Kate's Apron

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.?

Ive already answered that one Varqm. As I’ve said, of course it’s not physically impossible that she took her apron off. But when we’re trying to suggest a possible conclusion to any issue would you simply list as alternatives everything that’s not impossible? As I sarcastically said, it’s not impossible that someone attacked her a stole her apron. It’s not impossible that she bumped into a woman who desperately needed an apron and so Catherine sold hers. Neither of these are impossible but would anyone consider them at all likely or plausible? And that’s what we’re talking about with your suggestion. Not that it’s physically impossible but that it’s unlikely and not plausible. No matter how hard we think what plausible reason can we think of that might have led her to take off her apron at between 1.0- and 1.30. If she didn’t take it off in the station why would she when she got outside.

Surely you can see that we are talking about likelihood’s and plausibility?

[Trevor Marriott]

-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.

Read the chapter in my book and look at the pics then you might be more convinced

-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.

So he says !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he also doesnt see Dc Halse who it seems was also in GS at the same time as Long,at that time of the night how could they have not seen or heard each other?

--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.

Why would he hide in a building he could have dumped the apron piece anywhere between Mitre Square and GS so why does ge decide to dump it in that archway doesnt make sense.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

The proof is the list of clothing. and the fact that the two pieces as decsribed did not make up a full apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

and sadly your asssement is way off the reality, why would they look to see if she was menstruating for all we know she could have finished, and what would the doctors being looking for recent connection why should they recognise it was a piece of apron, the type victorian women of the lower class would ues for that purpose.

You also cannot prove Eddowes repaired the apron, for all we know that is why the original apron was cut up into pieces because it was of no use as an apron.

I have already covered the statement made by Brown and how that statement can be challenged

Fo all we know the 12 pieces of rag could be the remains of the original apron, although Eddowes was described as a hawker so she could have had them to sell.

When you look carefully at the decscription of the GS piece it has all the hall marks of being used as decsribed and all the hall marks of it being between her legs, It was spotted with blood this is consistent with the menstruation process, it had traces of faecal matter on it. All these stains were on one side only thats also consitent with it being folded and being between her legs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Varqm]

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.

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.?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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)

[Varqm]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[The Baron]

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

[Varqm]

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.

[JeffHamm]

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.

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.

https://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