Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    and what is your point? you again have not kept up because I suggested that the 12 pieces you referred to could have been cut from an apron, and Jeff suggested that she might have used them for cleaning rags so if she was doing that then one of those pieces could have turned up in GS and the killer not having cut it or torn it after all.
    My point is that in Post #198 you posted "We also have to take into account the fact that Eddowes was described as being a hawker and if the pieces were of a much finer material perhaps she had them in order to sell for some purpose which I have know idea what that could be."

    We know that they were "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained". Rag does not mean "a fine piece of cloth", it means "a waste piece of cloth". We can speculate about what these 12 rags might have been used for, but they were clearly rags, not pieces "of a much finer material" as you speculated in Post #198.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Why this is under discussion at all, I fail to see. Long was asked whether he was able or not to say if the apron was in place at his first visit to the doorway, and he answered that it was not there then. That involved him answering in the positive to the question whether he was able to establish this or not: yes, he was.

      To negate Longs answer, we need somebody who was also there, and who had a deviating opinion. There is no such witness. We are therefore left with a PC who claimed that he was able to tell if the rag was there or not, and he said it was not.

      Nota bene that this was an answer that defied what one would expect; one would expect the killer to flee Mitre Square and drop the apron in Goulston Street in direct combination with the murder. Therefore, when Long testified to the opposite, he gave the unexpected answer. That makes the testimony so much the stronger; if he had said "Ehhhr, yes, surely it must have been...?" or something like that, it would be another story. But a firm "Yes, I am able to tell, and no, it was not there at that stage" is a straightforward and strong statement that is not easily overthrown.

      The rag was not there then. How about offering Long some respect and gratitude for his crucial piece of testimony?
      exactly fish, hes one that found the freaken thing to begin with! so i think we should give him credit and take him at his word.

      but i guess well just have twenty more pages of the even more, indeed imbecile, argument that eddowes wast even wearing the apron, or some such nonsense.
      Last edited by Abby Normal; 03-19-2021, 07:55 PM.

      Comment


      • Then how about giving Cross credit and taking him at his word?Or Maxwell,or Schwartz?
        Long handed the piece of apron to officers at the police station.That is all that can be corroberated.Untill then Long states he had no knowledge of a murder being committed,and could find no evidence of a crime in or around the building in Goulstan street.So he had a piece of blood stained rag that to him had no evidential value relating to a crime.Is that good enough reason to leave his post and go haring off to a police station?I'llleave that question for police to answer. Sure it was worth entering in his notebook or mentioning it to his sergeant when he saw that person,but I see no reason for anything else.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          Hi Harry,

          PC Long's discovery time is important. Collard also indicates that Eddowes was wearing an apron in his testimony. Basically, Collard's list is refuted by Collard himself, so I don't see him as any more important than any of the other police officers that also testify she was wearning one. Trevor sees Collard's list as very important because he's able to make an argument based upon it and finds ways to turn a blind eye to all the other testimony. I assure you, if Collard had listed the apron first, somehow that would be "unsafe" and ignored and something/someone else would be the most reliable witness.

          - Jeff
          Collard does not indicate she was wearing an apron. You must stop referring to testimony which is clearly secondary to the official testimony

          You cant keep playing all of these spurious newspaper reports to prop up your argument.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Collard does not indicate she was wearing an apron. You must stop referring to testimony which is clearly secondary to the official testimony

            You cant keep playing all of these spurious newspaper reports to prop up your argument.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Yes he does. I know you like to emphasize the word apparently, but how that changes things so much that you believe he doesn't add to the testimony that she was wearing the apron is simply a further demonstration of your unwillingness to consider the possibility that your unsupported story the arose only through conjecture could possibly be wrong while the testimony of multiple independent witnesses of the day could be correct.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by harry View Post
              Then how about giving Cross credit and taking him at his word?Or Maxwell,or Schwartz?
              Long handed the piece of apron to officers at the police station.That is all that can be corroberated.Untill then Long states he had no knowledge of a murder being committed,and could find no evidence of a crime in or around the building in Goulstan street.So he had a piece of blood stained rag that to him had no evidential value relating to a crime.Is that good enough reason to leave his post and go haring off to a police station?I'llleave that question for police to answer. Sure it was worth entering in his notebook or mentioning it to his sergeant when he saw that person,but I see no reason for anything else.
              aaaand your point is???

              Comment


              • Well one point is that i believed when you entered the discussion you might have a point yourself.I should have known better.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                  Yes he does. I know you like to emphasize the word apparently, but how that changes things so much that you believe he doesn't add to the testimony that she was wearing the apron is simply a further demonstration of your unwillingness to consider the possibility that your unsupported story the arose only through conjecture could possibly be wrong while the testimony of multiple independent witnesses of the day could be correct.

                  - Jeff
                  Apparently is not a definitive answer.

                  Its not unsupported, and I notice that after the short discussion on how a sanitary device could be worn and how they were made up, the board fell silent. That was because I was correct and I knew I would be vindicated because I had done my research so I clearly knew what I was talking about and what I posted was a possible alternative explanation for how it got to GS and who deposited it there.

                  And you consider that the witness testimony you rely on is 100% correct because if you do then there is no hope for you I am sorry to be blunt but that's the reality of you assessment and evaluation of the evidence.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 03-20-2021, 12:28 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by harry View Post
                    Well one point is that i believed when you entered the discussion you might have a point yourself.I should have known better.
                    well harry if you could follow a discussion you would be able to see that i have made several points. unlike yourself trevor and michael richards which we all see that theres no surprise that you all cannot make any points at all that make any sense. lol

                    time for your nappy nappy poo.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Apparently is not a definitive answer.

                      Its not unsupported, and I notice that after the short discussion on how a sanitary device could be worn and how they were made up, the board fell silent. That was because I was correct and I knew I would be vindicated because I had done my research so I clearly knew what I was talking about and what I posted was a possible alternative explanation for how it got to GS and who deposited it there.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      go sell some ripper coffee cups and tee shirts trevor. your ridiculous theories have been more than shot down by the serious researchers on this board. and take michael richards and harry with you, im sure they would be a great help schlepping your nonsense.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        go sell some ripper coffee cups and tee shirts trevor. your ridiculous theories have been more than shot down by the serious researchers on this board. and take michael richards and harry with you, im sure they would be a great help schlepping your nonsense.
                        There are serious researchers who can asses and evaluate the facts and the evidence and can identify flaws in witness testimony, and then there are serious researchers who are so obsessed and immersed in the old accepted theories that whatever new evidence or facts that are presented to them which fly in the face of those old accepted theories they feel they have to do their utmost to negate them by whatever means possible. Clearly there is a bout of OCD sweeping through this thread.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          Yes he does. I know you like to emphasize the word apparently, but how that changes things so much that you believe he doesn't add to the testimony that she was wearing the apron is simply a further demonstration of your unwillingness to consider the possibility that your unsupported story the arose only through conjecture could possibly be wrong while the testimony of multiple independent witnesses of the day could be correct.

                          - Jeff
                          As has been pointed out to you Collards list was made at the time and is irrefutable, that is prime evidnece. The other witnesses gave their evidence from memory some 4 days after the event, and the issue with that have been pointed out to you, So which do you believe? In law notes made at the time carry more weight than questionable verbal testimony days later.

                          And I really cant be arsed with this thread anymore

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Yeah it's very clear Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was killed.The Coroner did a good job.
                            And if Eddowes was not wearing the apron it would have also been clear.How hard could it have been to show,"among her possessions was a torn apron,a part of it recovered from Goulston".
                            And this people eyeballed the way the apron was found,they would have been able to simply figure this out either way, surely.Enough of this nonsense.
                            Last edited by Varqm; 03-20-2021, 01:14 AM.
                            Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                            M. Pacana

                            Comment


                            • The bolt hole could have been a temporary one,like a shop or a hiding place,and not a home.If a home I do not see the ripper going out again.Besides he could have burned the apron?
                              Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                              M. Pacana

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                                The bolt hole could have been a temporary one,like a shop or a hiding place,and not a home.If a home I do not see the ripper going out again.Besides he could have burned the apron?
                                except he didnt. part of it was still on eddowes andpart of it was in goulston st. ?? please elaborate

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X