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:
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - by John Wheat 14 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
Levy, Jacob: Jacob Levy - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - by Xoferbean01 3 hours ago.
Levy, Jacob: Jacob Levy - by Xoferbean01 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (11 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - (6 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (5 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (4 posts)
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - (3 posts)
Levy, Jacob: Jacob Levy - (2 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 75 38.66%
NO 119 61.34%
Voters: 194. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #2171  
Old 09-25-2017, 03:06 PM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
I'm far from being Pc Long's greatest admirer but if, as may be the case, he had heard about both the murders which had already been committed that night, would it be unreasonable for him to fear that there might have been a third?
He might have done. He might have thought anything, but don't you think it unlikely that anyone would expect three murders in one night.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2172  
Old 09-25-2017, 03:06 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
No-one has claimed a particular theory has been proven.
The theories we discuss are either consistent with the evidence, or they are not.

Yes but does it not occur to you that the evidence is ambiguous and at times flawed as has been pointed out to you and which you choose to ignore

Your method of scrutiny doesn't appear to be the most popular method.

I will wager mine against yours any day

You have not proved anything wrong.

I dont need to prove anything wrong. All I need to do is create a doubt

Some points you do not like, and others you criticize, but this is not scrutiny, and it certainly doesn't constitute proof that what has gone before is wrong.
You just don't like it, thats all.

No I dont like it, because I can see the obvious flaws and the ambiguities. You have already been told by a medical expert the much of what the doctors stated as opinion or fact back then was nothing more than guesswork.

Where does this "conclusive proof" idea come from?

Well if you readily accept the old theories without question its up to you or others to prove that all that has been written is the truth, and clearly that is not the case so you cant conclusively prove that the old accepted theories can be relied on beyond a reasonable doubt

Have you conclusively proven any part of your theory?

Yes I have proved that the organs were not taken away in the apron piece, as you suggest, and given plausible explanations as to why there would be no need for the killer to cut or tear a piece of her apron, to wipe his knife or his hands on.

Testimony stated the apron was produced "in two pieces".
When I went to school that usually meant two halves make a whole.

But where does it mention anywhere two halves you are making it up again

There are a number of doubts within the existing theories, that doesn't mean they are wrong. Clearly, they cannot all be right, but the doubts are mainly due to missing information, not contradictory information.

No the doubts are caused by ambiguities, and flaws in the evidence and the conflicting newspaper reports, which seem to be held in high esteem by some on here

One of your favorite whipping posts at present is the suggestion that the apron was cut off to carry away the organs.
This is consistent with the evidence - a piece of cloth that was bloodstained, which it was. It is also impractical for the killer to put wet organs in his pockets. So the suggestion is both logical and is consistent with the evidence.
You don't like it, I get that.

I have shown that the organs could not have been taken away in the apron piece, nothing more to say on that

Though speculating that those organs were removed at the mortuary does not create a parallel argument. It's a weak argument because it is entirely speculation, with no evidence to support it.

If it can be proved that the killer did not remove the organs from the body then there has to be another explanation because they were only found to be missing at the post mortem stage

Because someone 'might' have been able to get passed the constable on guard at the mortuary, does not mean they did.
(Does this constable say he let someone in?)

Does he say he let no one in?

Because someone 'might' have had the time to remove them from the corpse, does not mean they did.
(Does the Constable say there were people inside while the doctors were absent?)

Does he say there were not, if did then we would want to know who those were, and what he did while they were inside

Because someone 'might' have had a market for those organs, does not mean they had one.
(Any evidence such a market existed for those organs?)

There was no market I dont know why this term keeps being used. As I have stated dozens of times, bona fide medical personnel, Doctors, anatomists. medical student could lawfully obtain organs for medical research from mortuaries and in some case they could take the whole body.

Because someone 'might' have had authorization to remove the organs prior to the autopsy, does not mean they did.

They could only obtain organs if there were bodies there to obtain them from

(Any note, report, suggestion, or even a clue in writing that medical people were permitted to be alone with the corpse without Dr Brown's knowledge?)

Dr Brown would not have know any organs were missing until the post mortem, when it was then believed that the killer had taken them, when in fact someone form the medical profession could have whipped them out in haste. Bearing in mind both the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes (the only two victims to have organs taken) were left at the mortuary for almost 12 hours before the postmortems were carried out. Neither I nor you or anyone else can say what happened during those windows. We know the bodies should not have been tampered with, but we know that Chapmans body was, so is it wrong to speculate that this is what might have happened?

We also know that no organs were taken or any attempts made to remove organs from any of the other victims, and why was that? Was it because their abdomens had not been ripped open like those of Chapmam and Eddowes thus making it impossible for any organs to be removed at the mortuary for fear of detection.

Lets look at Kelly it has been part of the old accepted theory that the same killer killed Kelly as killed all of the others, and in doing so took away an organ from her in line with taking organs from the other two.

Well if that didn't happen and that the heart was not taken away, not only does it kick a big hole in the overall mystery but it adds even more weight to the organs of Eddowes and Chapman being taken at the mortuary and not by the killer.


You have no evidence, this entire scenario is the stuff of fiction until you start providing evidence that some activity you claim 'could' have happened actually occurred.
There doesn't need to be direct evidence because that is not likely to happen, its all about creating a doubt about the old accepted theories and offering other new plausible explanations, and then it is a matter for the worldwide public to accept or reject, based on the value of the arguments put forward from both camps.

I know that no matter what is put forward on these ripper forums is going to change the way some look at these murders.


I have nothing further to add to this thread now

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2173  
Old 09-25-2017, 03:15 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
That's a serious accusation, Trevor. I think you should either support it with specific examples of things made up by Wickerman or withdraw the slur.
I do not have no the time or the inclination to go back over all the posts on this thread. But he is one of several who have made things up to fit, and to counter an argument and I have no intention of withdrawing what I said because he know its true, and it has been pointed out to him. but he still keeps doing it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2174  
Old 09-25-2017, 03:22 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Posts 1973 & 2041
Incorrect information to promote the new unsupported ideas.

Those in glass houses?

Steve
How petty can you get? Posts 1973/2014 were posted in good faith, the book referred to was a German book written in German. From what i was able to understand all the photos in the book were crime scene photos. The victims photo at first glance does not show the body laid out in a mortuary so an easy mistake. Which I rectified in a later post.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2175  
Old 09-25-2017, 04:08 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I dont need to prove anything wrong. All I need to do is create a doubt
In that, you've succeeded.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2176  
Old 09-25-2017, 05:52 PM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 368
Default

Apron used to carry organs....

The killer,most likely,did not came upon the victim accidentally,he was looking for a victim.Don't you think he came prepared,something easy to put the organs into or wrap with and bring home instead of going through the victim's dress and cutting?He must have gained experience from Chapman.This is more likely.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2177  
Old 09-25-2017, 06:16 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post
Apron used to carry organs....

The killer,most likely,did not came upon the victim accidentally,he was looking for a victim.Don't you think he came prepared,something easy to put the organs into or wrap with and bring home instead of going through the victim's dress and cutting?He must have gained experience from Chapman.This is more likely.
Assuming he came prepared, as you say, then we might also assume he brought something to wipe his hands on.
So what was the point of the piece of cut apron?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2178  
Old 09-25-2017, 06:25 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,684
Default

Joshua,
I obviously have been reading the papers,plus many other sources of information.In addition ivé read overseas papers,and one thing is obvious,they could not all have had reporters at the inquest.In fact,only if one could prove a certain reporter from a particular paper was present,could one speak from a position of certainty when quoting papers.
Now answer this.Did Long do the correct thing in taking the cloth to a police station.It has been pointed out there was another officer present before Long departed,so if Long did know and was acting under the knowledge of Eddowes murder,wasn't it practice,even in 1888,to preserve the crime scene.To leave evidence as found? No other officer,in any of the other murders,removed evidence.Why Long?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2179  
Old 09-25-2017, 06:29 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Why do you think it was a crime scene?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2180  
Old 09-25-2017, 06:35 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,684
Default

Didn't Long have that thought,but Jon,if evidence scene is more suitable,be my guest.
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 10:00 PM.


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