Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    The fact is that you cannot show how the two pieces as described made up a full apron.

    On that basis it is rigjht to assume that she was in possession of two old pieces of white apron, one found in her possesion when the body was stripped and the second piece found in GS and how that got there is open to debate

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Then why did those present at the inquest describe the two pieces as "an apron"?
    Surely it is right to assume that they were able to discern an apron when they see one, as opposed to pieces of an apron.
    What value do you place on the ability of a policeman at the inquest to know what an apron looks like, as opposed to a theorist a century later simply reading words on a paper?
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Numerous witnesses to her wearing an apron - conveniently ignored.
      No one mentioning an incomplete apron - conveniently ignored.
      Explanations for the cuts that differ from his theory - conveniently ignored.
      Alternative, plausible explanations for the compiling of the list - conveniently ignored.

      And Trevor calls others biased

      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

      Comment


      • Talking of the compiling of the list...

        Collard's list has the "man's white vest" - which I think we're agreed is a waistcoat - after the dress bodice and even after the chemise. This means that either Kate was wearing this item next to her skin, or that the list isn't in order of removal.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Point out the faults then Trevor. It’s fits the facts better than your biased fantasy.
          That's why he finds it painful.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            That's why he finds it painful.

            - Jeff
            Yes, no proper response I notice.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
              Talking of the compiling of the list...

              Collard's list has the "man's white vest" - which I think we're agreed is a waistcoat - after the dress bodice and even after the chemise. This means that either Kate was wearing this item next to her skin, or that the list isn't in order of removal.
              Good point. Even setting the apron aside, the list does not reflect a logical order of wearing the clothes. This too points to the list made after she was fully stripped and not as each piece was removed, as Trevor speculates.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                Then why did those present at the inquest describe the two pieces as "an apron"?
                Surely it is right to assume that they were able to discern an apron when they see one, as opposed to pieces of an apron.
                What value do you place on the ability of a policeman at the inquest to know what an apron looks like, as opposed to a theorist a century later simply reading words on a paper?
                There you go again posting mis information
                Pc Robinson " I belive the apron produced was the one she was wearing" There were two pieces produced not one apron. There could not have been a full apron because of the two pieces and how they have been described and matched

                Pc Hutt " I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing" There were two pieces produced not one apron. There could not have been a full apron because of the two pieces and how they have been described and matched

                No where in the inquest testimony does it say that the two pieces referred to made up a full apron

                There evidence in any event is questionable


                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                  Good point. Even setting the apron aside, the list does not reflect a logical order of wearing the clothes. This too points to the list made after she was fully stripped and not as each piece was removed, as Trevor speculates.

                  - Jeff
                  The list does not show her wearing an apron and I am not going ot go over the two pieces again

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    Numerous witnesses to her wearing an apron - conveniently ignored.
                    No one mentioning an incomplete apron - conveniently ignored.
                    Explanations for the cuts that differ from his theory - conveniently ignored.
                    Alternative, plausible explanations for the compiling of the list - conveniently ignored.

                    And Trevor calls others biased
                    No eveidence from the mortuary that she was wearing an apron

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Then why did those present at the inquest describe the two pieces as "an apron"?
                      Surely it is right to assume that they were able to discern an apron when they see one, as opposed to pieces of an apron.
                      What value do you place on the ability of a policeman at the inquest to know what an apron looks like, as opposed to a theorist a century later simply reading words on a paper?
                      so how did the two pieces get sown back together for a full apron to miraculosly appear?

                      Dr Brown inquest testimony "I have seen a portion produced by Dr Phillips"

                      No mention of a full apron

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        No eveidence from the mortuary that she was wearing an apron

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Your desperation is showing more than ever Trevor as you haven’t been able to address the points.

                        ​​​​​​……

                        You’ve assumed that the apron had been cut through at the waistband because it’s convenient to do so but my interpretation fits the known facts. When he said that the seams of the border corresponded he was almost certainly talking about the hem down the edge of the apron. 99% of men wouldn’t know the technical difference between a hem and a seam today and I doubt a Victorian Doctor would have done much needlework. So the killer had cut from the side; two horizontally across the hem and one vertically to remove a square or rectangular piece. Or he cut one horizontally and the other vertically to the bottom of the apron.

                        You’ve used this part of Brown’s Inquest testimony to try and show that there was just a corner piece cut through at the waistband.

                        “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.”

                        But as we can see he mentions the corner with the string attached just to describe the location of the blood spots. It’s there in black and white. He mentions the string to differentiate between the corner near the waistband (where the blood spots were found) from a corner at the bottom of the apron.

                        So there was either a square/rectangle cut from the side or one cut from the side down to the bottom.

                        To back this up, as opposed to your theory, we have Dr Brown matching up the 2 pieces but making absolutely no mention of any piece still being missing. Can any sane person think that he wouldn’t have noticed this? Also, as we know that the police treated the GSP as a clue to the killers escape route they would very naturally have treated any other missing piece as a possible clue as the killer might have dropped it further along the route. Was any search mentioned? No. Did any police officer mention a further missing piece? No. Therefore we have to take that as about as strong as evidence gets that there was no missing piece. I fail to see how you can keep stretching credulity by claiming a missing piece?

                        Added to this fact we have the numerous witness that you’ve deliberately tried to sideline. Even police officers. Because, according to you, it’s pointless to ask a witness to recall anything from 24 hours or less previously. No one can possibly remember that far back can they? Well I’m afraid that, unfortunately for your theory, they all did remember. She was seen wearing a white apron because she was wearing a white apron when she was murdered. The killer cut away a piece (for whatever reason) then deposited it in Goulston Street.

                        The game’s up Trevor. Let it go.
                        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 how did the two pieces get sown back together for a full apron to miraculosly appear?

                          Dr Brown inquest testimony "I have seen a portion produced by Dr Phillips"

                          No mention of a full apron

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Tell me that you’re not saying that Wick is suggesting that someone sowed the MP and the GSP back together?

                          They matched the two pieces. It made a full apron Trevor.

                          If it didn’t please point us all in the direction of the statement where someone said “when the Goulston Street piece was matched to the Mortuary Piece there was still part of the apron missing.”

                          Give is a shout when you find it.
                          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

                            Tell me that you’re not saying that Wick is suggesting that someone sowed the MP and the GSP back together?

                            They matched the two pieces. It made a full apron Trevor.

                            If it didn’t please point us all in the direction of the statement where someone said “when the Goulston Street piece was matched to the Mortuary Piece there was still part of the apron missing.”

                            Give is a shout when you find it.
                            Your deluded and so desparate to prove yourself right you have lost the plot, now your appear to be suffering from numptymania and be careful it might spread to others ---------- to later it alreday has

                            www.trevormarriott.co.u

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Your deluded and so desparate to prove yourself right you have lost the plot, now your appear to be suffering from numptymania and be careful it might spread to others ---------- to later it alreday has

                              www.trevormarriott.co.u
                              Still no meaningful response.

                              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 list does not show her wearing an apron and I am not going ot go over the two pieces again

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Thank you Trevor. I would greatly appreciate not having to deal with such nonsense.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X