Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    No one is suggesting they were deliberately lying but what I do suggest is that they were trying to be too helpful in proving the police theory as to which direction the killer went after the murder.

    No one is trying to fix the evidence other than you and Herlock who are in denial to the fact that police testimony which you say supports the fact that she was wearing an apron is unsafe for the reasons given.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Hi Trevor,

    Please explain the difference between "trying to be too helpful" and lying? Also, please explain how it is more helpful to the police's theory that JtR went from Mitre Square to Goulston if she's wearing the apron but not if it was in her possession? In either case, they would have part of the apron in Mitre Square, and part of it in Goulston, both of which equally would support that idea. How would jepardizing their careers by committing perjury be thought to be worth it to help that theory, particularly as they did not have a suspect in mind? Planting, or manipulating, evidence only occurs when the police are trying to ensure a particular person gets convicted because they're convinced that's the offender (and often they're wrong, which is why the case was weak to begin with). What have they possibly to gain by this elaborate fabrication of yours?

    The only theory that has trouble with her wearing, as opposed to possessing the apron, is yours. And while everyone recognizes that testimony can be wrong, you refuse to look at other versions of the transcript to help locate errors, and you've got multiple witnesses stating to one degree of certainy or another that she was wearing an apron, and there isn't a single person who states otherwise. Moreover, not all of those witnesses are associated with the police. All you've got is that sometimes witnesses get it wrong, but nothing to show they got it wrong in this instance except a list, for which you have nothing but your opinion to suggest the order of items on it means anything. And again, I think it need be pointed out, the only theory that suffers if Kate were wearing the apron is yours.

    The only person in denial here is, I'm afraid, you.

    - Jeff

    P.S. You were responding to Herlock's post, but your phrasing suggests you thought you were responding to me. This does not create great faith in your attention to detail with written material.
    Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-12-2021, 12:49 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

      Hi Trevor,

      Please explain the difference between "trying to be too helpful" and lying? Also, please explain how it is more helpful to the police's theory that JtR went from Mitre Square to Goulston if she's wearing the apron but not if it was in her possession? In either case, they would have part of the apron in Mitre Square, and part of it in Goulston, both of which equally would support that idea. How would jepardizing their careers by committing perjury be thought to be worth it to help that theory, particularly as they did not have a suspect in mind? Planting, or manipulating, evidence only occurs when the police are trying to ensure a particular person gets convicted because they're convinced that's the offender (and often they're wrong, which is why the case was weak to begin with). What have they possibly to gain by this elaborate fabrication of yours?

      The only theory that has trouble with her wearing, as opposed to possessing the apron, is yours. And while everyone recognizes that testimony can be wrong, you refuse to look at other versions of the transcript to help locate errors, and you've got multiple witnesses stating to one degree of certainy or another that she was wearing an apron, and there isn't a single person who states otherwise. Moreover, not all of those witnesses are associated with the police. All you've got is that sometimes witnesses get it wrong, but nothing to show they got it wrong in this instance except a list, for which you have nothing but your opinion to suggest the order of items on it means anything. And again, I think it need be pointed out, the only theory that suffers if Kate were wearing the apron is yours.

      The only person in denial here is, I'm afraid, you.

      - Jeff

      P.S. You were responding to Herlock's post, but your phrasing suggests you thought you were responding to me. This does not create great faith in your attention to detail with written material.
      Dont try to be smart arse you can see and read that my post applied to you as well as Herlock.

      The list is important because it does not show that she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped, and secondly the list was made at the time not some 4 days later when Collard was asked to remember if she was or was not wearing an apron.

      The problem with you and Herlock is that you believe what you read from back then and much of which is proven to be unsafe ti rely on, accept it and move on

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        No one is suggesting they were deliberately lying but what I do suggest is that they were trying to be too helpful in proving the police theory as to which direction the killer went after the murder.

        As Jeff as already pointed out that being ‘too helpful’ is not telling the truth. Lying.

        What he’s also pointed out that this being ‘too helpful’ serves absolutely no purpose at all. In short, neither Hutt or Robinson had the slightest motive for lying.


        No one is trying to fix the evidence other than you and Herlock who are in denial to the fact that police testimony which you say supports the fact that she was wearing an apron is unsafe for the reasons given.

        You have it the wrong way around as usual Trevor.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Again, as Jeff has pointed out, if we employ your criteria - that everything with even the remotest minute chance of being incorrect has to be labelled as ‘unsafe’ then this Forum might as well shut down. What’s left to discus? Everything can be dismissed. Or can it? Because things that you see as supporting your case tend to get a free pass on this.

        Can anyone hazard a guess as to why?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • death, taxes and trevor mindlessly saying unsafe ad nauseum

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Dont try to be smart arse you can see and read that my post applied to you as well as Herlock.

            The list is important because it does not show that she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped, and secondly the list was made at the time not some 4 days later when Collard was asked to remember if she was or was not wearing an apron.

            The problem with you and Herlock is that you believe what you read from back then and much of which is proven to be unsafe ti rely on, accept it and move on

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            There is so much that is worthy of debate and discussion and yet we have to waste time trying to get you to accept something that everyone else can see. You’re taking a black and white approach and a very selective one. All we have to do is to approach all debate like this.

            We all accept the very obvious fact that witnesses can lie and they can be mistaken.

            Therefore we have to assess each witness.

            Then we can weigh up how ‘safe’ or otherwise their testimony is. Another way of putting it is that we have to have a valid reason to suspect lies or mistakes and not just use a general ‘rule.’

            Your method appears to be to just assume that witnesses are ‘unsafe,’ without looking for a valid reason for this assertion and, as Jeff has pointed out, if we follow this accurately and fairly every piece of evidence that you cite and every witness that you quote are equally ‘unsafe.’

            ....

            And so if we look at Hutt and Robinson. Could they have been mistaken when they said that Eddowes was wearing an apron? The possibility exists however remote but have to look for valid reasons why they might have been mistaken and can be labelled as ‘unsafe.’

            They both saw Eddowes over an extended period. We have no reason to suspect that they were unreliable people. A white apron was a large and easily seen item as opposed to a pair of shoes for example. So we have no valid, positive reason that they might have both been mistaken. And the fact that 2 of them said the same thing and others confirmed it adds considerable weight to the fact that they weren’t mistaken.

            Would they have lied. Again, as Jeff has pointed out, no one benefitted from a lie and we have no evidence that either of these were dishonest officers therefore we have zero reason to suspect that they lied.

            And so, after weighing things up fairly, the evidence points very solidly to the fact that she was indeed wearing an apron. That you disagree is tough I’m afraid. You have no valid basis for your point of view.



            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              death, taxes and trevor mindlessly saying unsafe ad nauseum
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Dont try to be smart arse you can see and read that my post applied to you as well as Herlock.

                The list is important because it does not show that she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped, and secondly the list was made at the time not some 4 days later when Collard was asked to remember if she was or was not wearing an apron.

                The problem with you and Herlock is that you believe what you read from back then and much of which is proven to be unsafe ti rely on, accept it and move on

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Hi Trevor,

                Simply repeating your assumptions about the list won't make them come true.

                I see you're ignoring questions again.

                What is the difference between being too helpful and lying?
                How does possessing an apron weaken the police idea JtR fled mitre square to Goulston sufficiently that multiple police officers risk perjury in order to help, as you put it, the theory?

                Why do the police fake this testimony when the have no suspect? What if they get one and possessing turned out to be better than wearing for them?

                The problem with you is that you cannot admit when you're wrong.

                ​​​​​​​- Jeff



                ​​

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                  Hi Trevor,

                  Simply repeating your assumptions about the list won't make them come true.

                  I see you're ignoring questions again.

                  What is the difference between being too helpful and lying?
                  How does possessing an apron weaken the police idea JtR fled mitre square to Goulston sufficiently that multiple police officers risk perjury in order to help, as you put it, the theory?

                  Why do the police fake this testimony when the have no suspect? What if they get one and possessing turned out to be better than wearing for them?

                  The problem with you is that you cannot admit when you're wrong.

                  ​​​​​​​- Jeff



                  ​​
                  Collards list proves she was not wearing any piece,portion, or the remains of an apron. I will stick with that to prove my case.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Collards list proves she was not wearing any piece,portion, or the remains of an apron. I will stick with that to prove my case.
                    A very telling post.

                    There’s a difference between sticking with a point because you think it’s correct and sticking with it because you think it serves a purpose.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Collards list proves she was not wearing any piece,portion, or the remains of an apron. I will stick with that to prove my case.
                      Then your case will remain unproven as you have no evidence to support your conjecture that the list order means what you say it does.

                      Moreover, you present an irrational explanation based upon the police witnesses "helping" by falsely stating they recall her wearing an apron (yet you paradoxically say this is not lying). This explanation defies any motivation.
                      1) the police did not have a suspect in mind to create any motivation to bolster a case against said person (which is when police corruption like this occurs)
                      2) changing the apron from being in her possession to being worn by her in no way weakens the police idea that JtR fled Mitre Square with a piece of apron and dropped it at Goulston Street (it is only your theory that gets weaker if she was, as testified, wearing it).
                      3) by making up a story that she was wearing an apron (according to you), that would have the effect of reducing the possibility of someone coming forward later with relevant information because if they spotted Eddowes at some time, but recalled the woman they saw as not wearing an apron, they've just made that potential witness decide that the person they saw was not relevant to the case.
                      4) not all of the witnesses who state she was wearing an apron are associated with the police, but rather include people who have known her for 7-8 years and by all accounts were on friendly terms with Eddowes. They are more likely to be inclined to want accurate information put to the inquest, so how and why did they become motivated to "help" the police put forth a false story? Be prepared to be asked for proof of what you claim.

                      And I note, you've again simply repeated unfounded claims. Repeating them, even if you do so three times fast and spin around, will not make them true.

                      I also note you've completely ignored these questions put to you twice before, that doesn't make them go away, but it does make it look like you can't answer them.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        Then your case will remain unproven as you have no evidence to support your conjecture that the list order means what you say it does.

                        Moreover, you present an irrational explanation based upon the police witnesses "helping" by falsely stating they recall her wearing an apron (yet you paradoxically say this is not lying). This explanation defies any motivation.
                        1) the police did not have a suspect in mind to create any motivation to bolster a case against said person (which is when police corruption like this occurs)
                        2) changing the apron from being in her possession to being worn by her in no way weakens the police idea that JtR fled Mitre Square with a piece of apron and dropped it at Goulston Street (it is only your theory that gets weaker if she was, as testified, wearing it).
                        3) by making up a story that she was wearing an apron (according to you), that would have the effect of reducing the possibility of someone coming forward later with relevant information because if they spotted Eddowes at some time, but recalled the woman they saw as not wearing an apron, they've just made that potential witness decide that the person they saw was not relevant to the case.
                        4) not all of the witnesses who state she was wearing an apron are associated with the police, but rather include people who have known her for 7-8 years and by all accounts were on friendly terms with Eddowes. They are more likely to be inclined to want accurate information put to the inquest, so how and why did they become motivated to "help" the police put forth a false story? Be prepared to be asked for proof of what you claim.

                        And I note, you've again simply repeated unfounded claims. Repeating them, even if you do so three times fast and spin around, will not make them true.

                        I also note you've completely ignored these questions put to you twice before, that doesn't make them go away, but it does make it look like you can't answer them.

                        - Jeff
                        The credibility of the officers Hutt and Robinson can be questioned firstly by them stating 4 days after the event and from recollection that they believed the apron produced was the part or the remnants of the one she was apparently wearing. In reality any old piece of white apron could have been presented to them and they would have still given the same answers. There is nothing to show that they could specifically identify what was shown to them if they were not already aware that a piece of apron had been found in GS and that the police believed it to have been out there by the killer on his route out of the area.

                        The police needed to show the way the killer went and what better way to show it than firstly show that she was wearing an apron and then that the killer cut ir tore a piece taking it with him.

                        There clearly was concerns from the Met about this city scenario for questions to be asked as to how it could have gotten to GS by a senior met officer. If it were as clean cut as you and others want to believe why was that question asked in the way that it was

                        My Dear Fraser,
                        I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer?
                        In order to do this it is necessary if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers-on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman. I shall be very glad if you can give me the necessary particulars on this point [?]. Very truly yours, C.W.

                        There is no proof that when the body was found at the crime scene there is any evidence to show that she was wearing an apron. Its a shame we dont have the reply

                        Even you and Herlock have to concede that point

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          The credibility of the officers Hutt and Robinson can be questioned firstly by them stating 4 days after the event and from recollection that they believed the apron produced was the part or the remnants of the one she was apparently wearing. In reality any old piece of white apron could have been presented to them and they would have still given the same answers. There is nothing to show that they could specifically identify what was shown to them if they were not already aware that a piece of apron had been found in GS and that the police believed it to have been out there by the killer on his route out of the area.
                          Once again, Robinson does not confirm the apron he was shown was the apron he saw her wearing; he says he believed it was. He does not do what you say he cannot do, so you're arguing against something that did not even happen. That's pointless.

                          All Robinson does is state she was wearing an apron and he believed the one shown was the same.

                          Despite your continuing to insist that's an outrageous thing for him to remember her wearing, that's patently absurd. There's nothing difficult about such a recollection. Moreover, a belief that the one shown is the one she was wearing simply means it must have looked similar to the one he recalled her wearing, and that he had no reason to believe there was a mixup in the chain of evidence.

                          We could debate whether the second part is a "safe belief" on his part, and sure, the procedures for chain of custody of evidence were far below modern standards, so there's room to suggest his belief on that point might be stronger than it should be. But even that wouldn't mean there was a failure in the chain of evidence, which is what you are pushing for - that just because there could be, you conclude there must have been, and that is irrational.

                          Also, whether or not his belief about the chain of custody of the apron piece he was shown is too strong, that in no way diminishes the fact he remembers her wearing an apron in the first place.


                          The police needed to show the way the killer went and what better way to show it than firstly show that she was wearing an apron and then that the killer cut ir tore a piece taking it with him.
                          The police did not need to do anything of the sort. What they needed to do was interpret the evidence they had.

                          Simply demonstrating that part of the apron was in Mitre Square and the other part in G.S. is more than adequate for them to establish a reasonable theory that the G.S. piece was taken by her killer.

                          There is no benefit to the police to have her wearing the apron if she wasn't. In fact, there are, as I outlined, actual reasons why changing the evidence in this way would be detrimental to their investigation. And there is no gain for those outside of the police to do this.

                          Your explanation here is also irrational and makes no sense.


                          There clearly was concerns from the Met about this city scenario for questions to be asked as to how it could have gotten to GS by a senior met officer. If it were as clean cut as you and others want to believe why was that question asked in the way that it was

                          My Dear Fraser,
                          I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer?
                          In order to do this it is necessary if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers-on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman. I shall be very glad if you can give me the necessary particulars on this point [?]. Very truly yours, C.W.

                          There is no proof that when the body was found at the crime scene there is any evidence to show that she was wearing an apron. Its a shame we dont have the reply

                          Regardless, the above are completely reasonable things to ask, particularly if they're thinking to the future on the hopes that a court case against someone will eventuate. Document how alternative explanations have been ruled out, as it will the prosecutions job to do that. So while yes, I too would be glad if we had the reply, part of me is glad we don't because I'm pretty sure if the reply was such that it further confirmed she was wearing an apron, we would have another thing you would try to invert the meaning of.
                          Even you and Herlock have to concede that point

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                          Now, explain why the police would have any reason to manipulate the evidence to suggest Kate was wearing the apron rather than simply possessing it when:
                          a) that doesn't change anything with regards to their considering JtR fled from M.Sqr to G.S
                          b) it reduces their chances of having additional witnesses come forward who now might presume they saw nothing because a woman they recall seeing was not wearing an apron
                          c) police are risking the integrity of their case should they ever find a viable suspect and it comes out they've already perjured themselves
                          d) if by some stretch of the imagination it turns out that her simply possessing the apron (as you claim was the case) rather than wearing it (as they testified) somehow reduces the case they can make against a future suspect, they've now created a problem for themselves at a time when they have no suspect in mind
                          e) why would someone who has known Kate for 7-8 and who is not associated with police have any motivation to help the police by lying?
                          f) clarify how you differentiate giving false evidence to "help" is different from lying?

                          (maybe you only answer questions when they are listed by letters; or maybe you ignore questions you can't answer without creating even more absurdity).

                          And once again, it is only your theory, not the police theory of 1888, that hinges on whether or not she was wearing it.

                          Their interpretation is in no way dependent upon that, but what actually was the case is. So they are far more likely to just report things as they actually were, while you have a motivation (to save this aspect of your theory; to avoid admitting you're wrong) to subvert their testimony.

                          Nothing you are proposing makes any rational sense with regards to the police misrepresenting the situation, a clear indication it is wrong. And simply showing they were considering alternatives is simply a demonstration they were not suffering tunnel vision. Herlock and I have both said, many times, that witnesses can be wrong, and we've considered and ruled out that in this case, because erroneous testimony will conflict with itself. The only conflict you have presented is with the list, and that conflict only arises because you have imposed upon it a speculation that is unfounded. That is not proof of anything beyond your bias.

                          Witnesses do get things right sometimes. This looks to be an instance of that situation.

                          You cannot simply jump from "they sometimes get it wrong" to "therefore they got this wrong" simply because it saves your theory to do so.

                          Data drives the theory, not the other way around.

                          - Jeff
                          Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-13-2021, 12:19 AM.

                          Comment


                          • To me it's a case of accepting Collard's list,because it was written at the time,and that of Hutt and Robinson who were relying on recall four days later,and whose recall is merely a belief that a situation existed.Trevor surely is in front there.

                            Comment


                            • Sorry Harry but Trevor isn’t even in the race.

                              The police needed to show the way the killer went and what better way to show it than firstly show that she was wearing an apron and then that the killer cut ir tore a piece taking it with him
                              Why did the Police want to create a false escape route for the killer? The idea is beyond bizarre.

                              Trevor is defending his theory at all costs.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                                To me it's a case of accepting Collard's list,because it was written at the time,and that of Hutt and Robinson who were relying on recall four days later,and whose recall is merely a belief that a situation existed.Trevor surely is in front there.
                                Yes but it doesn’t prove that Eddowes wasn’t wearing an apron. Just that during the process of the body being stripped and her clothes and possessions being recorded the piece of apron got mis-identified as just a piece of cloth.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X