Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • 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.

    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.
    No you do not the difference. For the 100th time, there are no testimonies about the apron after Hutt's 1:00 AM sighting of the apron, it is blank,. From after 1:00 am to 1;44 am to 2:20 am (Halse's return from Goulston, then he accompanied the body to the mortuary with Collard,Brown,Sequiera,) there is no testimony about the apron and no amount of speculation/opinion could change that. Those are the facts. This you do not understand.
    And instead you put your opinions oh she must have done this or that ,why would she, why would she not, between 1:00 Am and 1:44 Am. like it was fact. You are the baby.

    So we have to rely on the next testimony about the apron, which was from Collard/Brown/Halse at the mortuary.
    Last edited by Varqm; 08-10-2021, 07:05 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 Varqm View Post

      You are right, forgot that part.
      And, it's precisely because he/they didn't see the victims face, that there was expressed uncertainty that he/they had seen the victim at all. He/they were not allowed to view the body to identify her.
      Regards, Jon S.

      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..
        Anal intercourse was the norm for street prostitutes, their version of 'safe-sex'. An apron doesn't impede anal intercourse.



        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
          ...

          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.
          One distinct factor each ill-conceived theory has in common is, the requirement for police & medical officials to be fools.

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Hi Trevor,

            I think this is a good idea, and here is what I mean about your experience being a benefit. It is good to go over various ideas and determine which is the most supported, which can be ruled out, and which might not be entirely ruled out and for which one would then continue to investigate to determine if it can be.

            One can always speculate ways to keep any option in, but there comes a point where those speculations become so implausible that they get ruled out.



            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Let me come back to this again

            Lets move forward to the Gs piece what are the possibilities IO know these have been discussed many time before but I think they are now important to debate further.

            1.She was wearing an apron and the killer cut a piece taking it with him and depositing it in GS

            2. If she was not wearing an apron at the time she was killed then the killer could not have cut the piece and taken it away which was found at GS
            I don't understand why the killer could not have cut it if it was in her possessions? Other possessions were found scattered at the crime scene, so it appears her posessions did get spilled. For example, if he didn't go through her possessions that were found on the ground, but pulled out the apron and those other things get spilled in the process, he could cut a piece from it then. (similar to #4, except the apron doesn't start off as cut into two pieces)

            I suggest #2 would be better described as:

            2. If she was not wearing an apron at the time she was killed then the killer cut a piece from the one she possessed and took it to GS where he deposited it.


            3. IF she was wearing an apron she could have cut a piece from the apron whilst in custody before her release.

            4. If she had been in possesions of two old pieces of apron which at some time in the past had made part of a full apron the killer could have taken one of the pieces in her possession and deposited it in GS as to why I will expand on shortly.

            5. Eddowes was menstruating and had used one of the two pieces in her possession as a sanitary device and deposited it herself after leaving the police station.

            6. Dc Halse removed one of the two pieces from the crime scene and deposited in GS which was on Met territory Halse being a city detective

            Now I will analyse each of the above

            1-2 There is very little to say on these specific topics which has not alreday been said so I am not going to dwell.

            3. We know she was in possession of a knife and we dont know if that was taken off whilst she was in custody. If it wasnt then as Harry suggests she could have cut a piece from the apron herself. The problem with this scenario is that the evidence from the mortuary tells us that the two pieces when matched did not make up a full apron in any event.
            The notion the two pieces don't make up a full apron has been demonstrated to be false. Wikerman showed that the two pieces were shown at the inquest in response to a witness who requested seeing the whole thing in order to answer a question about whether it was the one he recalled her seeing. When the pieces the police had were shown, the witness stated that they believed the apron shown was the one she was wearing, meaning it looked similar and they had no reason to believe there was a mixup, etc. Since the witness requested seeing the whole thing, if they had two pieces that made up less than the whole thing, they would have indicated "I cannot tell as that is not a whole apron". Even if that were the case, it begs the question about where the apron that she was wearing has gone, since the witness testifies to her wearing one and she can't wear the incomplete apron you describe.


            4. If she has simply been in possession of two pieces of apron and the killer took one we have to ask the question why, to answer that question we have to look at how the Gs piece was described, and we have different descriptions from being wet with blood, to being wet and spotted with blood with traces of feacal matter.

            It has been suggested that the killer took it away with for for three purposes

            To wipe his bloody hands on I think despite what the doctor says that it had the appearance of a hand or knife being wiped. We are able to challenge this by showing that the staining was only on one side. Now if the killer as is suggested had his hands in a blood filled abdomen and then cut the piece to either wipe his knife or his hands.i would expect to see signs of staining on both sides of the apron.

            Furthermore would the killer have carried such and incriminating piece of evidence that distance before disposing of it?
            If the apron piece was as large as has been applied, it was likely folded, at least once, which would keep the staining on one side. The fact it was found in G.S., which is not particularly far from the crime scene, does suggest as you imply, they don't want to retain it for longer than necessary. If they've got blood and faecal matter on their hands, they would want to remove that pretty well, and would only start once they're some distance from the immediate area (particularly if they've fled because of PC Harvey's arrival).


            The general consenus is that the killer carried the organs away in it, However I have effcetively shown this to not be an option having regard for how the apron would have been decsribed if fresh organs from a body were taken away in it
            I've seen that suggested, but I don't think that is well supported by the evidence, nor was I aware that it was a popular belief (I didn't know there was any sort of general consensus on this). The testimony of the doctor's points to it being used to wipe his hands and/or knife. Also, it seems improbable that he would dispose of something he used to wrap organs in while still fleeing the scene. I suppose, though, given the time the apron was found, there is the possibility that JtR gets home, removes the organs, then goes out again and drops it. But that still doesn't fit with the description of the stains that indicate it was used for cleaning up.


            5. Is quiet easy to explain if she was not wearing an apron but had been in possession of two old pieces she could have quite easily been using one as a sanitary device which had become wet and soiled whilst in custody and on leaving and making her was back in the direction of Flower and Dean street a route which would have taken her past the GS archway she could have gone under the arch to go to the toilet and then disposed of the soiled piece of apron, and then deciding against going to her lodgings. It should be noted that she would have had time to walk to GS and back to MS following her release.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            The problem with 5 is she was wearing an apron, and was when in the drunk tank. She had 12 rags on her she could use as sanitary napkins. She was examined for sexual activity, and if she was menstruating at the time that would be noted. There is no blood on her legs according to the medical testimony, which there would be if she was menstruating and removed the piece in G.S. If she finished menstruating, she would have removed it in the privacy of her cell, not in the street. Her last known direction of movement is not towards Flower and Dean, but in a direction that would take her to where she was found. There is no description anywhere that there was urine on the cloth. Basically, none of the details of #5 have any foundation, and falls into the category of things we can think of, but for which there is no evidence.

            This would be the type of explanation that would require you to go out and either find evidence to support it, or find evidence that refutes it. Right now, however, the details show up nowhere in the evidence we do have. That makes it unsupported. Also, this explanation means she was not wearing the apron, and there are numerous testimonies to the fact she was.

            Given the numerous sightings of her wearing an apron that day, the implausibility of her cutting up her own clothes to obtain a piece of cloth when she already had 12 pieces of cloth, we can rule out versions that do not have her wearing an apron to start. In the end, the most supported and plausible explanation ends up being the first listed.

            If some of the others are considered still viable, then they need more investigation to produce evidence, but they would still be ranked as "improbable alternatives that have not yet been fully ruled out". It could, of course, turn out that if we could do that investigation and evidence gathering, the new evidence would end up changing the order of plausibility, but without that new evidence, we have what we have.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              And, it's precisely because he/they didn't see the victims face, that there was expressed uncertainty that he/they had seen the victim at all. He/they were not allowed to view the body to identify her.
              Yes .Lawende said enough including to Henry Smith. But he identified her from the clothes, from the frame?. So the killer was facing them 9 to 10 feet away, and I've wondered whether one of Lawende/Levy/harris were asked, privately by the police, if the man was foreign looking or not. Like Liz Long described her sense of the man in Hanbury, [Coroner] Did he look like a working man, or what? - He looked like a foreigner.
              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

                No you do not the difference. For the 100th time, there are no testimonies about the apron after Hutt's 1:00 AM sighting of the apron, it is blank,. From after 1:00 am to 1;44 am to 2:20 am (Halse's return from Goulston, then he accompanied the body to the mortuary with Collard,Brown,Sequiera,) there is no testimony about the apron and no amount of speculation/opinion could change that. Those are the facts. This you do not understand.
                And instead you put your opinions oh she must have done this or that ,why would she, why would she not, between 1:00 Am and 1:44 Am. like it was fact. You are the baby.

                So we have to rely on the next testimony about the apron, which was from Collard/Brown/Halse at the mortuary.


                Now read this post Herlock, open your eyes and soul to it, grasp it, read it again and again.. squeeze it.. swallow it.. and digest it, because it is the only fact that you will ever have.

                Your speculations are of no interest, you want to believe she was wearing an apron just for the hell of it then do it, but don't jump to anyone if he didn't share your lovely 'speculations'..


                Understand?!



                The Baron

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                  No you do not the difference. For the 100th time, there are no testimonies about the apron after Hutt's 1:00 AM sighting of the apron, it is blank,. From after 1:00 am to 1;44 am to 2:20 am (Halse's return from Goulston, then he accompanied the body to the mortuary with Collard,Brown,Sequiera,) there is no testimony about the apron and no amount of speculation/opinion could change that. Those are the facts. This you do not understand.
                  And instead you put your opinions oh she must have done this or that ,why would she, why would she not, between 1:00 Am and 1:44 Am. like it was fact. You are the baby.

                  So we have to rely on the next testimony about the apron, which was from Collard/Brown/Halse at the mortuary.
                  Will you stop saying that I don’t understand because I understand perfectly well?

                  We know that she was wearing an apron when she entered the police station and we know that she was wearing one when she left. Of course there’s no further evidence until the Inquest. How can you possibly think that I don’t understand that?

                  What I am questioning is your suggestion that she took off her apron after she left the station in the just over 30 minutes before she was killed. The Baron’s suggestion is beyond preposterous to anyone with half a brain. Of course it’s not physically impossible that she took off her apron but that doesn’t make it reasonable or likely. If your bar for the validity of a suggestion is “well it’s not impossible’ then you pretty much remove any point in using judgment. It’s not impossible that there was a mugger around that only stole aprons but it’s hardly likely or plausible is it?

                  So we are talking about likelihood’s. Whether something is plausible in the absence of CCTV footage! So, and I can’t make this any clearer to you or your fan, whilst it’s not physically impossible that Eddowes left the station and decided to whip off her apron and carry it, it’s neither likely or plausible.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  Comment


                  • Surely the task is to change the status quo?

                    As Hutt was the last person to see Kate alive, and Hutt saw her wearing an apron. Then that is the status quo.
                    The burden of proof lies with anyone who suggests she removed it, or someone else removed it. No proof is required to say she kept it on, it already is 'on'.
                    Where proof is needed is to suggest it was taken off.

                    The status quo is the rule to break, if it cannot be broken by facts, then the status quo rules the day.
                    This is a general rule of thumb in any investigation.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                      Now read this post Herlock, open your eyes and soul to it, grasp it, read it again and again.. squeeze it.. swallow it.. and digest it, because it is the only fact that you will ever have.

                      Your speculations are of no interest, you want to believe she was wearing an apron just for the hell of it then do it, but don't jump to anyone if he didn't share your lovely 'speculations'..


                      Understand?!



                      The Baron
                      And what is the suggestion that she took off her apron then? A fact? We’re you or Varqm there? Are you privy to some secret piece of information that no one else has heard of?

                      No…..it’s SPECULATION and it’s not remotely likely or plausible. The only reason that’s it’s being suggested is because you cannot, however much you try, get past the FACT that 3 people testified under oath that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was arrested. And as this inconvenient FACT annoys you and Varqm you’ve tried to get around it with this SPECULATION that she took off her apron after she left the station for which there’s not a single plausible reason. You’re suggestion Baron is embarrassing nonsense of course but that’s your speciality.

                      So you are both SPECULATING to try and sidestep the FACT of there being 3 very inconvenient witnesses. And of course you’re opinion is of no consequence because you only post in opposition to me because it appears to be your hobby.

                      Both of you should try leaving the playground for a change and simply discuss the topic at hand without your obsession with trying to score points over me. Grow up.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Let me come back to this again

                        Lets move forward to the Gs piece what are the possibilities IO know these have been discussed many time before but I think they are now important to debate further.

                        1.She was wearing an apron and the killer cut a piece taking it with him and depositing it in GS

                        2. If she was not wearing an apron at the time she was killed then the killer could not have cut the piece and taken it away which was found at GS

                        3. IF she was wearing an apron she could have cut a piece from the apron whilst in custody before her release.

                        4. If she had been in possesions of two old pieces of apron which at some time in the past had made part of a full apron the killer could have taken one of the pieces in her possession and deposited it in GS as to why I will expand on shortly.

                        5. Eddowes was menstruating and had used one of the two pieces in her possession as a sanitary device and deposited it herself after leaving the police station.

                        6. Dc Halse removed one of the two pieces from the crime scene and deposited in GS which was on Met territory Halse being a city detective

                        Now I will analyse each of the above

                        1-2 There is very little to say on these specific topics which has not alreday been said so I am not going to dwell.

                        3. We know she was in possession of a knife and we dont know if that was taken off whilst she was in custody. If it wasnt then as Harry suggests she could have cut a piece from the apron herself. The problem with this scenario is that the evidence from the mortuary tells us that the two pieces when matched did not make up a full apron in any event.

                        4. If she has simply been in possession of two pieces of apron and the killer took one we have to ask the question why, to answer that question we have to look at how the Gs piece was described, and we have different descriptions from being wet with blood, to being wet and spotted with blood with traces of feacal matter.

                        It has been suggested that the killer took it away with for for three purposes

                        To wipe his bloody hands on I think despite what the doctor says that it had the appearance of a hand or knife being wiped. We are able to challenge this by showing that the staining was only on one side. Now if the killer as is suggested had his hands in a blood filled abdomen and then cut the piece to either wipe his knife or his hands.i would expect to see signs of staining on both sides of the apron.

                        Furthermore would the killer have carried such and incriminating piece of evidence that distance before disposing of it?

                        The general consenus is that the killer carried the organs away in it, However I have effcetively shown this to not be an option having regard for how the apron would have been decsribed if fresh organs from a body were taken away in it

                        5. Is quiet easy to explain if she was not wearing an apron but had been in possession of two old pieces she could have quite easily been using one as a sanitary device which had become wet and soiled whilst in custody and on leaving and making her was back in the direction of Flower and Dean street a route which would have taken her past the GS archway she could have gone under the arch to go to the toilet and then disposed of the soiled piece of apron, and then deciding against going to her lodgings. It should be noted that she would have had time to walk to GS and back to MS following her release.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                        -To wipe his bloody hands on I think despite what the doctor says that it had the appearance of a hand or knife being wiped. We are able to challenge this by showing that the staining was only on one side. Now if the killer as is suggested had his hands in a blood filled abdomen and then cut the piece to either wipe his knife or his hands.i would expect to see signs of staining on both sides of the apron.

                        Yes but you are speculating what the stains actually look like and how the ripper wiped his knife - it could have also been accidental as he used the knife to cut the apron. When he held the apron ,cutting it and carrying it, blood most likely touched the apron. This is unsolvable.

                        -Is quiet easy to explain if she was not wearing an apron but had been in possession of two old pieces she could have quite easily been using one as a sanitary device which had become wet and soiled whilst in custody and on leaving and making her was back in the direction of Flower and Dean street a route which would have taken her past the GS archway she could have gone under the arch to go to the toilet and then disposed of the soiled piece of apron, and then deciding against going to her lodgings. It should be noted that she would have had time to walk to GS and back to MS following her release.

                        But you are ignoring PC Long's testimony.The portion of the apron was not there at 2:20 Am so Eddowes could not have dropped it. This is asking for too much, disregard PC Long's testimony.

                        --The general consenus is that the killer carried the organs away in it, However I have effcetively shown this to not be an option having regard for how the apron would have been decsribed if fresh organs from a body were taken away in it

                        That was a useful experiment. But this was not the only possible reason he wanted that useless half/apron as there were other items of clothing he could have taken quicker, without the need to cut.
                        He already had experience in dealing with organs, taking them ,from Chapman's murder and he wanted organs. What if he came prepared and had a pouch/container for it this time? And used the apron for other purposes like planning to put it somewhere and write the graffito? We just do not know. A piece of apron was more likely to be connected to Eddowes than her other possessions ? This is unsolvable.

                        --Furthermore would the killer have carried such and incriminating piece of evidence that distance before disposing of it?

                        I believe in PC :Long and cannot disregard him. Around 10 minutes walk to Goulston from Mitre square, the portion of the apron was not there at 2:20 am.,so it was at least around 35 minutes before he got rid of it. Which tells us he either hid in a building opening/alley/etc. or he had a bolt hole, but whichever of those it was it was just "temporary", he wanted to go somewhere else.
                        Last edited by Varqm; 08-10-2021, 08:37 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 Wickerman View Post
                          Surely the task is to change the status quo?

                          As Hutt was the last person to see Kate alive, and Hutt saw her wearing an apron. Then that is the status quo.
                          The burden of proof lies with anyone who suggests she removed it, or someone else removed it. No proof is required to say she kept it on, it already is 'on'.
                          Where proof is needed is to suggest it was taken off.

                          The status quo is the rule to break, if it cannot be broken by facts, then the status quo rules the day.
                          This is a general rule of thumb in any investigation.
                          Exactly Wick. At the very, least a plausible reason should be suggested for why she ‘might’ have done this but there’s none. The Baron’s was laughable of course. The only thing that’s being said is ‘well it’s not impossible.’ And that’s it. I’m sure that we could come up with a huge list of things that ‘aren’t impossible’ but that doesn’t make them remotely plausible or likely.

                          Can you believe these kind of posts are made? Is it any wonder that a bit of exasperation creeps in? Even Jeff gets exasperated on here and he’s as calm and reasonable as it gets. (You too Wick)
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                            Surely the task is to change the status quo?

                            As Hutt was the last person to see Kate alive, and Hutt saw her wearing an apron. Then that is the status quo.
                            The burden of proof lies with anyone who suggests she removed it, or someone else removed it. No proof is required to say she kept it on, it already is 'on'.
                            Where proof is needed is to suggest it was taken off.

                            The status quo is the rule to break, if it cannot be broken by facts, then the status quo rules the day.
                            This is a general rule of thumb in any investigation.
                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Will you stop saying that I don’t understand because I understand perfectly well?

                            We know that she was wearing an apron when she entered the police station and we know that she was wearing one when she left. Of course there’s no further evidence until the Inquest. How can you possibly think that I don’t understand that?

                            What I am questioning is your suggestion that she took off her apron after she left the station in the just over 30 minutes before she was killed. The Baron’s suggestion is beyond preposterous to anyone with half a brain. Of course it’s not physically impossible that she took off her apron but that doesn’t make it reasonable or likely. If your bar for the validity of a suggestion is “well it’s not impossible’ then you pretty much remove any point in using judgment. It’s not impossible that there was a mugger around that only stole aprons but it’s hardly likely or plausible is it?

                            So we are talking about likelihood’s. Whether something is plausible in the absence of CCTV footage! So, and I can’t make this any clearer to you or your fan, whilst it’s not physically impossible that Eddowes left the station and decided to whip off her apron and carry it, it’s neither likely or plausible.
                            Let's just stick to the time between 1:05 Am to 1:30 Am., forget the rest, Brown/Collards testimony and the inquest.
                            If somebody is going to the electric chair based on your answer and if your answer is yes he will be, if no not, and the question is, yes or no:

                            Are you sure she did not take off her apron between 1:05 am and 1:30 am.?


                            Last edited by Varqm; 08-10-2021, 09:19 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 Varqm View Post

                              Are you sure she did not take off her apron between 1:05 am and 1:30 am.?
                              Yes.
                              You've read testimony taken on oath.

                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                Yes.,
                                You've read testimony taken on oath.
                                But I said forget the rest, you included Collards/Brown/Halse's testimonies but without them? We are talking about 1:05 am and 1:30 am..
                                That's what I'm saying it was those trio's testimonies that clinched it, not before.

                                Enough of this thread.
                                Last edited by Varqm; 08-10-2021, 09:47 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

                                Working...
                                X