Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    I'm not ignoring anything Trevor, what I post is their own reported testimony.
    What I don't see is where you get the idea the pieces of apron were so small. There's absolutely no indication of that anywhere in the testimony.

    I drew this sketch many years back before I knew about the "bib" reference, also to demonstrate that the line "it was a corner piece" only means it was basically triangular in shape, it has no bearing on the size of the piece.
    But, more importantly I show what I think was meant by cutting the "string", which was in fact two strings, but when tied together it becomes one string, which was cut for removal from the body.

    Another plausible interpretation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Your interpretation of the testimony leaves a lot to be desired

    you nor anyone else cannot explain how the two pieces as decsribed and as shown in my diagram could have made up a full apron.

    This is evidnce you choose to ignore "Dr Brown-I have seen a portion on an apron produced by Dr Phillips" Note a portion not two pieces making up an apron.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    I'm not ignoring anything Trevor, what I post is their own reported testimony.
    What I don't see is where you get the idea the pieces of apron were so small. There's absolutely no indication of that anywhere in the testimony.

    I drew this sketch many years back before I knew about the "bib" reference, also to demonstrate that the line "it was a corner piece" only means it was basically triangular in shape, it has no bearing on the size of the piece.
    But, more importantly I show what I think was meant by cutting the "string", which was in fact two strings, but when tied together it becomes one string, which was cut for removal from the body.


    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Lets stick to this topic If you want to discscuss the GS piece as a separate topic I am more than happy to debate that

    There are only three who are backed into a corner on this topic and one is you and the other is Herlock and Wickerman who none of you can answer one simple question which is the key to proving or disproving whether or not she was wearing and apron when the body was stripped. But you all continue to put up a smoke screen and muddy the waters with irrelevant statements and personal opinions fuelled by mindless conjecture.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    What question is this? Have you found something new because every single point that you’ve made has be refuted. With evidence, reason. Logic and sense (and a noticeable lack of bias and the desire to defend a theory at all costs)

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Absolutely. And really, whether she was wearing the apron or not, finding part at the crime scene and another in GS is all they needed to have reason to consider it possible JtR was the one to transport it. Trevor has yet to explain how the police could possibly think fudging the evidence could help them.

    It's words that he throws out because as long as one doesn't think about it it sounds good. But the moment one stops to consider what it is he suggests it quickly becomes apparent that it is irrational.

    And in return, all we get as further clarification is bluster and more dodging of the question. I'm expecting another loud proclamation of how he's explain it all before (he hasn't, he's only repeated the same things without explanation) and how everyone is blinkered (ironic coming from someone who can't seem to see people saying she was wearing an apron) with a few insults thrown in for good measure (numpty seems to be his current favourite, yet I'm hoping he has a new one so at least those are fresh). Generally, when he's backed into a corner that's the case. And, after a while, he'll be back repeating the same thing all over again hoping everyone has forgotten.

    - Jeff
    Lets stick to this topic If you want to discscuss the GS piece as a separate topic I am more than happy to debate that

    There are only three who are backed into a corner on this topic and one is you and the other is Herlock and Wickerman who none of you can answer one simple question which is the key to proving or disproving whether or not she was wearing and apron when the body was stripped. But you all continue to put up a smoke screen and muddy the waters with irrelevant statements and personal opinions fuelled by mindless conjecture.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-07-2021, 10:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    What get’s me Jeff is that Trevor’s theory implies that the finding of the GSP was such a vital, game-changing piece of evidence that they’d go to these lengths to confirm that the ripper removed it in Mitre Square and then dropped it in Goulston Street. It’s hardly a smoking gun is it? If the possibility existed that it wasn’t dropped by the ripper as Trevor suggests why would they be determined to show that it was, as they’d only have been hampering their own investigation if they now believed that the ripper lived in one direction when he might have lived in the opposite.

    Nothing about Trevor’s theory holds water.
    Absolutely. And really, whether she was wearing the apron or not, finding part at the crime scene and another in GS is all they needed to have reason to consider it possible JtR was the one to transport it. Trevor has yet to explain how the police could possibly think fudging the evidence could help them.

    It's words that he throws out because as long as one doesn't think about it it sounds good. But the moment one stops to consider what it is he suggests it quickly becomes apparent that it is irrational.

    And in return, all we get as further clarification is bluster and more dodging of the question. I'm expecting another loud proclamation of how he's explain it all before (he hasn't, he's only repeated the same things without explanation) and how everyone is blinkered (ironic coming from someone who can't seem to see people saying she was wearing an apron) with a few insults thrown in for good measure (numpty seems to be his current favourite, yet I'm hoping he has a new one so at least those are fresh). Generally, when he's backed into a corner that's the case. And, after a while, he'll be back repeating the same thing all over again hoping everyone has forgotten.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    And yet another swerve. Herlock, for example, has offered one idea. Others have offered different suggestions in the past as well. Your own would work if you didn't magic away half the apron without justification. But it's what you do to maintain you agenda of keeping a dead idea on life support. You force air into it, but it does not breath.

    Now, please explain how the police all decided to perjur themselves along with the civilian doss house keeper about how Catherine was wearing a half an apron? How could they have thought that a reasonable thing to suggest to the coroner? Why does the coroner never question them on this as he would be privy to this evidence and would know it was only half, and therefore unwearable? Or is Baxter in on it too?

    I mean, you must be able to explain why they thought it reasonable to lie under oath and say she was wearing something impossible to wear because you are the one offering this suggestion. You must think it entirely reasonable to suggest someone was wearing an unwearable garment.

    Or is this a case of not actually thinking it through because you're just making it up as you go along and are desperately trying not to have the theory recognised as dead?

    Let it go. There will be other ideas. That's how it works. But let this one be at peace, it's long since passed and is starting to smell.

    - Jeff
    What get’s me Jeff is that Trevor’s theory implies that the finding of the GSP was such a vital, game-changing piece of evidence that they’d go to these lengths to confirm that the ripper removed it in Mitre Square and then dropped it in Goulston Street. It’s hardly a smoking gun is it? If the possibility existed that it wasn’t dropped by the ripper as Trevor suggests why would they be determined to show that it was, as they’d only have been hampering their own investigation if they now believed that the ripper lived in one direction when he might have lived in the opposite.

    Nothing about Trevor’s theory holds water.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    The only person doing any dodging is you because you nor anyone else cannot explain how the two pieces as decsribed and as shown in my diagram could have made up a full apron.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    And yet another swerve. Herlock, for example, has offered one idea. Others have offered different suggestions in the past as well. Your own would work if you didn't magic away half the apron without justification. But it's what you do to maintain you agenda of keeping a dead idea on life support. You force air into it, but it does not breath.

    Now, please explain how the police all decided to perjur themselves along with the civilian doss house keeper about how Catherine was wearing a half an apron? How could they have thought that a reasonable thing to suggest to the coroner? Why does the coroner never question them on this as he would be privy to this evidence and would know it was only half, and therefore unwearable? Or is Baxter in on it too?

    I mean, you must be able to explain why they thought it reasonable to lie under oath and say she was wearing something impossible to wear because you are the one offering this suggestion. You must think it entirely reasonable to suggest someone was wearing an unwearable garment.

    Or is this a case of not actually thinking it through because you're just making it up as you go along and are desperately trying not to have the theory recognised as dead?

    Let it go. There will be other ideas. That's how it works. But let this one be at peace, it's long since passed and is starting to smell.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Doctored Whatsit
    replied
    To continue # 1043. Actually, Trevor, the list doesn't show her wearing anything else either- it's just a list.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    well you show me how the seams and the borders could have been matched with the two apron pieces to make up a whole apron?

    bearing in mind the starting point with any excercise is the corner piece with a string attached that has to be left or right

    www.trevormarriott.co.ok

    No Trevor, it doesn’t have to be left or right. That is you trying to skew the game in favour of your theory.

    “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.”

    Brown is talking about the location of the blood spots which where in the corner of the apron where the string was attached. Ie, near the waistband as opposed to the other corner at the bottom. And so, again…

    Click image for larger version  Name:	7EAF2A0B-DB84-4966-9534-8B0474E2C0D9.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	12.0 KB ID:	764841

    X is the area of the blood spots where Brown had his attention drawn (as per Inquest testimony)

    And so the Goulston Street piece was either cut across from around the higher point ‘y’ in the hem/seam, down to point ‘z’ and back across. Or it was again cut across from ‘y’ and down to ‘w.’ The latter seems a more convenient cut.

    This leaves the MP with the string attached and even if you try and say that the string was only at one corner (which it doesn’t say) then that could mean that the string had been pull through so that it only emerged on one side.

    ​​​​​​………

    GSP + MP = Full Apron.

    Further evidence….

    1. Witnesses who all testified that they saw Catherine wearing an apron (which you desperately try to dismiss)

    2. Not a single mention of the two apron pieces making up a full apron which there certainly would have been if that was the case.

    Therefore…..

    Catherine Eddowes was definitely, provably wearing an apron on the night of her murder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    The only person doing any dodging is you because you nor anyone else cannot explain how the two pieces as decsribed and as shown in my diagram could have made up a full apron.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I have shown it and you cannot and have not made a meaningful response.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    There you go again posting mis information
    Pc Robinson " I belive the apron produced was the one she was wearing" There were two pieces produced not one apron. There could not have been a full apron because of the two pieces and how they have been described and matched

    Pc Hutt " I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing" There were two pieces produced not one apron. There could not have been a full apron because of the two pieces and how they have been described and matched

    No where in the inquest testimony does it say that the two pieces referred to made up a full apron

    There evidence in any event is questionable


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    More importantly no where in the Inquest testimony does it say that the two pieces referred to didn’t make up a full apron.

    If they did, then it’s understandable that no one mentioned them making a complete apron because it would have been assumed. An incomplete apron however would have been ‘news.’ The fact that it isn’t mentioned proves that the two parts made a complete apron.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    The coroners court is part of the Justice system.It ,along with law enforcement bodies,enquire into suspected offences,of which murder is one.The evidence gained is used to bring offenders to court.Added to that is the Court system,and the prison system,the three being collectively reffered to as the Justice system.The 'coroners court,like tribunals,are individual parts of the Justice system.The chairman of a tribunal,is akin to a Coroner.They hear evidence,and make recomendations,for use of a better word.Even I,with my limited education and knowledge understands this,and of course I am writing this in a very amateur fashion,the subject as a whole being such,that even lawyers fail to grasp the essentials.
    Judge Lumb distinctly said all courts in England.You know which Judge Lumb I am reffering to Jon?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    A apron was produced in two pieces, that's all.
    Both halves made a whole apron, this is what PC Robinson said.

    Why could there not have been a full apron when the two pieces were fit together?don't understand that line at all.



    That is precisely what Hutt did say - "the one produced" means the two pieces made one apron.

    The patch made the apron distinctive - one of a kind, easily recognisable by anyone seeing it on her person. Even when it had been cut in two pieces.
    Your interpretation of the testimony leaves a lot to be desired

    you nor anyone else cannot explain how the two pieces as decsribed and as shown in my diagram could have made up a full apron.

    This is evidnce you choose to ignore "Dr Brown-I have seen a portion on an apron produced by Dr Phillips" Note a portion not two pieces making up an apron.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk


    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Sigh, as the message you were responding to indicates that has been explained to you repeatedly but you fail to comprehend it so there is little point in explaining yet again to someone who plugs his ears, covers his eyes and yells I can't hear you

    But I do notice that once again you dodged the real questions, which you cannot answer because even you cannot stomach just how painfully you would have to torture logic if you tried.

    - Jeff
    The only person doing any dodging is you because you nor anyone else cannot explain how the two pieces as decsribed and as shown in my diagram could have made up a full apron.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Here, lets take the simple path.

    Your source, Judge Lumb, was part of the Queens Council, he was talking about all the courts in the Judicial system.

    Although the post they hold is judicial, and legal qualifications and experience are often required, coroners are not considered to be members of the courts judiciary.

    The office of coroner was formally established in 1194, originally as a form of tax gatherer. In the centuries since, the role has evolved into an independent judicial officer, charged with the investigation of sudden, violent or unnatural death.

    Unlike the unified courts system, administered by HM Courts and Tribunals Service, there are 92 separate coroners’ jurisdictions in England and Wales. Each jurisdiction is locally funded and resourced by local authorities.

    https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-j...stem/coroners/

    That line in bold is the important point for this exchange.
    Coroner's are separately funded from local taxes and has been that way for about 1000 years. They operate independently of the national Judicial system. They are not judicial, they are Inquisitory, they investigate where necessary information is lacking.
    The Public Service does not provide assistance to the coroner's court.


    Leave a comment:

Working...
X