiant flux transmitted by that material, is the radiant flux received by that material, is the transmittance of that material.
    Absorbance is a dimensionless quantity. Nevertheless, the absorbance unit or AU is commonly used in ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy and its high-performance liquid chromatography applications, often in derived units such as the milli-absorbance unit (mAU) or milli-absorbance unit-minutes (mAU√ómin), a unit of absorbance integrated over time.[2]

    Absorbance is related to optical depth by

    where τ is the optical depth

    ...

    Didn't you know this Ms D?


    Someone should have explained this to the makers of 'Izal'.
    Thems the Vagaries.....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

      Someone should have explained this to the makers of 'Izal'.

      Regards

      Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        Hi Harry,

        For a sanitary napkin, perhaps the better adjective would be to assume the apron piece was small enough. A sanitary napkin is not a particularly large piece of material, after all. We do not have the sizes of either the collection of rags or of the piece found in Goulston Street. Given the police at the time were under the impression the piece found in Goulston Street was cut by the killer to wipe their hands or his knife on (even if Trevor argues against this being its use, it is what the police at the time believed). It therefore would have to be large enough for "wiping hands on" to be considered a viable option. That doesn't rule out it being small enough to be used as a sanitary napkin, but we do not know the size of the piece.

        If we apply Trevor's approach that he takes towards the amount of time available for the murder to take place, specifically when considering the CPC as being Eddowes and JtR, despite there being 6 minutes unaccounted for under the most restrictive reading of the evidence, which exceeds the longest estimate of time stated as required (5 minutes, although this is qualified with a "maybe more" we'll just simplify the example for now), Trevor does not concede that there is sufficient time available for the murder. Rather, he argues "but we don't know what time the CPC left the spot they were seen in, and so because they could have left later there wasn't enough time available).

        I'm going to use Trevor's method here now. Because we do not know the size of the apron piece, it could have been too large to be used as a sanitary napkin, and therefore it was too big to be used that way.

        It is this approach that I believe makes it impossible to advance our understanding. My preference is to suggest that the only way the apron piece could have been used as a sanitary napkin is if it were suitably small. We do not know the size, and therefore cannot say that Trevor's idea is supported but we cannot refute it based upon the size of the piece. We could try to infer whether it was more likely to be a larger than suitable piece based upon the fact it must have been large enough to wipe one's hands and/or knife on, but that can be done with a face cloth (I believe flannel is the UK term?), which would not be too large. However, a much larger piece could still be used to wipe hands/knife even if unsuitable for use as a sanitary napkin. As such, while Trevor's idea must assume the piece was small, the original police idea does not fail regardless of the size of the found piece. Of the two, therefore, Trevor's is more unsafe because it requires making an unfounded assumption as to the size of the found piece, while no assumption about the size need be made with regards to the original police idea. Of course, it would be far better for us had the dimensions of the piece been stated on record, but I fear if it were too large, Trevor would insist they measured it wrong.

        - Jeff
        Totally with you on this Jeff. The size of the piece of cloth is key here. I always assumed it to be pretty large (at least long) as I guessed it would have been the bottom portion of the apron, cut with one movement, certainly don't see it as a square or a corner of the apron as in light of everything this bit of cutting would be too intricate. This is the reason I always assumed that Long was either lying or did not consider it worthy of investigation on his first round and why the sanitary towel theory seemed implausible to me.
        Best Regards,

        Tristan

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post
          For what it's worth, I would imagine that the sanitary napkin would likely consist of a larger piece of rag folded over several times for better absorbance.

          Just a quick interjection from a female perspective.......!
          Bearing in mind that Kate wasn't wearing any underwear, what would your perspective be on how it was secured?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

            Totally with you on this Jeff. The size of the piece of cloth is key here. I always assumed it to be pretty large (at least long) as I guessed it would have been the bottom portion of the apron, cut with one movement, certainly don't see it as a square or a corner of the apron as in light of everything this bit of cutting would be too intricate. This is the reason I always assumed that Long was either lying or did not consider it worthy of investigation on his first round and why the sanitary towel theory seemed implausible to me.
            If it had a string attached as the evidence tells us, it would have to have been the top left or the top right of the apron and if someone wanted to cut a piece from a full apron they are hardly likely to cut from the waistband downwards to difficult a manoeuvre.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

              Bearing in mind that Kate wasn't wearing any underwear, what would your perspective be on how it was secured?
              She had pins and needles in her possession which she could have used to affix it to other items of clothing

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 03-18-2021, 04:19 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Just a minor point on whether Long did or didn’t miss the apron when he passed at 2.20 or earlier. I can’t remember, did he ever state, like John Richardson about Chapman’s body, that he couldn’t possibly have missed it?
                Hi Herlock,

                When asked if the piece was there at 2:20 he responds "it was not" without any qualifiers. So, he states it confidently, but does not say it was impossible for him to miss it.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by harry View Post
                  I accept Collard's testimony to be the more reliable.
                  Collard testified that Eddowes was wearing an apron.

                  "A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    Hi Herlock,

                    When asked if the piece was there at 2:20 he responds "it was not" without any qualifiers. So, he states it confidently, but does not say it was impossible for him to miss it.

                    - Jeff
                    Hi Jeff,

                    It’s perhaps surprising that no one pushed him on this. “Is it possible that you might not have noticed it at 2.20?
                    Regards

                    Herlock Sholmes

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                      Bearing in mind that Kate wasn't wearing any underwear, what would your perspective be on how it was secured?
                      That's a good question, Joshua!

                      Without being too graphic, I would suggest an element of insertion perhaps.

                      Thank goodness for modern day sanitary products!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                        Hi Jeff,

                        For what it's worth, I would imagine that the sanitary napkin would likely consist of a larger piece of rag folded over several times for better absorbance.

                        Just a quick interjection from a female perspective.......!
                        Hi Ms Diddles,

                        Fair point. Folding along a the length of a long piece would work but I'm assuming the width would have to be a particular size (at least there would be a much more limited range of viable widths). Although I suppose one could fold in all dimensions, but it's going to get rather large after some number of folds. There must have been a standard size and shape of cloth and a known folding pattern that was passed down through the generations. I wonder if such things are recorded anywhere?

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Or as Trevor suggests, by pinning it to her skirts, although this would likely be a bit ungainly.

                          To be clear, I'm not convinced by the whole sanitary rag argument.

                          I keep an open mind, and don't completely discount it either, although I lean towards the majority view that the rag was not used for menstrual purposes.

                          I was merely passing comment to Jeff that any rag used for this purpose would likely be larger than he was postulating, as a small piece of cloth would not absorb much.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Hi Jeff,

                            It’s perhaps surprising that no one pushed him on this. “Is it possible that you might not have noticed it at 2.20?
                            Hi Herlock,

                            Yah, I think they focussed more on his error of transcription of the graffiti and on his activities after he found it at 2:55.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              Hi Ms Diddles,

                              Fair point. Folding along a the length of a long piece would work but I'm assuming the width would have to be a particular size (at least there would be a much more limited range of viable widths). Although I suppose one could fold in all dimensions, but it's going to get rather large after some number of folds. There must have been a standard size and shape of cloth and a known folding pattern that was passed down through the generations. I wonder if such things are recorded anywhere?

                              - Jeff
                              Ooooooft! No detail too small on this forum!!

                              I'm going to look into this......

                              It's probably slightly less weird on my browser history than yours!!!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                                Collard testified that Eddowes was wearing an apron.

                                "A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased."
                                he doesn't say that at all, stop using questionable secondary newspaper reports, stick to the official signed testimony which is primary evidence. in which he uses the term "apparently wearing" thats not "was wearing"

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 03-18-2021, 05:20 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X