Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Non-Fiction: Jack the Poet - by Richard Patterson 16 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Trevor Marriott 40 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Trevor Marriott 53 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 1 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by MrBarnett 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by Abby Normal 1 hour and 12 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (25 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (11 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack the Poet - (2 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Jack the Poet - (1 posts)
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Letters and Communications > Goulston Street Graffito

View Poll Results: Did Jack write the GSG?
YES 74 38.34%
NO 119 61.66%
Voters: 193. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1951  
Old 09-21-2017, 11:01 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
And, of course, you haven't a shred of evidence to support this argument. But then many contributors to this subject don't think they need anything as banal as actual evidence to support their arguments.

Oh dear, oh dear.
Dear John,

It is not my case to say who was the killer in 1888-1889.

Evidence must be allowed to speak for itself.

I will never accuse dead people.

Evidence is all there is. It is all I have. I have no right to protect old sources.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1952  
Old 09-21-2017, 11:06 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Dear John,

It is not my case to say who was the killer in 1888-1889.

Evidence must be allowed to speak for itself.

I will never accuse dead people.

Evidence is all there is. It is all I have. I have no right to protect old sources.

Pierre
Except since you started posting-several years ago now-you haven't actually posted any evidence in support of your theory. Have you?

And, ultimately, it's not "evidence" that counts; it's how one interprets the evidence.

Last edited by John G : 09-21-2017 at 11:09 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1953  
Old 09-21-2017, 11:36 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

QUOTE=John G;430121

Quote:
Except since you started posting-several years ago now
In fact I started posting two years ago, John.

Quote:
it's not "evidence" that counts; it's how one interprets the evidence.
The sources are in some cases more important than the interpretations.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1954  
Old 09-21-2017, 11:40 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
QUOTE=John G;430121



In fact I started posting two years ago, John.



The sources are in some cases more important than the interpretations.

Pierre
Sources are essentially irrelevant without our interpretations.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1955  
Old 09-21-2017, 11:51 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Sources are essentially irrelevant without our interpretations.
The source quoted here must be interpreted as essentially irrelevant.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1956  
Old 09-21-2017, 05:31 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post

The fact that you "APPARENTLY" do not understand what is very clear, makes your continual misinterpretations understandable.

Steve
I find it astonishing to hear a Brit claim that you cannot use "apparently" in a sentence when you are certain of what you are talking about.
Perhaps someone needs to remind Mr Marriott of the Great British Understatement....
https://notesfromtheuk.com/2017/01/2...nderstatement/
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1957  
Old 09-21-2017, 05:58 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


Note the matching of the two pieces was done via the seams of the borders so that means the two pieces must have come from the same side of the apron. Do you not think that is strange, if she was wearing an apron?
The last time I looked an apron had a border all around, that border is stitched, this stitching is the seam.
All that line says to me is the cut began at one side of the apron and extended across to the opposite side. From border to border.


Quote:
.... and if that be so would still have been attached to the body and would have been recorded as her wearing it.
It was recorded, but not as a piece of apron, it was designated as a handkerchief, in this case meaning a headcovering. Likely due to it being tied around the neck.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1958  
Old 09-21-2017, 06:09 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
No he didnt say that in his testimony he uses the words "apparently wearing"

this without a doubt throws a spanner in the works because as i have said before why wasnt he asked "Officer either she was or she wasnt which is it?"
Dr Brown said:
"Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street."

Do you really think Dr Brown was not sure what faecal matter looks & smells like?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1959  
Old 09-21-2017, 06:33 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,683
Default

So there were three pieces of apron,Jon?The piece found on her body,the piece noted by Collard among her possessions.The Handkerchief around her neck,which wasn't a handkerchief but a piece of apron.
Sorry,four pieces,I forgot the piece Long found.Any advances on four pieces anyone?
Now which piece was brought to the attention of Brown?Not the piece on the body,because the body was nude.
Plus it isn't Brown's notes that survived as evidence,but notes made of Brown's evidence,which as notes seem to contain an extraordinary amount of detail.Perhaps Brown was a very sloe speaker.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1960  
Old 09-21-2017, 06:55 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Well it depends on which scenario you want to believe, which fits in with what you believe happened.

A different killer is quite probable. Someone who knew that the abdomens were ripped open on the other victims and that in some case the intestines were apparently drawn out. Someone who perhaps had a motive for killing Kelly and wanted to make it look like the same killer who had killed the other victims?
In an earlier post, on another thread, you were explaining your theory, and you happened to mention the intestines being "drawn out" in the cases of Chapman & Eddowes.
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=874

There is no uncertainty as to whether those intestines were removed. Both doctors involved in those respected cases described as much. They saw with their own eyes the intestines removed from the bodies. They reported what they saw, it is not open to dispute.
So, when you wrote the sentence above (quoted) you had no reasonable doubt whether the intestines were removed.
Yet, you chose to use "apparently", which tells me you clearly understand it's usage, yet you pretend not to.

The intestines were certainly drawn out.
Dr. Brown's "Apparently wearing" is exactly the same, and you know it.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 09-21-2017 at 06:57 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.