Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    It was a man's waistcoat
    I think you could be right

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • I thought you had rejected the official inquest testimony because Collard said "I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress". This requires you to observe that Collard says he believed that she was wearing the apron, in the same evidence he gave that you are using to suggest that his list proved that she wasn't wearing it. Obviously this evidence is unsafe. He can't believe she was wearing an apron, and prove that she wasn't.

      I quoted the Times because according to the Sourcebook, the inquest papers contained only the initial evidence of the witnesses, and the newspapers contained additional information. In other words, it seems that Halse explained that her apron referred to, was the apron she was wearing. So, I did read the Inquest papers, and the newspapers, and the Sourcebook, before I wrote my comment.
      Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 08-03-2021, 10:03 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
        I thought you had rejected the official inquest testimony because Collard said "I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress". This requires you to observe that Collard says he believed that she was wearing the apron, in the same evidence he gave that you are using to suggest that his list proved that she wasn't wearing it. Obviously this evidence is unsafe. He can't believe she was wearing an apron, and prove that she wasn't.
        The term apparently wearing creates a doubt

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          The official list from the inquest
          The one following Collard's inquest statement in the Ultimate?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

            The one following Collard's inquest statement in the Ultimate?
            Yes

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              For one I agree with you, but that still doesnt detract from the list. and the order of the clothes as taken from the body, and before I forget the most important part the absence of any evidence to show she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              We also can’t be anything like certain the items were listed as the body was being stripped. No matter what your opinion Trevor it’s still absolutely possible that the body was stripped and the clothing placed somewhere for Collard to list.

              And we have evidence from witnesses who state without doubt that she was wearing an apron. We have Halse noting the piece being missing and Brown matching up the two pieces. Game over Trevor.
              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

                The term apparently wearing creates a doubt

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Only to you.

                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  We also can’t be anything like certain the items were listed as the body was being stripped. No matter what your opinion Trevor it’s still absolutely possible that the body was stripped and the clothing placed somewhere for Collard to list.

                  And we have evidence from witnesses who state without doubt that she was wearing an apron. We have Halse noting the piece being missing and Brown matching up the two pieces. Game over Trevor.
                  The game is far from over there is no evidence to show that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron, in fact the evidence shows that the two pieces must have come from the same side of an apron. The mortuary piece was a corner piece so that musy have been top left/right and for the GS piece to have been matched by the seams that must have been bottom/left or right.

                  But we are going round in circles repeating over and over again what has gone before many times its time to get off the merry go round.


                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Only to you.
                    So you are prepared to accept for definite that this term conclusively proves that she was wearing an apron

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      The term apparently wearing creates a doubt

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Creating doubt and proof of the opposite are not the same thing Trevor. And what he says is understandable in the context of her wearing an apron, and incomprehensible for someone to say if he was there and knew she wasn't wearing it because he was, as you speculate, listing the clothes as they came off, and separately listing the items she was in possession of but not wearing. You're presenting an incomprehensible alternative simply to meet your agenda of saving an idea that can't possibly reflect what the situation actually was.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        Creating doubt and proof of the opposite are not the same thing Trevor. And what he says is understandable in the context of her wearing an apron, and incomprehensible for someone to say if he was there and knew she wasn't wearing it because he was, as you speculate, listing the clothes as they came off, and separately listing the items she was in possession of but not wearing. You're presenting an incomprehensible alternative simply to meet your agenda of saving an idea that can't possibly reflect what the situation actually was.

                        - Jeff
                        I am presenting the facts that point to her not wearing any portion of an apron when the body was stripped and will continue to do so.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          The game is far from over there is no evidence to show that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron, in fact the evidence shows that the two pieces must have come from the same side of an apron. The mortuary piece was a corner piece so that musy have been top left/right and for the GS piece to have been matched by the seams that must have been bottom/left or right.

                          But we are going round in circles repeating over and over again what has gone before many times its time to get off the merry go round.


                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          The fact that when Brown matched up the two pieces he didn’t mention that it didn’t make a whole apron shows that they made up the whole. If there was any part missing as you suggest it would certainly have been mentioned as another piece potentially lying around somewhere would have been of vital importance. The police would have prioritised finding it. And so as no one looked for a missing piece we can say for certain that no missing piece existed.
                          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

                            So you are prepared to accept for definite that this term conclusively proves that she was wearing an apron

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            No. Only that you alone invest meaning in ‘apparently wearing.’
                            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

                              I am presenting the facts that point to her not wearing any portion of an apron when the body was stripped and will continue to do so.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              You are presenting facts that you interpret as indicating she was not wearing any portion of an apron, and ignore the facts that point the other way and you are also ignoring the fact that your explanation results in an incomprehensible account of Collard's testimony, making the explanation irrational.

                              As I've said, a few times, the evidence you point to certainly allows for the hypothesis you present, but a hypothesis is just a possibility, it's not a fact. And when that possibility is opened up to examination by all of the other information we have, including Collard's testimony, it creates a huge amount of conflict with the testimonies. It even creates a paradox, which has been pointed out, within Collard's testimony in which his list is presented as proof he knew she wasn't wearing an apron, but his testimony indicates he is more than willing to entertain the idea she was - at that's if we emphasize the importance of his use of the word "apparently" with regards to what he meant. I'm not going to try and deny he said it, and I'm not going to try and pretend I know exactly what concept he intended by his use of that qualifying word. However, I can easily present a hypothesis. If he's just using cautious "police speak", as they would be advised to do when testifying, then "apparently" is just empty jargon and doesn't really mean he doesn't know if she was or wasn't. Nobody is arguing he wasn't there when the body was stripped, so nobody is suggesting he doesn't know if she was or was not wearing it. If he knows she was not wearing it, as you claim, he would not consider the possibility that she was - he would not say she was apparently wearing it, he would say it was amongst her possessions. Therefore, my hypothesis is that "apparently" may just be an example of the cautious police jargon they use when giving testimony. Again, that's just a hypothesis, and I don't know it for a fact, but it casts doubt, as you say, on your explanation, and it doesn't require the wholesale culling of evidence and sworn under oath testimonies. And casting doubt is all you require of yourself to reject anything that interferes with your agenda, but if you truly believe that a shadow of a doubt is sufficient to set aside evidence whole heartedly then you should be telling everyone that we should ignore your explanation because it has doubt cast upon it. You need to step back from your theory and recognize that this part of it is not walking on the sunny side of the street.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                The fact that when Brown matched up the two pieces he didn’t mention that it didn’t make a whole apron shows that they made up the whole. If there was any part missing as you suggest it would certainly have been mentioned as another piece potentially lying around somewhere would have been of vital importance. The police would have prioritised finding it. And so as no one looked for a missing piece we can say for certain that no missing piece existed.
                                Oh god, no please. Not the "it's not a full apron but there's no piece missing" again. That is so agonizingly irrational that it almost hurts to recall.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X