Kate's Apron

[Herlock Sholmes]

. i have alreday explained how there evidence could be construed as being unsafe to rely on

Im sorry but this small sentence is Trevor in a nutshell.

”I’ve explained it to you so why aren’t you simply accepting my opinion as fact.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Again, it's not my fault you don't understand your own statements. You described the apron being cut into 3 pieces. Two pieces are in the possession of the police. 3 -2 = 1, there is one piece still unaccounted for. It's your theory, you need to account for it. People are asking you to account for the missing piece you yourself introduce without justification.

Now, let me help you. You recently did account for it, though you seem to have forgotten that. That's not surprising as it is easy to forget something you made up on the Spurr of the moment. Anyway, what you speculated at that time was that half the apron was thrown away, or cut up and used for other purposes, by Kate long before the night if the murder. So while it technically would exist, it's been lost/discarded long before the night in question.

And what people have pointed out is that there was no way for the police, or the inquest, to know that at the time. Since the police were saying she was wearing the apron, and you are describing an unwearable garment, then the inquest would have to presume the rest of the apron is still unaccounted for and so may be in the street somewhere offering further evidence about JtR s flight path. Yet nowhere is this concern indicated. Your explanation for the missing piece is irrational. Perhaps that is why you are back to saying two pieces do not make a whole but nothing is missing. One irrationality is as good as another I suppose.

I haven’t noticed a response to this post from Jeff

[harry]

The problem is George,the many differing accounts there are.Take Eddowes leaving the police station for example.Another source has Hutt letting her out of the cells,telling her she could go,watching her walk to the door,watched her open the door,and then close the door behind her as she left.If that should be true,then no one was in a position to observe which direction she took on leaving.
That two pieces of apron matched ,comes supposedly from an observation made by Dr Brown,whose attention was drawn to the pieces.How and why he should have been interfering with what was then police evidence has not been properly explained,but as his is the only claim it happened,one is skating on thin ice in accepting it.
Same goes for Long.He removed evidence,if his account can be accepted as true.All that is known in Long's case is that he was observed by another police officer outside a building with a piece of material in his hands.
But take heart,No coroner or coronial jury declared Cross to be a mad person,and was responsible for a murder.It appears they could have done so.
Not from Adelaide are you George?

[Trevor Marriott]

Why the hell would the police have planted the apron in Goulston Street? They had absolutely nothing to gain in this and the fact that you even consider it says a lot.

Halse was at the crime scene and by his own admiission past by the GS archway after the murder

There has to be a plausible explantion as to how the apron piece got to GS when she was not wearing an apron for the killer to have cut a piece and taken it away

The ones put forward dont really stand uo to close scrutiny

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can’t see how we’re ‘skating on thin ice’ in accepting Brown, Harry? He was given the piece to see if it matched up to the apron piece at the mortuary, which it did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Halse was at the crime scene and by his own admiission past by the GS archway after the murder

There has to be a plausible explantion as to how the apron piece got to GS when she was not wearing an apron for the killer to have cut a piece and taken it away

The ones put forward dont really stand uo to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Please don’t try suggesting that they were doing this to prove that Halse didn’t plant it there?

Even if they could think of no reason for the killer to have taken it away ‘creating’ a reason serves no purpose. You are hopelessly clutching at straws. The apron piece being at Goulston Street was next to useless as evidence. It showed that the killer went from Mitre Square to Goulston Street. Hardly a clincher is it? He could have gone anywhere after that. So there was absolutely no reason for lies to show that he did this. A motive for this deception doesn’t exist.

The apron was dropped by the killer. All else is conspiracist nonsense.

[Trevor Marriott]

Please don’t try suggesting that they were doing this to prove that Halse didn’t plant it there?

Even if they could think of no reason for the killer to have taken it away ‘creating’ a reason serves no purpose. You are hopelessly clutching at straws. The apron piece being at Goulston Street was next to useless as evidence. It showed that the killer went from Mitre Square to Goulston Street. Hardly a clincher is it? He could have gone anywhere after that. So there was absolutely no reason for lies to show that he did this. A motive for this deception doesn’t exist.

The apron was dropped by the killer. All else is conspiracist nonsense.

You need to take the blinkers off and read and digest fully what has been posted on this topic because your posts and replies clearly suggest you are not doing that. All you are doing is keep spouting the same old same that you believe she was wearing an apron and you dont seem to be able consider alternatives.

If the killer didnt cut it becasue he could not have done if she was not wearing an apron then there has to be another explantion as to how it got to GS. I have gone to great lengths to explain other explantions and to negate the suggestions that the killer cut it and took it away to wipe his hands on or to wipe the knife but you have your head buried in the sand and are oblivious to anything outside of what you believe, and not what the facts and the evidence tells us

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Does it actually say that Herlock?Who gave it to him? It should have been in posession of the police after being taken from the body.Doesn't seem to be clear evidence of anything.

[Trevor Marriott]

Does it actually say that Herlock?Who gave it to him? It should have been in posession of the police after being taken from the body.Doesn't seem to be clear evidence of anything.

Harry
The GS piece when found was first taken to Leman St Polioce station where Dr Phillips was still present. It was he who took it the following day prior to the post mortem to the mortuary where Dr Brown records it was matched to the mortuary piece.

We do not have a recorded size of either piece but if she had been only wearing an apron that simply tied around the waist then we must assune that neither piece was of any significant size, and this is why I say that the two pieces when matched by reason of how they were matched could not have made up a full apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

You need to take the blinkers off and read and digest fully what has been posted on this topic because your posts and replies clearly suggest you are not doing that. All you are doing is keep spouting the same old same that you believe she was wearing an apron and you dont seem to be able consider alternatives.

If the killer didnt cut it becasue he could not have done if she was not wearing an apron then there has to be another explantion as to how it got to GS. I have gone to great lengths to explain other explantions and to negate the suggestions that the killer cut it and took it away to wipe his hands on or to wipe the knife but you have your head buried in the sand and are oblivious to anything outside of what you believe, and not what the facts and the evidence tells us

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He could have cut the apron even if it was one of her possessions and not wearing it. Same. But she was wearing it.

So PC Long was wrong, the apron was there in Goulston at around 2:20 AM? It would have been there if Eddowes placed it there.
Halse did not look inside the dwelling in Goulston in his first pass and said it "diplomatically" in the inquest.If he planted it why would
he testify in the inquest that he passed there at around 2:20 AM and expose himself. Planting that apron was a big deal.

In Mitre Square there were policemen guarding the body and nobody could have stolen it. The body was accompanied by the 2 doctors, Halse,Collard as it was brought to the mortuary. Charles Warren and Matthews were concerned if there was a possibility of somebody stealing a piece of the apron and placing it in Goulston.

Tell you what lets just get rid of Dr. Brown's testimony including his post-mortem report, he was unreliable. Also disregard the testimonies of Collard ,PC Long and Halse.

[Doctored Whatsit]

PC Long reported that he found a portion of an apron in Goulston Street. Trevor's view is that this portion was merely a bottom corner not of "any significant size", representing maybe one quarter of an apron or less, with no strings attached to it. Would such a piece be immediately identifiable as a portion of apron? I think it would probably have been called a blood spotted rag, unlikely to be recognized positively as from an apron. Halse's report also shows that it was at once recognized as a piece of an apron, and then handed to Dr Phillips.

[GBinOz]

You are right this thread has become long boring and tiresome for me having to keep going over the same points.

In answer to your question yes the evidence points to her not wearing an apron "at the time" she was killed. The evidence from the mortuary points to her simply being in possession of two old pieces of an apron which had come from an original apron. One found in GS and the other listed amongst her possessions.

How the Gs got to that location is another contentious issue there are three options

1. The Killer took one of the pieces she had in her possesion for whatever purpose and disposed of it in GS
2. She deposited it herself after leaving the police station and before she met her killer
3. The City police removed it from the crime scene and planted it in GS

If you have been following the you will know that I dont subscribe to 1 or 3 and dont subscribe to the killer removing and taking away the organs for the reasons which are fully documented

i hope this help with clarification

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my queries.

I have to admit to not following the details of this thread as they seem interminable, but I do recall one of your youtube presentations where you suggested that the organs were removed after the body had been taken to the morgue. I can only say that I have yet to form an opinion on that theory.

Of your three options, I have difficulty with your option 2 as, even if the blood could be attributed to a sanitary napkin, the faeces would remain unexplained. Your option 3 is too conspiratorial even for me. I would have to go with your option 1, and my question remains - why did he need to take the cloth unless for some unanticipated reason.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

The problem is George,the many differing accounts there are.

Not from Adelaide are you George?

Hi Harry,

You're not wrong on the differing accounts statement. It seems that no evidence can be accepted - everything has a connotation to support one theory or another. But if it were easy it wouldn't be a billion dollar industry inhabited by fanatics like us.

I live just outside the little town of Narooma on the far south coast of NSW.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

You need to take the blinkers off and read and digest fully what has been posted on this topic because your posts and replies clearly suggest you are not doing that.

No Trevor, what’s annoying you is that I and others have read everything that you’ve posted but we don’t accept your interpretations as fact and you, as ever, feel that your opinions should be treated as such. You’re the one positing the theory therefore the onus is on you to defend by answering specific questions and not spouting the same old dismissive generalities which is exactly what you’re doing.

All you are doing is keep spouting the same old same that you believe she was wearing an apron and you dont seem to be able consider alternatives.

We have considered the alternatives and see no value in them as they are speculative interpretations on your part which have been skewed by your own bias. So much so that you dismiss inconvenient witness on zero grounds except for your desperation to shoehorn your theory into place.

If the killer didnt cut it becasue he could not have done if she was not wearing an apron then there has to be another explantion as to how it got to GS.

Of course but as the evidence shows that she was wearing an apron your point is moot.

I have gone to great lengths to explain other explantions and to negate the suggestions that the killer cut it and took it away to wipe his hands on or to wipe the knife but you have your head buried in the sand and are oblivious to anything outside of what you believe, and not what the facts and the evidence tells us

Yes you’ve gone to great lengths to try and shoehorn the theory in to place. The reason that we don’t accept it isn’t because we haven’t read what you’ve said, it isn’t because we haven’t understood what you’ve said, it’s because we don’t accept that you’re correct. I realise that you struggle to cope with the notion that someone believes you to be wrong but that’s life.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Three witnesses saw her wearing an apron. Therefore she was wearing an apron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my queries.

I have to admit to not following the details of this thread as they seem interminable, but I do recall one of your youtube presentations where you suggested that the organs were removed after the body had been taken to the morgue. I can only say that I have yet to form an opinion on that theory.

Of your three options, I have difficulty with your option 2 as, even if the blood could be attributed to a sanitary napkin, the faeces would remain unexplained. Your option 3 is too conspiratorial even for me. I would have to go with your option 1, and my question remains - why did he need to take the cloth unless for some unanticipated reason.

Cheers, George

And why did 3 witnesses, including 2 police officers who were in her company for an extended period, all say without equivocation that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she died. Trevor tries to dismiss these inconvenient witnesses.