Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I am not suggesting there was more than 2 pieces what I am saying is that as there were only two pieces which when matched did not make up a full apron
    what I do offer is an explanation for the two pieces not making up a full apron and an explanation as to how she could have simply been in possession of two old pieces of apron that had originally made up a full apron

    do you not accept that how the two pieces were matched and described they could not have made a full apron which then negates the belief that she was wearing one

    its not rocket science to understand you have to step back an re asses the validity of what I have postulated
    There was no piece missing. We know this for a fact. Therefore you’re explanation about the apron is wrong.

    Simple.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    What bit do you not understand she had two pieces of apron the gs piece and the mortuary piece they could not have made up a full apron

    so those two pieces had to have come from a full apron at some time in the past she could have cut them from an old apron in the past and kept them in her possessions for whatever purpose

    we know the gs and mortuary pieces matched but how they were described they could not have made up a full apron

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Hi Trevor,

    Of course the two pieces found could make up a whole apron. And how they are described is perfectly capable of describing such a situation. People have presented various very plausible suggestions about how the apron could have been cut to fit the descriptions given and, when put back together, still form a complete apron. It's been presented in the past a few times, but you play the "speculation" card, and then, without batting an eye, speculate it was done in a way that creates irrationality all over the place.

    What bit of creating irrational scenarios do you not understand constitutes refutation of a theory?

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    And we're back to "two pieces don't make a whole, but there's not more than two pieces".

    Yes, Trevor, you are saying there is at least a third piece. You even described it being cut in half, then one of those halves cut in half again, with one of the latter found in G.S. and the other found in Mitre Square. The missing half of an apron you suggest was discarded. That's 3 pieces. That's how maths work.

    Look, here's you, your post, describing what you're talking about (post 993). Here, you even describe a minimum of three pieces!

    Ok lets asssume that at some time there was an old white full apron which had been in the possesion of Eddowes being old and unwearable she cuts it into two pieces down the centre, [me, ok, two pieces] this leaves two halves she the disposes/Uses one half, she then cuts the remaining half into two pieces retaining both, .... [ and then there were three!]

    So there are three pieces at the very least, one of them is half an apron. Now you suggest we don't know what happened to one of the first halves of the apron, so it could have been cut into many pieces, or not, but at the very least there are 3 pieces required to make up the whole apron. And one of the first halves is missing. So half the apron is missing.

    This is because what was recovered, you are claiming, is just the latter two pieces, here suggested to be half an apron cut roughly in half again. So, the two pieces, roughly a quarter of an apron each, is what was recovered - in your theory.

    So you are claiming the police were only in possession of about 1/2 an apron.

    Yet your theory also then goes on to suggest that multiple police officers decide to say she was wearing this 1/2 apron. That's irrational, and the bits you're cobbling together to try and justify one statement end up making your other statements fall apart. That is what a refuted theory looks like, it just keeps self destructing.

    Moreover, they show everything they have a the inquest (as per Wickerman's post), and nobody wonders how she could be wearing half an apron. It's an inquest, people are asking questions. One of the pieces they found was in a different location than the body. The police are telling everyone she was wearing the apron, which if they accepted that, means everyone would expect the apron to be, you know, wearable. But half an apron is not wearable. Yes nobody asks where the other half it? Another indication the theory is flawed. It leads to predictions of information that should be found - we should see questions about the half an apron that is clearly not there, but nobody bats an eye, people ask to see the whole of it, are shown what they have, and don't say "where's the rest"? Clearly, they were shown the whole apron, refuting your idea.

    Collard, making his list, knowing that what they have is a quarter of an apron, also seems fine to say she was apparently wearing it. An irrational answer if we hold your theory to be true, or he's giving a rational answer because what he saw was the majority of a whole apron - the theory is what is wrong.

    It doesn't work. The theory, while worth exploring, does not withstand examination by the evidence.


    - Jeff
    What bit do you not understand she had two pieces of apron the gs piece and the mortuary piece they could not have made up a full apron

    so those two pieces had to have come from a full apron at some time in the past she could have cut them from an old apron in the past and kept them in her possessions for whatever purpose

    we know the gs and mortuary pieces matched but how they were described they could not have made up a full apron

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I am not suggesting there was more than 2 pieces what I am saying is that as there were only two pieces which when matched did not make up a full apron
    what I do offer is an explanation for the two pieces not making up a full apron and an explanation as to how she could have simply been in possession of two old pieces of apron that had originally made up a full apron

    do you not accept that how the two pieces were matched and described they could not have made a full apron which then negates the belief that she was wearing one

    its not rocket science to understand you have to step back an re asses the validity of what I have postulated
    And we're back to "two pieces don't make a whole, but there's not more than two pieces".

    Yes, Trevor, you are saying there is at least a third piece. You even described it being cut in half, then one of those halves cut in half again, with one of the latter found in G.S. and the other found in Mitre Square. The missing half of an apron you suggest was discarded. That's 3 pieces. That's how maths work.

    Look, here's you, your post, describing what you're talking about (post 993). Here, you even describe a minimum of three pieces!

    Ok lets asssume that at some time there was an old white full apron which had been in the possesion of Eddowes being old and unwearable she cuts it into two pieces down the centre, [me, ok, two pieces] this leaves two halves she the disposes/Uses one half, she then cuts the remaining half into two pieces retaining both, .... [ and then there were three!]

    So there are three pieces at the very least, one of them is half an apron. Now you suggest we don't know what happened to one of the first halves of the apron, so it could have been cut into many pieces, or not, but at the very least there are 3 pieces required to make up the whole apron. And one of the first halves is missing. So half the apron is missing.

    This is because what was recovered, you are claiming, is just the latter two pieces, here suggested to be half an apron cut roughly in half again. So, the two pieces, roughly a quarter of an apron each, is what was recovered - in your theory.

    So you are claiming the police were only in possession of about 1/2 an apron.

    Yet your theory also then goes on to suggest that multiple police officers decide to say she was wearing this 1/2 apron. That's irrational, and the bits you're cobbling together to try and justify one statement end up making your other statements fall apart. That is what a refuted theory looks like, it just keeps self destructing.

    Moreover, they show everything they have a the inquest (as per Wickerman's post), and nobody wonders how she could be wearing half an apron. It's an inquest, people are asking questions. One of the pieces they found was in a different location than the body. The police are telling everyone she was wearing the apron, which if they accepted that, means everyone would expect the apron to be, you know, wearable. But half an apron is not wearable. Yes nobody asks where the other half it? Another indication the theory is flawed. It leads to predictions of information that should be found - we should see questions about the half an apron that is clearly not there, but nobody bats an eye, people ask to see the whole of it, are shown what they have, and don't say "where's the rest"? Clearly, they were shown the whole apron, refuting your idea.

    Collard, making his list, knowing that what they have is a quarter of an apron, also seems fine to say she was apparently wearing it. An irrational answer if we hold your theory to be true, or he's giving a rational answer because what he saw was the majority of a whole apron - the theory is what is wrong.

    It doesn't work. The theory, while worth exploring, does not withstand examination by the evidence.


    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Trevor knows that in any investigation you let the evidence speak. From the evidence you draw conclusions, from the conclusions you create a theory.
    There is no evidence the apron was divided up in to more than two pieces, in fact specifically 'two' pieces are mentioned.

    Trevor has speculated that the apron could have been divided in to more than two pieces, and chooses to view all the evidence to fit that interpretation. This is an example of making the evidence fit the theory whereas a legitimate investigation derives theory from the evidence.

    The apron was in two pieces.

    Testimony of PC Robinson.
    Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron.
    Robinson - Yes, she was.
    Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it?
    Robinson - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.
    Times, 12 Oct.


    When he last saw her in the police cell at 8.50 p.m. on the Saturday evening he noticed she was wearing the apron produced (in two pieces).
    Morning Post, 12 Oct.

    She was wearing an apron.
    The apron was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it. The ghastly reminder of the crime quite upset Mrs. Phillips, the deceased's daughter, who sobbed bitterly on seeing the blood-smeared rag.

    Star, 11 Oct.

    Regardless of the variety in coverage, no-one in the courtroom saw more than two pieces of apron.
    I am not suggesting there was more than 2 pieces what I am saying is that as there were only two pieces which when matched did not make up a full apron
    what I do offer is an explanation for the two pieces not making up a full apron and an explanation as to how she could have simply been in possession of two old pieces of apron that had originally made up a full apron

    do you not accept that how the two pieces were matched and described they could not have made a full apron which then negates the belief that she was wearing one

    its not rocket science to understand you have to step back an re asses the validity of what I have postulated

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Trevor knows that in any investigation you let the evidence speak. From the evidence you draw conclusions, from the conclusions you create a theory.
    There is no evidence the apron was divided up in to more than two pieces, in fact specifically 'two' pieces are mentioned.

    Trevor has speculated that the apron could have been divided in to more than two pieces, and chooses to view all the evidence to fit that interpretation. This is an example of making the evidence fit the theory whereas a legitimate investigation derives theory from the evidence.

    The apron was in two pieces.

    Testimony of PC Robinson.
    Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron.
    Robinson - Yes, she was.
    Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it?
    Robinson - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.
    Times, 12 Oct.


    When he last saw her in the police cell at 8.50 p.m. on the Saturday evening he noticed she was wearing the apron produced (in two pieces).
    Morning Post, 12 Oct.

    She was wearing an apron.
    The apron was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it. The ghastly reminder of the crime quite upset Mrs. Phillips, the deceased's daughter, who sobbed bitterly on seeing the blood-smeared rag.

    Star, 11 Oct.

    Regardless of the variety in coverage, no-one in the courtroom saw more than two pieces of apron.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    There was only two pieces as we know but if they didnt make up a full apron then there has to be an explantion as to what happened to the rest of the apron.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    But there’s no evidence that it didn’t make up a full piece. No one mentions any part of the apron being missing which they would have done if there was a piece missing. There was no piece missing. You’re just making this up to suit your theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doctored Whatsit
    replied
    Thank you, Trevor, I now understand your point of view. I was confused by your introduction of Smith and his "half an apron", which would have made the Goulston Street portion all or part of the other half, which I knew you hadn't previously been suggesting.

    I remain a doubter, because of the numerous references to her wearing an apron, and the apparent acceptance by the police that the new witnesses were valid because their sighting was of a woman in a white apron etc. But thank you for explaining your viewpoint.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Yes, but that doesn’t mean that it was only a corner piece. It means that the corner was where the blood was found.
    read it again "It was a corner piece with a string attached"

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    So you are deliberately making this 4 pieces. My description and sketch shows 2 pieces. Because there were only 2 pieces. Simple to understand.
    There was only two pieces as we know but if they didnt make up a full apron then there has to be an explantion as to what happened to the rest of the apron.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    he says a corner piece with a string attached

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Yes, but that doesn’t mean that it was only a corner piece. It means that the corner was where the blood was found.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    well if you are cutting and apron into 4 pieces where would you start to make the first cut down the middle from the top, the top being the waist band i would suggest thus creating two halves and then cutting again to make 4 pieces two of those pieces would match via the seams and the borders and each of the tops would each have a string attached. Simple to understand

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    So you are deliberately making this 4 pieces. My description and sketch shows 2 pieces. Because there were only 2 pieces. Simple to understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Are you assuming that the use of the word ‘corner’ means that it was only a corner piece? Whereas it appears that he was talking about the corner of the apron being the location of the blood spots.
    he says a corner piece with a string attached

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Why is your conjecture correct? Why does the cut have to have been through the waistband as you claim?
    well if you are cutting and apron into 4 pieces where would you start to make the first cut down the middle from the top, the top being the waist band i would suggest thus creating two halves and then cutting again to make 4 pieces two of those pieces would match via the seams and the borders and each of the tops would each have a string attached. Simple to understand

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    .
    “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
    Are you assuming that the use of the word ‘corner’ means that it was only a corner piece? Whereas it appears that he was talking about the corner of the apron being the location of the blood spots.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X