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 Joshua Rogan 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 6 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - by RockySullivan 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 Joshua Rogan 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (50 posts)
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - (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
  #2611  
Old 10-09-2017, 06:11 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
You dont know that, and if you are going to side with Wickermans suggestion then it make even more of a mockery to suggest that she was wearing an apron, because as stated an apron that size would surely have been visible to those at the mortuary when the body was being stripped even with a piece missing.
The piece of apron found on the body was a "piece", so it was small, likely black with dirt and ruffled up, unrecognizable as a piece of apron.
Which is why Collard listed it as a "large handkerchief, blood stained".

Even the official police description of Eddowes included this item:
"large white handkerchief round neck,"

It was published as such by all the press except the Times, who described this as:
"a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

It's the same piece, it's the remnant of the apron you are ignoring.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2612  
Old 10-09-2017, 06:25 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Why would you think that?
There is every indication that these unsupported ideas will continue to be posted and while that is the case the rebuttal with continue.




"Create a doubt," as in manufacture.
There either is doubt or there is not. Doubt is not created or manufactured, it comes from fresh evidence.
Just saying there is a doubt does not make one.

The Flat and Hollow Earthers say there is doubt that the Earth is either a sphere or solid, they claim there is doubt about the scientific evidence, that does not mean there is.

The same applies to the "unsafe" term YOU apply to evidence and sources, just because you think it is does not make it so. To do that you need to counter what exists with actual evidence that it is unsafe, this you have singularly failed to do; instead quoting generalisations about some sources and semantics in a futile attempt to support the claim.



Nothing shows that arrogance more than that statement.
You continual demonstrate a failure of how to asses sources.

The examples I gave of statements are truly "classic" of self deception.



I certainly do not know it all and make mistakes, and when I do I put my hand up and admit it.
I will consider and accept ideas when they are backed by Evidence, but not when there is NONE.



Let's look are they possible?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definiti...
Definition of possible - able to be done or achieved, that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable.

So yes they are not impossible .

Are they plausible ?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/.../...
Definition of plausible - (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.


Not really given that there is no evidence given which firstly counters the standing arguments and none is given to support the new ideas. They are not probable for those reasons and are not at the stage of plausible.

It seems clear that you have neither the desire to produce Evidence or the Evidence itself to support the ideas.

Steve
But you cant seem to comprehend that if something is challenged and there is evidence to prove that challenge, then there is no dispute thereafter is there, because the new evidence negates the old, if it is conclusive?

But if a doubt is created and the grounds and reasons or opinions that create that doubt are plausible for whatever reason, then they cannot be totally disregarded, as you seem to want to do by using the same old chestnut asking where is the evidence to back up the doubt, there doesn't have to be specific, or direct evidence to back up a doubt which has been created. I f the doubt is there then it is for people to consider all options and make up their own minds, as you appear to have made up your own mind that all the old historical facts are correct, and unless there is specific and direct evidence to negate them then they will stand for ever never to be challenged.

As it stands nothing is going to change if we continue to argue these issues for the next 20 years, unless of course new evidence does come to light which will put another dent in the old accepted theories

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2613  
Old 10-09-2017, 06:30 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
The piece of apron found on the body was a "piece", so it was small, likely black with dirt and ruffled up, unrecognizable as a piece of apron.
Which is why Collard listed it as a "large handkerchief, blood stained".

Even the official police description of Eddowes included this item:
"large white handkerchief round neck,"

It was published as such by all the press except the Times, who described this as:
"a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

It's the same piece, it's the remnant of the apron you are ignoring.
You change with the wind. One minute you are telling us that she was wearing an apron which went from the neck to the ground almost. Then you are saying that the part apron left with the body was wrongly identified as being a handkerchief. That would mean based on the size of the apron you first suggested the Gs piece was as big as a sack.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2614  
Old 10-09-2017, 07:10 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
But you cant seem to comprehend that if something is challenged and there is evidence to prove that challenge, then there is no dispute thereafter is there, because the new evidence negates the old, if it is conclusive?
Yes Trevor, only one issue there, you never provide any evidence, personal opinion is not evidence.
It like opinion in the papers, it's not actually NEWS, it is not fact.
Quote:
But if a doubt is created and the grounds and reasons or opinions that create that doubt are plausible for whatever reason, then they cannot be totally disregarded, as you seem to want to do by using the same old chestnut asking where is the evidence to back up the doubt, there doesn't have to be specific, or direct evidence to back up a doubt which has been created.
It's not an old chestnut, it's how investigation and research work if you wish to be taken seriously.

Yes there does need to be supportive evidence, if there is no evidence to support a doubt, there is no doubt, only personal bias.

And I say again doubt is not created it either exists or it does not.
The area where doubt is "created" is in the legal world, where truth often comes second to winning.

Quote:
I f the doubt is there then it is for people to consider all options and make up their own minds, as you appear to have made up your own mind that all the old historical facts are correct, and unless there is specific and direct evidence to negate them then they will stand for ever never to be challenged.
Again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge and true understanding.
If something is a fact, then it simply is. You are alluding to hypothesis which have been submitted over the years.

For a hypothesis to stand it needs to be tested, and IF it fails it is unlikely to be used or accepted by many, for example the Royal conspiracy.
One is always able to challenge hypothesis, however one needs to provide specific areas to retest it on, if one is actually offering a new hypothesis to replace the old, one needs to provide evidence to support the idea and to allow it to be tested.
That's how it works Trevor, if you don't accept such then any work will be judged along with that of von Daniken and flat and hollow Earthers.

Again to be a doubt over something there needs to be evidence, if not it is possible to say "I doubt everything" do you truly not see that?

Quote:
As it stands nothing is going to change if we continue to argue these issues for the next 20 years, unless of course new evidence does come to light which will put another dent in the old accepted theories
Make your mind up either they are either "theories" or "historic facts".

It will take as long as it takes to reach the truth, maybe tomorrow, maybe never.
The timescale is not to your liking? That is tough. There is nothing you can do about it, unless you go and do some real research which give some tangible results.


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 10-09-2017 at 07:13 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2615  
Old 10-09-2017, 07:13 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
You change with the wind. One minute you are telling us that she was wearing an apron which went from the neck to the ground almost. Then you are saying that the part apron left with the body was wrongly identified as being a handkerchief. That would mean based on the size of the apron you first suggested the Gs piece was as big as a sack.
You are well aware that this remnant was described in one source as a "bib".

As you can see from the photo's a 'bib' section resembles a "large handkerchief" and, this is how Collard identified it.
Yet, both Halse and the Times reporter recognised it as a piece of apron.

Collard did note that she carried a regular handkerchief, white with red border, and he identified it as a "pocket handkerchief" to distinguish that from the previous piece around her neck.

This suggests the missing piece, the one found by Long, was quite large.
It's your objections that are not making sense.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2616  
Old 10-09-2017, 07:22 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
You change with the wind. One minute you are telling us that she was wearing an apron which went from the neck to the ground almost. Then you are saying that the part apron left with the body was wrongly identified as being a handkerchief. That would mean based on the size of the apron you first suggested the Gs piece was as big as a sack.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
And if it was large, it suggests another good possible reason for Long investigating it.
Personally I am undecided on the possible size of the GSG portion, and I suggest it is impossible to give an firm opinion. However i see no reason to see it as being particularly small.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2617  
Old 10-09-2017, 07:27 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

The Flat and Hollow Earthers say there is doubt that the Earth is either a sphere or solid, they claim there is doubt about the scientific evidence, that does not mean there is.

But if a doubt is created and the grounds and reasons or opinions that create that doubt are plausible....
Trevor.
You really need to distinguish between your own personal doubt, and legitimate scientific/academic doubt.

The former can be due to personal ignorance, the latter due to widespread consensus.

They are not the same.

Personal ignorance is behind such theories as held by Velikovsky, von Daniken, the Flat-earthers, and "we never went to the moon" bull$hit.

There is no consensus behind these alternative interpretations you are promoting. So it is easy for others to determine the cause as 'consensus' is readily ruled out.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2618  
Old 10-09-2017, 09:08 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
And if it was large, it suggests another good possible reason for Long investigating it.
Personally I am undecided on the possible size of the GSG portion, and I suggest it is impossible to give an firm opinion. However i see no reason to see it as being particularly small.

Steve
You are two faced. In one breath you castigate me for what you term personal opinion and in the next breath you are giving an opinion yourself albeit in your inimitable way of manipulating words to suit your own purpose.

I am not going to argue with you anymore. I dont have the time or the inclination. You see things one way, I see them another, at the end of the day perhaps neither of us are right. But will we ever know. I have a feeling we might in the not to distant future.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2619  
Old 10-09-2017, 09:09 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Trevor.
You really need to distinguish between your own personal doubt, and legitimate scientific/academic doubt.

The former can be due to personal ignorance, the latter due to widespread consensus.

They are not the same.

Personal ignorance is behind such theories as held by Velikovsky, von Daniken, the Flat-earthers, and "we never went to the moon" bull$hit.

There is no consensus behind these alternative interpretations you are promoting. So it is easy for others to determine the cause as 'consensus' is readily ruled out.
You do not know what you are talking about.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2620  
Old 10-09-2017, 09:51 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
You are two faced. In one breath you castigate me for what you term personal opinion and in the next breath you are giving an opinion yourself albeit in your inimitable way of manipulating words to suit your own purpose.
Steve said this: "Personally I am undecided on the possible size of the GSG portion, and I suggest it is impossible to give an firm opinion. However i see no reason to see it as being particularly small."

...which seems to be a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic way of putting across one's view. How that could be construed as "two faced" or "manipulating words" is baffling.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
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 03:12 AM.


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