Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Wickerman
    replied
    Your source was concerned with the criminal courts system, an inquest is not part of the criminal justice system.
    We've already explained this to you once, there's no point to keep repeating it. This is the result of you not doing your homework which causes you to misunderstand a simple press report.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Shorthand writer were employed by the public service in the 1880's.Fact Jon.Courts could ask that their services be made available to the courts.I have told you my source.Coroners courts were,as were all courts,part of the Justice system.Shorthand writers were used extensively by the public service.The court personnel were part of the public service.I cannot be any clearer than thatI have told you Jeff where to obtain the Coroners notes.I do not know in what form they exist.I have seen a copy only.The original could be in long hand,shorthand or type written,for all you and I know.I'll tell you what.You or your advisor Wickerman download a copy of the longhand version that you claim exists,and I'll download my source.That will prevent a need for any further discussion on the matter.It gets tedious correcting you both.
    Now Brown claimed he examined Eddowes clothing at the murder site.If that is true,he would have seen an apron or an apron piece,and would have been able to refer back to that sighting,but he didn't.His attention was drawn to the apron piece,he says,but doesn't describe how.He should at least have informed the police of his finding,and they should have checked.It was police evidence not medical evidence.There is no corroberation,so while it cannot be said a check was not made,it cannot be proven that one was either.Brown comes across as a person who wanted to be everything,both Medical and police investigator.Be wary,as Trevor says.

    Leave a comment:


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

    There could not have been a full apron because of the two pieces and how they have been described and matched
    Why could there not have been a full apron when the two pieces were fit together?
    I don't understand that line at all.

    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
    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.


    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    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
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    The list does not show her wearing an apron and I am not going ot go over the two pieces again

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Thank you Trevor. I would greatly appreciate not having to deal with such nonsense.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Your deluded and so desparate to prove yourself right you have lost the plot, now your appear to be suffering from numptymania and be careful it might spread to others ---------- to later it alreday has

    www.trevormarriott.co.u
    Still no meaningful response.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Tell me that you’re not saying that Wick is suggesting that someone sowed the MP and the GSP back together?

    They matched the two pieces. It made a full apron Trevor.

    If it didn’t please point us all in the direction of the statement where someone said “when the Goulston Street piece was matched to the Mortuary Piece there was still part of the apron missing.”

    Give is a shout when you find it.
    Your deluded and so desparate to prove yourself right you have lost the plot, now your appear to be suffering from numptymania and be careful it might spread to others ---------- to later it alreday has

    www.trevormarriott.co.u

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    so how did the two pieces get sown back together for a full apron to miraculosly appear?

    Dr Brown inquest testimony "I have seen a portion produced by Dr Phillips"

    No mention of a full apron

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Tell me that you’re not saying that Wick is suggesting that someone sowed the MP and the GSP back together?

    They matched the two pieces. It made a full apron Trevor.

    If it didn’t please point us all in the direction of the statement where someone said “when the Goulston Street piece was matched to the Mortuary Piece there was still part of the apron missing.”

    Give is a shout when you find it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    No eveidence from the mortuary that she was wearing an apron

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Your desperation is showing more than ever Trevor as you haven’t been able to address the points.

    ​​​​​​……

    You’ve assumed that the apron had been cut through at the waistband because it’s convenient to do so but my interpretation fits the known facts. When he said that the seams of the border corresponded he was almost certainly talking about the hem down the edge of the apron. 99% of men wouldn’t know the technical difference between a hem and a seam today and I doubt a Victorian Doctor would have done much needlework. So the killer had cut from the side; two horizontally across the hem and one vertically to remove a square or rectangular piece. Or he cut one horizontally and the other vertically to the bottom of the apron.

    You’ve used this part of Brown’s Inquest testimony to try and show that there was just a corner piece cut through at the waistband.

    “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.”

    But as we can see he mentions the corner with the string attached just to describe the location of the blood spots. It’s there in black and white. He mentions the string to differentiate between the corner near the waistband (where the blood spots were found) from a corner at the bottom of the apron.

    So there was either a square/rectangle cut from the side or one cut from the side down to the bottom.

    To back this up, as opposed to your theory, we have Dr Brown matching up the 2 pieces but making absolutely no mention of any piece still being missing. Can any sane person think that he wouldn’t have noticed this? Also, as we know that the police treated the GSP as a clue to the killers escape route they would very naturally have treated any other missing piece as a possible clue as the killer might have dropped it further along the route. Was any search mentioned? No. Did any police officer mention a further missing piece? No. Therefore we have to take that as about as strong as evidence gets that there was no missing piece. I fail to see how you can keep stretching credulity by claiming a missing piece?

    Added to this fact we have the numerous witness that you’ve deliberately tried to sideline. Even police officers. Because, according to you, it’s pointless to ask a witness to recall anything from 24 hours or less previously. No one can possibly remember that far back can they? Well I’m afraid that, unfortunately for your theory, they all did remember. She was seen wearing a white apron because she was wearing a white apron when she was murdered. The killer cut away a piece (for whatever reason) then deposited it in Goulston Street.

    The game’s up Trevor. Let it go.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Then why did those present at the inquest describe the two pieces as "an apron"?
    Surely it is right to assume that they were able to discern an apron when they see one, as opposed to pieces of an apron.
    What value do you place on the ability of a policeman at the inquest to know what an apron looks like, as opposed to a theorist a century later simply reading words on a paper?
    so how did the two pieces get sown back together for a full apron to miraculosly appear?

    Dr Brown inquest testimony "I have seen a portion produced by Dr Phillips"

    No mention of a full apron

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Numerous witnesses to her wearing an apron - conveniently ignored.
    No one mentioning an incomplete apron - conveniently ignored.
    Explanations for the cuts that differ from his theory - conveniently ignored.
    Alternative, plausible explanations for the compiling of the list - conveniently ignored.

    And Trevor calls others biased
    No eveidence from the mortuary that she was wearing an apron

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Good point. Even setting the apron aside, the list does not reflect a logical order of wearing the clothes. This too points to the list made after she was fully stripped and not as each piece was removed, as Trevor speculates.

    - Jeff
    The list does not show her wearing an apron and I am not going ot go over the two pieces again

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Then why did those present at the inquest describe the two pieces as "an apron"?
    Surely it is right to assume that they were able to discern an apron when they see one, as opposed to pieces of an apron.
    What value do you place on the ability of a policeman at the inquest to know what an apron looks like, as opposed to a theorist a century later simply reading words on a paper?
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    Talking of the compiling of the list...

    Collard's list has the "man's white vest" - which I think we're agreed is a waistcoat - after the dress bodice and even after the chemise. This means that either Kate was wearing this item next to her skin, or that the list isn't in order of removal.
    Good point. Even setting the apron aside, the list does not reflect a logical order of wearing the clothes. This too points to the list made after she was fully stripped and not as each piece was removed, as Trevor speculates.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    That's why he finds it painful.

    - Jeff
    Yes, no proper response I notice.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X