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:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Robert St Devil 6 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Graham 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (14 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (4 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (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 > Motive, Method and Madness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-23-2016, 01:57 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Trevor,

If you actually read what was posted you would see I did not rule out the possibility of her heading in the direction of Goulston street, upon her release.
I however did ask about the timing involved in proceeding back to Mitre Square for 1.30am, which you of course basically ignore,your only comment being

"and then perhaps decided against going home and decided to go back to the Mitre Sq area thus meeting her killer."


Yes maybe she did, who knows?

However there is no attempt by you to look at the timings involved, to see what is possible? and what is probable?


Go on there is plenty of data out there to help.


And then to make the possibility more improbable you, out of left field, suggest she may have stopped for a client before returning to Mitre Square,

Do you actually listen to yourself?


Actually if you read what Harriet said, it was she liked the idea no more, no less.

And many believe, from the sources that it was wet, with blood.

Steve
I see no problem with the timings she would have had enough time to walk to Goulston street and back to Mitre square using those as two fixed points.

The reference to her heading in the direction of Houndsditch away from where she lived is academic. How do we know that she didn't simply turn around unseen, after being seen to walk in the direction of Houndsditch, or take another route back in the direction of Flower and Dean Street?

Did you actually read my post? When referring to the wetness, I said it was inconclusive. Of course there are those who want to accept the various sources that infer the wetness was the blood because it fits nicely with the old accepted theory.

The point is we now have alternatives to that old accepted theory. Can we realistically say any of them are correct? Can we say that the old accepted theory is correct. The answer is no to all. But what we can do is to look at all the connecting evidence regarding the apron, which is a pointer as to which of the four may be the most likely.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-23-2016, 04:52 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I see no problem with the timings she would have had enough time to walk to Goulston street and back to Mitre square using those as two fixed points.
Would she? that is certainly open to debate. and my point of course was that in your initial post you did not even mention it, now you have. end of issue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
The reference to her heading in the direction of Houndsditch away from where she lived is academic. How do we know that she didn't simply turn around unseen, after being seen to walk in the direction of Houndsditch, or take another route back in the direction of Flower and Dean Street?



Did you actually read my post? When referring to the wetness, I said it was inconclusive. Of course there are those who want to accept the various sources that infer the wetness was the blood because it fits nicely with the old accepted theory.

Yes unlike some whom it appears never read posts fully, I do and there were all possibilities listed apart from one!
There was no mention by you at all of the possibility of blood being the cause, in your post.

If you reread your post you will see that is a fact.

Despite your attempt to forget the blood explanation, it was the opinion expressed by the coroner, who unlike you or was there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
The point is we now have alternatives to that old accepted theory. Can we realistically say any of them are correct? Can we say that the old accepted theory is correct. The answer is no to all. But what we can do is to look at all the connecting evidence regarding the apron, which is a pointer as to which of the four may be the most likely.
No Trevor, you have total failed to prove that the "old idea" regarding the apron is faulty.

You have provided questions on the subject which I believe have been more than adequately answered, that you do not wish to accept such answers is down to you and your needs.



Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-23-2016, 06:08 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

The point is we now have alternatives to that old accepted theory. Can we realistically say any of them are correct? Can we say that the old accepted theory is correct. The answer is no to all. But what we can do is to look at all the connecting evidence regarding the apron, which is a pointer as to which of the four may be the most likely.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
And that's what we do, all the time, Trevor. All the posters on the countless threads dealing with this over all the years you have been saying this have carefully read and researched for themsleves what was investigated, considered and concluded regarding the apron at the time, weighed it up against your proposals and found your scenario the least acceptable and lacking important detail. You then always end up by insulting everyone who disagrees with you by claiming that they are blinkered, deluded guarding the old accepted facts and praise those you say agree with you, although none of those that agree with you seem to want to post to address any specific issues raised.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-23-2016, 07:05 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
And that's what we do, all the time, Trevor. All the posters on the countless threads dealing with this over all the years you have been saying this have carefully read and researched for themsleves what was investigated, considered and concluded regarding the apron at the time, weighed it up against your proposals and found your scenario the least acceptable and lacking important detail. You then always end up by insulting everyone who disagrees with you by claiming that they are blinkered, deluded guarding the old accepted facts and praise those you say agree with you, although none of those that agree with you seem to want to post to address any specific issues raised.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it is how they arrive at those opinions at times is questionable

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-23-2016, 07:11 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Would she? that is certainly open to debate. and my point of course was that in your initial post you did not even mention it, now you have. end of issue.





Yes unlike some whom it appears never read posts fully, I do and there were all possibilities listed apart from one!
There was no mention by you at all of the possibility of blood being the cause, in your post.

If you reread your post you will see that is a fact.

Despite your attempt to forget the blood explanation, it was the opinion expressed by the coroner, who unlike you or was there.




No Trevor, you have total failed to prove that the "old idea" regarding the apron is faulty.

You have provided questions on the subject which I believe have been more than adequately answered, that you do not wish to accept such answers is down to you and your needs.

Steve
I have put forward enough to suggest that the old accepted theory is not conclusive, and that there are other alternatives to be considered. That is fact, whether you accept it or not, it is not going to change.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-23-2016, 07:18 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I have put forward enough to suggest that the old accepted theory is not conclusive, and that there are other alternatives to be considered. That is fact, whether you accept it or not, it is not going to change.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
If you think that so be it.


steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-24-2016, 12:28 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I have put forward enough to suggest that the old accepted theory is not conclusive, and that there are other alternatives to be considered. That is fact, whether you accept it or not, it is not going to change.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Hi Trevor,

you are speaking a lot about the apron but you do not discuss the fact that it was an apron. Why not?

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-25-2016, 01:05 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi Trevor,

you are speaking a lot about the apron but you do not discuss the fact that it was an apron. Why not?

Regards, Pierre
Pierre

The old accepted theory is that she was wearing an apron at the time of her murder, and that it was the killer who cut or tore a piece, depositing that piece in Goulston Street.

That theory may not be as watertight as some believe it to be. The GS and the mortuary pieces have always been described as pieces. There is no mention of anyone matching those two pieces to make a full apron. In fact we know that one of the pieces had a string attached, but there is no mention of the second piece having a string attached.

So an important question is if she was wearing an apron what happened to the piece of the apron with the second string attached. You cant tie an apron with just one string. If there had been a string on the second piece, I would have expected it to have been mentioned in the process of identification.

So it is not unreasonable to suggest that she in fact was not wearing an apron, and at some time prior to her death she was in possession of two old pieces of an apron which at some point in time had come from a full apron, one of which found its way to GS either by the killer taking it, or she deposited it herself.

The flaws in the evidence which points to her wearing an apron have been highlighted many times on here, thus making the old accpted theory less than watertight.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-25-2016, 02:50 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
The GS and the mortuary pieces have always been described as pieces. There is no mention of anyone matching those two pieces to make a full apron.
There are a number of reports of the two pieces been matched.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-25-2016, 02:54 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
There are a number of reports of the two pieces been matched.
Yes by the seams, but none that state the two pieces made up a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
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 09:02 PM.


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