Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Perfect example. That would be an impossible memory task, far far more difficult then to remember a general type of clothing was worn by the victim, such as an apron. An apron is a gist, they never go into great details, such as "and I remember this repair on it, with 78 stitches in black, and 42 in red", etc. which is starting to approach the idea of the level of minute detail that the transcript memory task would require.

    Remembering the apron would be more akin to asking Dr. Brown, do you recall testifying to the injuries, and him saying yes.

    - Jeff
    Thankyou yes, and to expand on your point. One of Trevor's counter arguments has been, if she wore an apron how could a witness in court be sure the two pieces of apron presented were the apron worn by the victim?
    Meaning, it could have been any apron, they were all basically the same.

    Well, no it couldn't, as the doctor informs us there was a noticeable repair patch on the apron of the victim which made her apron potentially more unique when compared with any other.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      what
      does this all have to do with the ripper lol
      Everything to do with demonstrating that Trevor's godforsaken claims that the only primary, and therefore 'reliable', source is the court record.
      For an ex detective the arguments he offers in support of his theory present a shameful performance.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        Thankyou yes, and to expand on your point. One of Trevor's counter arguments has been, if she wore an apron how could a witness in court be sure the two pieces of apron presented were the apron worn by the victim?
        Meaning, it could have been any apron, they were all basically the same.

        Well, no it couldn't, as the doctor informs us there was a noticeable repair patch on the apron of the victim which made her apron potentially more unique when compared with any other.
        But that is not how it was identified was it, if it had have been the witness would have stated that fact instead of using the term

        Pc Hutt " I believe the one produced"
        Pc Robinson " I believe the one produced"

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          Everything to do with demonstrating that Trevor's godforsaken claims that the only primary, and therefore 'reliable', source is the court record.
          For an ex detective the arguments he offers in support of his theory present a shameful performance.
          and your knowledge and understanding of how to assess and evaluate facts and evidence is on a par if not worse.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GUT View Post

            Actually still do from time to time, just no desire (actually not true, still the desire but the body won’t cooperate) to work 100 hour weeks or run 60-100 trials a year anymore.
            "Still the desire, but the body won't cooperate".....ain't that the truth.

            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              Thankyou yes, and to expand on your point. One of Trevor's counter arguments has been, if she wore an apron how could a witness in court be sure the two pieces of apron presented were the apron worn by the victim?
              Meaning, it could have been any apron, they were all basically the same.

              Well, no it couldn't, as the doctor informs us there was a noticeable repair patch on the apron of the victim which made her apron potentially more unique when compared with any other.
              True, but most of the witnesses wouldn't be able to demonstrate a knowledge of that repair, and that sort of detail could easily be overlooked. However, what their testimony does allow for is that the apron shown, and the apron they recall seeing, were at least similar looking, as they have to be if they're the same item; and which they could only be to some level of error of identification. Depending on the variety of styles of aprons common at the time, that error of identification value may be high, low, or somewhere in between. That's the problem.

              So, I'm looking through other cases, and so far I've not found any other case where anyone says the victim wore an apron, and in the list of items, none have had one so far. So it's not looking like a common mistake, but theres' not many cases yet (and the recording of their clothes is shockingly poor; in one official list of Nichol's clothes she's not wearing any foot ware, although boots are mentioned elsewhere). It would be a huge coincidence to find that the one victim where people mistakeningly said she was wearing one when she wasn't (Trevor's claim), also just happened to be the one victim who happened to have an apron secreted on her somewhere.

              I'm not done looking at the cases, and it may take awhile, but so far I'm not seeing a huge number of falsely identified apron wearers. But the numbers are small, and it will only take one to change things. I recognize we'll be no where near enough numbers to make it legally meaningful - but for that "hmmmm" moment, might be worth putting out there. There's not a lot to work with, so might as well extract everything we can.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                But that is not how it was identified was it, if it had have been the witness would have stated that fact instead of using the term

                Pc Hutt " I believe the one produced"
                Pc Robinson " I believe the one produced"

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Trevor, you continue to obsess about the word ‘unsafe.’ Basically, you persist in using it as a ‘get out of jail free’ card for every piece of evidence or testimony which doesn’t fit your theory. I realise that this is a waste of time because you’re not interested in reason but I’ll give it another go...

                If you were about to sit down on a chair and I said “don’t sit there Trevor. That chair is unsafe.” What would you very naturally assume?

                That I had prior knowledge of course which put me in a position to state with confidence that the chair might collapse. Therefore I would have been correct to use the word ‘unsafe’ and to have warned you.

                I would not be justified however if told you not to sit on it because every single chair ever made might contain some undetected flaw which might make it ‘unsafe.’ And I wouldn’t be justified because every single man-made object ever made has the potential to be faulty in some way even though it’s actually perfectly true. It would just be a waste of time.

                ....

                Its the same with witnesses/evidence. We all know that every single human being that has ever lived has/had the capacity to lie and that every single human being that has ever lived has/had the capacity to be mistaken. Every single poster on here is fully aware of this fact. If you quoted it with every post you would strictly speaking be correct to do so but very obviously you would be wasting your time for posting the obvious.

                And so to call every witness ‘unsafe,’ (by using that specific word) you are implying that you have specific and solid reason/s to believe that they are either lying or mistaken. And the ‘every single human being ever...’ point is not a valid reason. Neither is it reasonable to use the word ‘unsafe’ because that particular piece of evidence is inconvenient to your theory.

                ....

                As I said at the beginning of this post I realise that I’m wasting my time because ‘unsafe’ is pretty much your response to every single piece of evidence that you don’t like. And so....Hutt and Robinson...

                Yes we all accept that witnesses can lie. Yes we all accept that witnesses can be mistaken. Do we need to keep pointing this out? No.

                And if we accept the logic that ‘unsafe’ means that you have solid reasons for suspecting that their evidence might be ‘unsafe’ what are those solid reasons?

                There aren’t any. All you have offered is that their evidence was ‘convenient.’ Ok, 5 + 5 = 10 That’s very suspicious that I ‘conveniently’ got that one correct isn’t it. I must have cheated and used a calculator or I must have pm’ed Wickerman or Jeff and asked them the answer. You’ve also used the ‘isn’t it strange that they could remember her wearing an apron 4 days before?’ On that basis the police would consider not bothering to look for witnesses 4 days or more after the crime because it would be sooo suspicious if they recalled any details.

                ....

                Using the word ‘unsafe’ as you use it is absolutely ‘unsafe.’ But because your not interested in reason or truth you’ll keep using it of course.




                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 03-31-2021, 11:39 AM.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Trevor, you continue to obsess about the word ‘unsafe.’ Basically, you persist in using it as a ‘get out of jail free’ card for every piece of evidence or testimony which doesn’t fit your theory. I realise that this is a waste of time because you’re not interested in reason but I’ll give it another go...

                  If you were about to sit down on a chair and I said “don’t sit there Trevor. That chair is unsafe.” What would you very naturally assume?

                  That I had prior knowledge of course which put me in a position to state with confidence that the chair might collapse. Therefore I would have been correct to use the word ‘unsafe’ and to have warned you.

                  I would not be justified however if told you not to sit on it because every single chair ever made might contain some undetected flaw which might make it ‘unsafe.’ And I wouldn’t be justified because every single man-made object ever made has the potential to be faulty in some way even though it’s actually perfectly true. It would just be a waste of time.

                  ....

                  Its the same with witnesses/evidence. We all know that every single human being that has ever lived has/had the capacity to lie and that every single human being that has ever lived has/had the capacity to be mistaken. Every single poster on here is fully aware of this fact. If you quoted it with every post you would strictly speaking be correct to do so but very obviously you would be wasting your time for posting the obvious.

                  And so to call every witness ‘unsafe,’ (by using that specific word) you are implying that you have specific and solid reason/s to believe that they are either lying or mistaken. And the ‘every single human being ever...’ point is not a valid reason. Neither is it reasonable to use the word ‘unsafe’ because that particular piece of evidence is inconvenient to your theory.

                  ....

                  As I said at the beginning of this post I realise that I’m wasting my time because ‘unsafe’ is pretty much your response to every single piece of evidence that you don’t like. And so....Hutt and Robinson...

                  Yes we all accept that witnesses can lie. Yes we all accept that witnesses can be mistaken. Do we need to keep pointing this out? No.

                  And if we accept the logic that ‘unsafe’ means that you have solid reasons for suspecting that their evidence might be ‘unsafe’ what are those solid reasons?

                  There aren’t any. All you have offered is that their evidence was ‘convenient.’ Ok, 5 + 5 = 10 That’s very suspicious that I ‘conveniently’ got that one correct isn’t it. I must have cheated and used a calculator or I must have pm’ed Wickerman or Jeff and asked them the answer. You’ve also used the ‘isn’t it strange that they could remember her wearing an apron 4 days before?’ On that basis the police would consider not bothering to look for witnesses 4 days or more after the crime because it would be sooo suspicious if they recalled any details.

                  ....

                  Using the word ‘unsafe’ as you use it is absolutely ‘unsafe.’ But because your not interested in reason or truth you’ll keep using it of course.



                  I have repeatedly show why some of the witness testimony is unsafe, but you cannot grasp the basics in trying to understand what is being said so there is no hope for you, and no need for further discussion, or for you to keep posting that same old pony, time and time again,

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    You are again missing the point the purpose of reading the deposition before signing is to give the witness the opportunity to alter add or correct anything before signing. I am fully aware that not every single word would be accurately recorded but the main important aspects of the witness testimony should be correct after reading and signing, and any errors corrected. As you mentioned Dr Browns testimony I will refer to one part which is a good example of how we can accept this part of his testimony.
                    Certainly I recall you saying this before, but I don't see how that changes anything. The witness is still expected to remember the actual words used, even if the witness decides to change what is recorded.

                    Where I take issue with the signature is, for the witness to read a verbatim transcript will take almost as long as his testimony. In Brown's case if he was on the stand for 40 minutes answering questions, it is going to take him almost the same amount of time to read what was transcribed. The number of words is the same, it's like reading the script for a play. If it takes you 15 minutes to read your part, it still takes 15 minutes to do it on stage.
                    I can't see the inquest being halted after every witness for this to take place.

                    What you are suggesting is the proceedings of the inquest have to halt while each witness reads, or has it read back to them word for word. My experience in a number of courts today this has never happened.
                    I think they were simply handed the transcript to sign as a means of certification, not that they re-read it, word for word.


                    This next point is one I'm glad you raised.
                    When talking about the apron piece in his official testimony he refers to it as a corner piece with a string attached, but the newspaper report states it was still attached by the strings to the body. Which is to believed, they both cant be right. You have to accept the official testimony.
                    I think I already explained how the clothes will (in my view) have been cut from the body, in order to preserve the evidence, you don't untie knots, and with extensive abdominal mutilations, you can't risk rolling the body over to remove her clothes - the abdominal organs could spill out.
                    The solution then is, you cut her clothes from the body.
                    This apron was tied by both strings, but only one string is cut to remove the piece of apron. So, it is a corner piece (because the cut was diagonal?), but it was attached by the string - which is true.

                    Here's another point.
                    A couple of days ago I mentioned various press reports where, in some cases a handkerchief was noted around the neck, but no apron. Yet other reports mention the apron, but no handkerchief.
                    Where I was going with that point, though I never actually got there, was to suggest the reporters who attended the mortuary were not all there at the same time.

                    If reporter 'A' was among the first to arrive and saw the body stripped & heard some comment about this handkerchief around the neck, and also witnessed the pile of clothes & possessions, then left. He wouldn't be aware of the fact that handkerchief-looking-cloth turned out later to be part of an apron.

                    After reporter 'A' leaves, Dr Phillips arrived with the G.S. portion, and Dr Brown seeing it is part of an apron, selects a piece of cloth of the same material among her pile of clothing, and fitted the two pieces of material together - realizing that handkerchief-looking-cloth was actually the other half of the G.S. apron.

                    This is when reporter 'B' arrives and witnesses the pile of clothes and an apron (in two halves), which he lists for his report. Reporter 'B' has no knowledge of the handkerchief-looking-cloth.

                    This explains what appears at first to be a conflict in the newspaper reporting. Traditionally we have automatically assumed all the reporters arrive at the same time. This incorrect? assumption has caused us to draw the wrong conclusion.



                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      But that is not how it was identified was it, if it had have been the witness would have stated that fact instead of using the term

                      Pc Hutt " I believe the one produced"
                      Pc Robinson " I believe the one produced"

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Meaning, they would have included "because of the patch"?, - but they don't have to, unless asked by the court.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        I have repeatedly show why some of the witness testimony is unsafe, but you cannot grasp the basics in trying to understand what is being said so there is no hope for you, and no need for further discussion, or for you to keep posting that same old pony, time and time again,

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        That’s a lie. Sadly, it’s no more than I’d expect from you though. All you do is parrot the same tired old phrases to prop up your theory “unsafe, ,’ ‘old established theories, .’ You haven’t provided a single, positive, meaningful reason why we should have any doubt about Hutt and Robinson except for the fact that they are inconvenient to you. Time and again you show the lengths that you’ll go to defend a lost cause. Nothing changes with you.

                        Please don’t tell me not to post Trevor. At least my posts are honest; unlike yours.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                        “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          Certainly I recall you saying this before, but I don't see how that changes anything. The witness is still expected to remember the actual words used, even if the witness decides to change what is recorded.

                          Where I take issue with the signature is, for the witness to read a verbatim transcript will take almost as long as his testimony. In Brown's case if he was on the stand for 40 minutes answering questions, it is going to take him almost the same amount of time to read what was transcribed. The number of words is the same, it's like reading the script for a play. If it takes you 15 minutes to read your part, it still takes 15 minutes to do it on stage.
                          I can't see the inquest being halted after every witness for this to take place.

                          What you are suggesting is the proceedings of the inquest have to halt while each witness reads, or has it read back to them word for word. My experience in a number of courts today this has never happened.
                          I think they were simply handed the transcript to sign as a means of certification, not that they re-read it, word for word.


                          This next point is one I'm glad you raised.


                          I think I already explained how the clothes will (in my view) have been cut from the body, in order to preserve the evidence, you don't untie knots, and with extensive abdominal mutilations, you can't risk rolling the body over to remove her clothes - the abdominal organs could spill out.
                          The solution then is, you cut her clothes from the body.
                          This apron was tied by both strings, but only one string is cut to remove the piece of apron. So, it is a corner piece (because the cut was diagonal?), but it was attached by the string - which is true.

                          Here's another point.
                          A couple of days ago I mentioned various press reports where, in some cases a handkerchief was noted around the neck, but no apron. Yet other reports mention the apron, but no handkerchief.
                          Where I was going with that point, though I never actually got there, was to suggest the reporters who attended the mortuary were not all there at the same time.

                          If reporter 'A' was among the first to arrive and saw the body stripped & heard some comment about this handkerchief around the neck, and also witnessed the pile of clothes & possessions, then left. He wouldn't be aware of the fact that handkerchief-looking-cloth turned out later to be part of an apron.

                          After reporter 'A' leaves, Dr Phillips arrived with the G.S. portion, and Dr Brown seeing it is part of an apron, selects a piece of cloth of the same material among her pile of clothing, and fitted the two pieces of material together - realizing that handkerchief-looking-cloth was actually the other half of the G.S. apron.

                          This is when reporter 'B' arrives and witnesses the pile of clothes and an apron (in two halves), which he lists for his report. Reporter 'B' has no knowledge of the handkerchief-looking-cloth.

                          This explains what appears at first to be a conflict in the newspaper reporting. Traditionally we have automatically assumed all the reporters arrive at the same time. This incorrect? assumption has caused us to draw the wrong conclusion.


                          Trevor,

                          Please read this post.

                          Its reasoned, logical and plausible.

                          You may not recognise those things though.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                          “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Certainly I recall you saying this before, but I don't see how that changes anything. The witness is still expected to remember the actual words used, even if the witness decides to change what is recorded.

                            Where I take issue with the signature is, for the witness to read a verbatim transcript will take almost as long as his testimony. In Brown's case if he was on the stand for 40 minutes answering questions, it is going to take him almost the same amount of time to read what was transcribed. The number of words is the same, it's like reading the script for a play. If it takes you 15 minutes to read your part, it still takes 15 minutes to do it on stage.
                            I can't see the inquest being halted after every witness for this to take place.

                            What you are suggesting is the proceedings of the inquest have to halt while each witness reads, or has it read back to them word for word. My experience in a number of courts today this has never happened.
                            I think they were simply handed the transcript to sign as a means of certification, not that they re-read it, word for word.

                            The only witness to give lengthy testimony was Dr Brown

                            This next point is one I'm glad you raised.

                            I think I already explained how the clothes will (in my view) have been cut from the body, in order to preserve the evidence, you don't untie knots, and with extensive abdominal mutilations, you can't risk rolling the body over to remove her clothes - the abdominal organs could spill out.
                            The solution then is, you cut her clothes from the body.
                            This apron was tied by both strings, but only one string is cut to remove the piece of apron. So, it is a corner piece (because the cut was diagonal?), but it was attached by the string - which is true.

                            Conjecture on your part

                            Here's another point.
                            A couple of days ago I mentioned various press reports where, in some cases a handkerchief was noted around the neck, but no apron. Yet other reports mention the apron, but no handkerchief.
                            Where I was going with that point, though I never actually got there, was to suggest the reporters who attended the mortuary were not all there at the same time.

                            If reporter 'A' was among the first to arrive and saw the body stripped & heard some comment about this handkerchief around the neck, and also witnessed the pile of clothes & possessions, then left. He wouldn't be aware of the fact that handkerchief-looking-cloth turned out later to be part of an apron.

                            After reporter 'A' leaves, Dr Phillips arrived with the G.S. portion, and Dr Brown seeing it is part of an apron, selects a piece of cloth of the same material among her pile of clothing, and fitted the two pieces of material together - realizing that handkerchief-looking-cloth was actually the other half of the G.S. apron.

                            This is when reporter 'B' arrives and witnesses the pile of clothes and an apron (in two halves), which he lists for his report. Reporter 'B' has no knowledge of the handkerchief-looking-cloth.

                            This explains what appears at first to be a conflict in the newspaper reporting. Traditionally we have automatically assumed all the reporters arrive at the same time. This incorrect? assumption has caused us to draw the wrong conclusion.

                            Again conjecture on your part

                            There is no evidence to show that the press were ever allowed inside the mortuary to view the body and besides they would not have been allowed to view the body lying in the mortuary before the post mortem had been conducted for obvious reasons.
                            You keep inventing these scenarios, the list of clothing and her possession was taken down when the body was first stripped, shortly after its arrival at the mortuary Dr Brown could not have matched the two pieces before the body was stripped and the list made up because the GS piece did not arrive at the mortuary till much later after the body had been stripped and the list compiled, and again I say there is no evidnce to show that the two pieces made up a full apron.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Trevor,

                              Please read this post.

                              Its reasoned, logical and plausible.

                              You may not recognise those things though.
                              see my reply

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                You keep inventing these scenarios, the list of clothing and her possession was taken down when the body was first stripped, shortly after its arrival at the mortuary Dr Brown could not have matched the two pieces before the body was stripped and the list made up because the GS piece did not arrive at the mortuary till much later after the body had been stripped and the list compiled, and again I say there is no evidnce to show that the two pieces made up a full apron.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                I have not spent any time looking for clues, but the first paper I looked into carried this report...

                                After a very careful examination of the body where it was found, it was at three o'clock removed to the City mortuary in Golden-lane, and here Drs. Brown and Sequeira continued their investigation for a considerable time. The police were of course quickly on the alert, and when our representative reached the neighbourhood every avenue leading to Mitre-square was closely guarded. At the police-station in Bishopsgate Chief Superintendent Major Henry Smith most courteously informed the Editor that the reports furnished to Lloyd's of the two murders having been committed this morning were unhappily true. On proceeding to Mitre-square, Inspector Edward Collard was found in command, but the orders to deny admission to the scene of the murder were so absolute that one constable assured us he should not allow any plain-clothes men to pass unless he knew them. At twenty minutes past five, when we left the mortuary, after the interview most kindly accorded by Dr. Gordon Brown, there was an expectation on the part of the police that Dr. Phillips, who gave the important evidence in connection with the case of Annie Chapman, would speedily arrive there.
                                Lloyds Weekly News, 30 Sept. 1888.

                                Which shows that not only were the press permitted at the mortuary, Dr Brown actually gave them an interview.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X