Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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


  • From Varqm:

    “Yeah, I wonder why Lawende/co did not see the apron, Eddowes was facing them, she must have covered it up.
    But the point is we just do not know and have to rely first on what's available, the testimonies.”

    From Lawende:

    “She was standing with her face towards a man. I only saw her back.”

    And you have the nerve to say that I don’t understand. Your’e soooo desperate to disagree with me aren’t you.?

    ……

    Apologies to Joshua, I only just saw his post #1272

    Regards

    Herlock Sholmes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Yup move on. Your last nonsense has been dealt with.
      Hahaha.Thats why people latch at you because you're wrong, it 's very clear you do not understand the argument, but still try to insult. You must be a teenager.
      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


      • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

        Hahaha.Thats why people latch at you because you're wrong, it 's very clear you do not understand the argument, but still try to insult. You must be a teenager.
        You haven’t shown where I’m wrong. If I’m wrong about anything, and I’ve certainly made mistakes on Casebook, I hold my hands up and admit to them, unlike some who just try moving on hoping that no one will notice. Don’t try the ‘insult’ crap unless you want me ‘yet again’ to produce a list of the insults that have been aimed at me first. You’re a hypocrite.
        Regards

        Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

          She was facing away from Lavende;
          ​​​​​​
          "She was standing with her face towards the man. I only saw her back"
          You are right, forgot that part.
          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


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Yup move on. Your last nonsense has been dealt with.


            I suggest you better read his informative posts and not rush to write an arbitrary respond.



            The Baron

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              I missed this post. Unfortunately I’ve seen it now and it’s the usual nonsense.

              She had no reason. You are clueless.

              We already showed you she has reasons to take the apron off especially if she is going to prostitute herself and the apron was old or dirty


              The argument that she has no reasons to do this has been cracked and humiliated




              The Baron

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                I suggest you better read his informative posts and not rush to write an arbitrary respond.



                The Baron
                Don't take him seriously. He thinks his opinions are better than facts, these are from arrogant fools. It does not change the fact that we rely on Collard/Brown, in the mortuary ,with better lighting as the body was stripped, on whether Kate was wearing an apron or not when killed. Halse too relied on being in the mortuary, saw the body stripped, on observing the apron was missing a portion.
                Last edited by Varqm; 08-10-2021, 05:50 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


                • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                  We already showed you she has reasons to take the apron off especially if she is going to prostitute herself and the apron was old or dirty


                  The argument that she has no reasons to do this has been cracked and humiliated




                  The Baron
                  You’ve showed nothing but nonsense. Have you read anything about the lives of these women? They wore virtually everything they owned. They were always desperate for cash. They didn’t know where the next item of food was coming from or whether they would be sleeping indoors or outdoors. They had sex with the lowest dregs of society. To suggest that she took of her apron, that she had had on all day, just to attract a client at 1.00am is laughable.

                  The post by Varqm was just a side-step because of the Inquest statements of Wilkinson, Hutt and Robinson.

                  Absolutely pathetic desperation.
                  Regards

                  Herlock Sholmes

                  Comment


                  • On the point that Eddowes was menstruating, and cut her apron to use as a makeshift sanitary towel, I have a few observations.

                    Firstly, we have all of the references to her wearing an apron, and even if she allegedly removed it late on during the evening, we still have Collard saying that she was apparently wearing it - the correct way to describe an apron which was in place "outside her dress", but cut and hanging off. Also we have Shelton's press release which demonstrates that the City Police believed she was wearing an apron at 1. 30 am.

                    Eddowes had just one apron, which was obviously of some importance to her, as she had repaired it once and continued to wear it. I am lost for words at the suggestion that she cut her apron (with a table knife!) rather than use one of the 12 pieces of rag which she was keeping for some purpose. I struggle to accept that 12 pieces of rag were more precious to her than her one and only apron.

                    Then we have the post mortem report. Dr Brown, apparently observed by Sequeira, Saunders and Phillips, found "no evidence of connexion", but none of them noticed she was menstruating! Furthermore, Brown felt that the apron portion had been used to wipe hands or a knife. We are asked to believe that not one of the four experienced doctors could recognize a home made sanitary towel!!!!

                    Somewhere along the line we have to consider the possibility that the police were not complete idiots, and that the experienced doctors were not totally incompetent.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                      Don't take him seriously. He thinks his opinions are better than facts, these are from arrogant fools.
                      I spend most of my time on here complaining about people presenting their opinions as facts. Unlike some, I know the difference.

                      Why don’t you and The Baron, just for once, stop being such babies and post honestly rather than just as a means of having an obsessive dig at me. For Christ’s sake haven’t you anything better to do. Get a life, both of you.

                      Regards

                      Herlock Sholmes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
                        On the point that Eddowes was menstruating, and cut her apron to use as a makeshift sanitary towel, I have a few observations.

                        Firstly, we have all of the references to her wearing an apron, and even if she allegedly removed it late on during the evening, we still have Collard saying that she was apparently wearing it - the correct way to describe an apron which was in place "outside her dress", but cut and hanging off. Also we have Shelton's press release which demonstrates that the City Police believed she was wearing an apron at 1. 30 am.

                        Eddowes had just one apron, which was obviously of some importance to her, as she had repaired it once and continued to wear it. I am lost for words at the suggestion that she cut her apron (with a table knife!) rather than use one of the 12 pieces of rag which she was keeping for some purpose. I struggle to accept that 12 pieces of rag were more precious to her than her one and only apron.

                        Then we have the post mortem report. Dr Brown, apparently observed by Sequeira, Saunders and Phillips, found "no evidence of connexion", but none of them noticed she was menstruating! Furthermore, Brown felt that the apron portion had been used to wipe hands or a knife. We are asked to believe that not one of the four experienced doctors could recognize a home made sanitary towel!!!!

                        Somewhere along the line we have to consider the possibility that the police were not complete idiots, and that the experienced doctors were not totally incompetent.
                        You see Baron,

                        An intelligent, sensible post.

                        And yet you keep cheering nonsense like a
                        Regards

                        Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                          I suggest you better read his informative posts and not rush to write an arbitrary respond.



                          The Baron

                          I didn’t notice an ‘informative’ post.


                          Regards

                          Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            ...

                            Actually, both lists appear to be prior to the inquest. In the first list I mentioned (2 pages) each brief note beside a witness begins "will", as in will bring, or will present, will provide, etc. So clearly made before the inquest.
                            The ornate hand (3 pages) is not clear, each note is a bit ambiguous as to when it was written, but I notice Lawende is written Lawrence (his name was correctly established at the inquest), and the brief note reads "can give a description of the supposed murderer".

                            Those two points alone tend to suggest this ornate list was also written before the inquest.
                            Hi wickerman,
                            Good point. Yes, the wording suggests who is going to testify about what. I'm just not sure if it is written that way because it's intended as a sort of table of contents to go at the front (so telling the reader of the documents what is in the file, in which case they could be written after the fact) or briefing notes to the coroner (which def. Mean before the testimony).

                            I've not looked at them closely though, just noted them and grabbed Long's as it indicates the court summaries indicate a view on the apron matter.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              I spend most of my time on here complaining about people presenting their opinions as facts. Unlike some, I know the difference.



                              It’s rock solid. 100% definitely Eddowes was wearing an apron. There’s not a single, solitary, scintilla of cogent, reasoned evidence to the contrary.







                              I strongly believe you don't know the difference.



                              The Baron

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post











                                I strongly believe you don't know the difference.



                                The Baron
                                Is that the best you can possibly do? You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel to post something said in frustration.

                                I should have said 99% definitely Eddowes was wearing an apron. It was a bit of an exaggeration….so what?

                                But it’s hardly in the same league as you saying that Mackenzie was definitely a ripper victim. Now THAT is stating an opinion as fact.

                                If I said that it was Tuesday you would argue that it was Wednesday. You’re whole reason for posting is this childish need to have stupid digs at me.

                                Can’t you find someone else to troll?
                                Regards

                                Herlock Sholmes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X