Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • #46
    I am not disputing that but what I am arguing is how did the two pieces become separated
    By the killers knife.

    . and when
    During the murder.

    .....


    You need to find some harder questions Trevor

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      That to which you refer is from Collards inquest testimony where he produces two lists which related to the body being stripped at the mortuary and showed the clothing worn by the victim and her personal possessions. The only reference to any apron piece is in her possessions and there is no mention of any cuts or blood stains to that piece, so you are making it up.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Trevor,

      Collards written testimony. Notice the part that states, "which had been cut through"



      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by jerryd View Post

        Trevor,

        Collards written testimony. Notice the part that states, "which had been cut through"


        Well that not in dispute
        we know the two pieces had at some time been separated but by whom and when?

        and Herlock has excelled his powers of deduction and suggested the killer but this thread is about can that be relied as to being correct.

        given all that has been posted the answer to that is no it cant

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          The two lists merge into one if you read down you can see where the clothing stops and the possessions begin
          Hi Trevor

          You twice accused me of making things up. Now kindly show a primary source detailing Collard's two different lists. Stating that you believe his one list is made up of two merging lists goes under the heading "making it up".

          Comment


          • #50
            Nothing has been said here that changes it,the killer dropped the apron in Goulston St..The apron had to have contact with the knife/hand during the cutting or maybe with the clothes or body accidentally.How he used the apron might be in dispute but what if he came prepared to deal with the mess of opening the body and entangling the organs,he already did with Chapman,and used the apron for something other than solely for wiping.
            Together with the graffito send some kind of message,reverse the direction he actually was going?

            "The apron was shown to the witness (PC Robinson). It was much torn and was saturated with blood in several places." DNews 10/12.
            What can we glean from it.Dr. Brown said wiping of the knife,it's hard to determine without pictures.
            Last edited by Varqm; 03-09-2021, 10:02 PM.
            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


            • #51
              Originally posted by Varqm View Post
              Nothing has been said here that changes it,the killer dropped the apron in Goulston St..The apron had to have contact with the knife/hand during the cutting or maybe with the clothes or body accidentally.How he used the apron might be in dispute but what if he came prepared to deal with the mess of opening the body and entangling the organs,he already did with Chapman,and used the apron for something other than solely for wiping.
              Together with the graffito send some kind of message,reverse the direction he actually was going?

              "The apron was shown to the witness (PC Robinson). It was much torn and was saturated with blood in several places." DNews 10/12.
              What can we glean from it.Dr. Brown said wiping of the knife,it's hard to determine without pictures.
              Now we introduce yet another term for describing the apron piece "Saturated with blood" to go with spotted with blood, and smeared with blood, and blood stained, and wet with blood.

              I think we can safely say that there was blood on the apron piece !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              As to Dr Browns comment we do not need to see the original apron piece. If you accept that the apron piece was only spotted with blood my test clearly shows that wiping hands or a knife on a piece of material would not cause blood spots, and blodd spots seem to be what most witnesses were saying including Brown in his official inquest testimony, then he changes in mid stream to mention the smears.

              If you believe Browns comment about a knife or a hand was wiped across it then again you have to explain why the blood and fecal matter was only found on one side of the apron piece, when it is suggested that the killer had both his hands covered in blood and fecal matter. This is a question I have asked several time to which people seem to have no answer to.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Now we introduce yet another term for describing the apron piece "Saturated with blood" to go with spotted with blood, and smeared with blood, and blood stained, and wet with blood.

                I think we can safely say that there was blood on the apron piece !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                As to Dr Browns comment we do not need to see the original apron piece. If you accept that the apron piece was only spotted with blood my test clearly shows that wiping hands or a knife on a piece of material would not cause blood spots, and blodd spots seem to be what most witnesses were saying including Brown in his official inquest testimony, then he changes in mid stream to mention the smears.

                If you believe Browns comment about a knife or a hand was wiped across it then again you have to explain why the blood and fecal matter was only found on one side of the apron piece, when it is suggested that the killer had both his hands covered in blood and fecal matter. This is a question I have asked several time to which people seem to have no answer to.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Trevor, I don’t know why you’re focused on this idea idea that the apron couldn’t have been both ‘spotted’ and ‘smeared?’ Even if your test did prove that these couldn’t have occurred at exactly the same time I can’t see why it’s a problem? The apron got blood spots during the murder after which the killer wiped his knife/hands on it. I know that you don’t like simple explanations Trevor but surely this is an obvious example of one? Like Brown saying that the two pieces matched up. So the piece came from Eddowes apron. The only remaining questions are “Why did he remove the piece of cloth from Mitre Square?” “Why did the killer drop the cloth in Goulston Street?” “When did he drop it?” And “did he also write the Grafitto?”

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Trevor, I don’t know why you’re focused on this idea idea that the apron couldn’t have been both ‘spotted’ and ‘smeared?’ Even if your test did prove that these couldn’t have occurred at exactly the same time I can’t see why it’s a problem? The apron got blood spots during the murder after which the killer wiped his knife/hands on it. I know that you don’t like simple explanations Trevor but surely this is an obvious example of one? Like Brown saying that the two pieces matched up. So the piece came from Eddowes apron. The only remaining questions are “Why did he remove the piece of cloth from Mitre Square?” “Why did the killer drop the cloth in Goulston Street?” “When did he drop it?” And “did he also write the Grafitto?”
                  I don’t think the killer cut nor did he drop it in gs.

                  if she was still wearing the remains of the apron there is no plausible explanation for that to not have any blood on it having regards to the knife cuts to the rest of her clothing which did have blood on it

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                    It is possible the apron was already half cut off at this point anyway and as he finished tore a piece off to wipe his hands and take as part of his trophy collection. I believe he carried the kidney in a separate vessel.

                    I struggle with any other theory that it was dropped by Kate herself as part of some kind of sanitary device.
                    The inventory of Catherine Eddowes possessions lists literally a dozen things that she would have been more likely to use as a sanitary device instead of a torn/cut piece of apron.

                    "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained."

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                      The inventory of Catherine Eddowes possessions lists literally a dozen things that she would have been more likely to use as a sanitary device instead of a torn/cut piece of apron.

                      "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained."
                      The items you refer to were probably items she had in her possession and as likely as not would be trying to sell. It is documented that she would trade as a a hawker.

                      No one is going to destroy something that could be sold to make money, whereas an old piece of white apron has no value and would serve the purposes as suggested.

                      On another note these items you refer to were in her possession and were slightly blood stained. But the alleged apron she was wearing taken off her at the mortuary showed no signs being bloodstained. I think you need to take a step back, rethink, and go over some of the posts on both the apron thread and this one. You may look at this in a different light.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                        The inventory of Catherine Eddowes possessions lists literally a dozen things that she would have been more likely to use as a sanitary device instead of a torn/cut piece of apron.

                        "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained."
                        Yes and the killer could have wiped his bloody hands and his knife on any of her clothes without the need to cut a piece of apron, take it away with him , and then deposit it some distance away from the crime scene in a secluded location

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Yes and the killer could have wiped his bloody hands and his knife on any of her clothes without the need to cut a piece of apron, take it away with him , and then deposit it some distance away from the crime scene in a secluded location

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Hi Trevor,

                          Except for the point that PC Harvey probably scared him off, in which case grabbing a piece of cloth might have been more prudent. It occurs to me, that he may have cut the apron at the start trying to get through her clothes, decided that would take too long after cutting just that, and so then cut through all the others more chaotically. When PC Harvey shows up, he grabs the nearest piece of cloth to clean up as he flees, and then dumps it as he has no further need for it.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Now we introduce yet another term for describing the apron piece "Saturated with blood" to go with spotted with blood, and smeared with blood, and blood stained, and wet with blood.

                            I think we can safely say that there was blood on the apron piece !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                            As to Dr Browns comment we do not need to see the original apron piece. If you accept that the apron piece was only spotted with blood my test clearly shows that wiping hands or a knife on a piece of material would not cause blood spots, and blodd spots seem to be what most witnesses were saying including Brown in his official inquest testimony, then he changes in mid stream to mention the smears.

                            If you believe Browns comment about a knife or a hand was wiped across it then again you have to explain why the blood and fecal matter was only found on one side of the apron piece, when it is suggested that the killer had both his hands covered in blood and fecal matter. This is a question I have asked several time to which people seem to have no answer to.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            The apron had to have contact with the knife/hand during the cutting/holding/carrying, and/or maybe with the clothes or body accidentally and that's how the blood/fecal matter got into the apron.
                            Also how about wiping his hands on the water in the ground,it was raining on and off, and then partly wiping his hands on the apron or holding the apron again and then move again as he was trying to escape and repeat once/twice.You are focused too much on that the apron was used solely to wipe or carry organs,which I do not believe.
                            More than not I believe he needed and carried the apron for an hour to put it in Goulston or another suitable place and write the graffito.
                            Last edited by Varqm; 03-12-2021, 07:15 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


                            • #59
                              Held on to the apron for half/hour to an hour,should be,past 2:20 am..
                              He was probably headed to Spitalfields market.I believe he probably used (from /Shadwell/Ratcliff/Limehouse) Commercial Road-Commercial Street to the endpoint Spitalfields Market.The streets Berner St.,George Yard/Osborne St.,Castle Alley,Dorset St., and Hanbury St (last)..immediately 1-2 blocks left or right along the way.
                              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


                              • #60
                                If an apron piece was taken by Brown from the body,that information should have headed the list made by Brown,as it should have been the first item removed.
                                What's to say that the list compiled were the only items carried by Eddowes before her deat?.Could there have been other items taken by the killer?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X