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 c.d. 27 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Hunter 33 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Sam Flynn 34 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Help me find the source of this story - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (23 posts)
General Discussion: Help me find the source of this story - (4 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - (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 75 38.66%
NO 119 61.34%
Voters: 194. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #2161  
Old 09-25-2017, 09:43 AM
Kattrup Kattrup is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

We have no evidence that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron
That's not quite true, is it? Or should I say: "as usual, that's not true at all"?

We have evidence, you just choose to disregard it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2162  
Old 09-25-2017, 10:19 AM
etenguy etenguy is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Dear Etenguy


"I think it is time to accept that we are not going to convince Mr Marriott that his theory is insufficiently substantiated to convince anyone with more than superficial knowledge of the murders."



Trevor theories ARE insufficiently substantiated, many have NO SUPPORT AT ALL.

And they ARE indeed unlikely to convince any with more than a basic background in the subject.

Which words are you apologising for ?
You said NOTHING which was rude or inaccurate


Steve
Hi Steve

I did not mean it as such, but it could be read that I was implying that Mr Marriott had only superficial knowledge of the murders. Whatever I, or you, think of his theory about the apron, it would be rude and inaccurate to suggest Mr Marriott had only superficial knowledge.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2163  
Old 09-25-2017, 10:26 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etenguy View Post
Hi Steve

I did not mean it as such, but it could be read that I was implying that Mr Marriott had only superficial knowledge of the murders. Whatever I, or you, think of his theory about the apron, it would be rude and inaccurate to suggest Mr Marriott had only superficial knowledge.
You are too generous my friend.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2164  
Old 09-25-2017, 12:22 PM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Thanks for the reply, Paul.
I agree that PC 190H is the only person he is known to have talked to, but can you be certain that he had not heard of the murder before searching the stairs? In Long's police report, he says, on finding the apron and the writing;
"I at once called the PC on the adjoining beat and then searched the stair-cases"

And according to the Times, the inquest went;
"a juryman. - Having heard of the murder, and having afterwards found the piece of apron with blood on it and the writing on the wall, did it not strike you that it would be well to make some examination of the rooms in the building? You say you searched all the passages, but you would not expect that the man who had committed the murder would hide himself there.
Witness. - Seeing the blood there, I thought that the murder had been committed, and that the body might be placed in the building."

And the Daily News;
"a Juror - Having heard of a murder, and subsequently found a piece of apron with blood upon it, did it not appear to you that it might be as well to examine some of the rooms of the building? - No, sir. I did not expect the man had committed the murder in the passage, but I though the body might have been hidden there."

So, unless I'm missing something, it seems that he had indeed heard of the murder before searching the stairwells, either from PC 190H or some other source.
Hi Joshua, you actually quote the source, namely the Daily News, where PC Long states that he thought he'd find a body, not the murderer. He'd hardly have expected to find the body on the stairs f he knew that a body had already been found in Mitre Square.

Hi Joshua,
Reasonably, if PC Long knew a murder had been committed, thought the apron was associated it, and believed that the murder might be lurking in the building, is it likely that he’d have investigated the stairs and landings on his own, or would he have called for support?

A juror thought that P.C. Long should have roused and questioned the residents. PC Long’s reply was variously paraphrased in the newspaper reports, but the Daily News (12 October 1888) quoted him as saying, “No, sir. I did not expect the man had committed the murder in the passage, but I though the body might have been hidden there.” As said, other newspapers paraphrased rather than quoted PC Long, among them was The Times (12 October 1888), which said that P.C. Long replied, “Seeing the blood there, I thought that the murder had been committed, and that the body might be placed in the building.” At one point in the proceedings Mr Crawford sought to clarify P.C. Long’s thinking, “You thought you were more likely to find the body that to find the actual murderer?”

The reports support the view that PC Long did not know that a murder had been committed elsewhere, but thought one may have been committed in the building. Personally, I think he may have had the murder of Martha Tabram in mind.

P.C. Long said he knew about the murder in Mitre Square before he went to the police station, but it is unclear when he heard of it and who he heard it from. A possibility is Halse, but neither Long nor Halse ever mentioned talking to one another. The alternative is P.C. Bettles, summoned from a neighbouring beat and left to watch the entrance to the building. I have found nothing to preclude the possibility that PC Long summoned P.C. Bettles before he began his search, but it seems likely that he did so after he had completed his search.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2165  
Old 09-25-2017, 01:34 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

But you cant prove that it all happened in the way we have been led to believe, when there are so many anomalies, and flaws in the evidence and the supporting facts, right throughout this mystery.
No-one has claimed a particular theory has been proven.
The theories we discuss are either consistent with the evidence, or they are not.

Quote:
because the sources you seek to rely on to prop it all up are unreliable in any event and dont stand up to close scrutiny.
Your method of scrutiny doesn't appear to be the most popular method.

Quote:
So if these original theories/opinions/explanation or whatever you want to call them are proved to be suspect, then other plausible explanations have to be considered in an attempt to prove or disprove them one way or the other.
You have not proved anything wrong.
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.


Quote:
If you cant conclusively prove the killer cut or tore it and deposited it GS, then there has to be another explanation, especially if you cannot conclusively prove that she was actually wearing an apron at the time she was murdered.
Where does this "conclusive proof" idea come from?
Have you conclusively proven any part of your theory?

Quote:
Collards list shows she wasn't wearing an apron, or any piece of an apron that could have been noted down wrongly when the body was stripped.
Wrong!


Quote:
We have no evidence that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron
Testimony stated the apron was produced "in two pieces".
When I went to school that usually meant two halves make a whole.

Quote:
Look at all of these in the right context using an unbiased analysis and I hope you can see why you and others must now see a doubt about the original theory.
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.

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. 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.

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?)

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?)

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?)

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

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.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2166  
Old 09-25-2017, 01:43 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
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.



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



You have not proved anything wrong.
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.




Where does this "conclusive proof" idea come from?
Have you conclusively proven any part of your theory?



Wrong!




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



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.

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. 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.

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?)

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?)

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?)

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

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.

A good response Jon,


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2167  
Old 09-25-2017, 02:08 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
A good response Jon,


Steve
If you think that is a good response from a poster who blatantly and continuously makes things up in order to prop up the old theory then you need a reality check.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Last edited by Trevor Marriott : 09-25-2017 at 02:10 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2168  
Old 09-25-2017, 02:18 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
Hi Joshua, you actually quote the source, namely the Daily News, where PC Long states that he thought he'd find a body, not the murderer. He'd hardly have expected to find the body on the stairs f he knew that a body had already been found in Mitre Square.

Hi Joshua,
Reasonably, if PC Long knew a murder had been committed, thought the apron was associated it, and believed that the murder might be lurking in the building, is it likely that he’d have investigated the stairs and landings on his own, or would he have called for support?

A juror thought that P.C. Long should have roused and questioned the residents. PC Long’s reply was variously paraphrased in the newspaper reports, but the Daily News (12 October 1888) quoted him as saying, “No, sir. I did not expect the man had committed the murder in the passage, but I though the body might have been hidden there.” As said, other newspapers paraphrased rather than quoted PC Long, among them was The Times (12 October 1888), which said that P.C. Long replied, “Seeing the blood there, I thought that the murder had been committed, and that the body might be placed in the building.” At one point in the proceedings Mr Crawford sought to clarify P.C. Long’s thinking, “You thought you were more likely to find the body that to find the actual murderer?”

The reports support the view that PC Long did not know that a murder had been committed elsewhere, but thought one may have been committed in the building. Personally, I think he may have had the murder of Martha Tabram in mind.

P.C. Long said he knew about the murder in Mitre Square before he went to the police station, but it is unclear when he heard of it and who he heard it from. A possibility is Halse, but neither Long nor Halse ever mentioned talking to one another. The alternative is P.C. Bettles, summoned from a neighbouring beat and left to watch the entrance to the building. I have found nothing to preclude the possibility that PC Long summoned P.C. Bettles before he began his search, but it seems likely that he did so after he had completed his search.
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?
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2169  
Old 09-25-2017, 02:22 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
If you think that is a good response from a poster who blatantly and continuously makes things up in order to prop up the old theory then you need a reality check.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
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.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2170  
Old 09-25-2017, 02:30 PM
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
If you think that is a good response from a poster who blatantly and continuously makes things up in order to prop up the old theory then you need a reality check.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk


Posts 1973 & 2041
Incorrect information to promote the new unsupported ideas.

Those in glass houses?

Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 09-25-2017 at 02:33 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 10:36 AM.


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