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 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by MysterySinger 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 8 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 - (18 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (11 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (6 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - (2 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Tabbard Street East? - (1 posts)
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - (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
  #271  
Old 12-10-2016, 02:12 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,893
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
.... Brown mentions the wound going up but either he is mistaken or the killer was at an angle to the body whereby he was able to do that.
No Trevor, Dr. Brown is not wrong, it is Trevor who does not know what 'incision' means.
An incision is the beginning of a cut, where the knife first enters the body.
In laymans terms, the 'stab' (incision) went upwards into the chest directly under the arch of the ribs. The knife was then dragged down......as I've been saying ad-nauseam.

Quote:
As to the clothes being thrown up and the knife then being used to make the cut then, this is not a plausible explanation. The clothes were affixed around the waist so simply throwing all the clothes up would cover the sternum area and make it almost impossible for the killer to gain free access to that area and to be able to draw a knife up or down through the thrown up clothing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
There's nothing implausible about it.
Yes, the upper chest/ribcage was covered - so what?
It didn't take him 2 seconds to address that problem....
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 12-10-2016, 02:41 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryd View Post
It's simple, really Trevor, do you agree the "cut" you have circled and I marked with a black arrow is NOT on the body? I never thought you were trying to mislead.
Jerry

All I have asked Trevor is the same you have asked him,
I assumed when first pointed out on the 23rd of June this year that Trevor would have simply replied something like: "sorry, my mistake".


Trevor

We all make mistakes, why could you just not agree this nearly 6 months ago and avoided the continuing raising of the question?

Instead you ignored the question when asked and indeed recently in post# 247 of this thread you attempted to defend the claim twice.

Its not personal or childish, its about the integrity we all must keep if any research is to be taken seriously by the outside world.

It seems from your posts that you tacitly agreeing it was a mistake, is that so?



Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 12-10-2016, 05:19 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,893
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Jerry

All I have asked Trevor is the same you have asked him,
I assumed when first pointed out on the 23rd of June this year that Trevor would have simply replied something like: "sorry, my mistake".
It wasn't on the body when the photograph was taken, but, like the lobe of her ear, it must have fallen off at some point.

__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 12-11-2016, 02:33 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Jerry

All I have asked Trevor is the same you have asked him,
I assumed when first pointed out on the 23rd of June this year that Trevor would have simply replied something like: "sorry, my mistake".

Trevor

We all make mistakes, why could you just not agree this nearly 6 months ago and avoided the continuing raising of the question?

Instead you ignored the question when asked and indeed recently in post# 247 of this thread you attempted to defend the claim twice.

Its not personal or childish, its about the integrity we all must keep if any research is to be taken seriously by the outside world.

It seems from your posts that you tacitly agreeing it was a mistake, is that so?

Steve
Well, well.

I make mistakes all the time. I do it on purpose. I ask silly questions to sources and make funny interpretations.

It is called trial and error. It is called hypothesis testing.

Without this approach we will not generate any knew knowledge.

So now the hypothesis must be that Jack the Ripper owned that photograph and made a cut in it. Great.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 12-11-2016, 06:27 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Well, well.

I make mistakes all the time. I do it on purpose. I ask silly questions to sources and make funny interpretations.

It is called trial and error. It is called hypothesis testing.

Without this approach we will not generate any knew knowledge.

So now the hypothesis must be that Jack the Ripper owned that photograph and made a cut in it. Great.

Pierre

Pierre, i made a big one last week in my project, and it has set me back a week, in my case i was not doing it on purpose to test, but missed one small word.
However I take your point.



The point is how one reacts is it not?

Do we admit to it?
Do we just not mention it again?

Or

Do we continue to use it when we know it is wrong?


That is all I am interested in on this actual issue.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 12-11-2016, 07:04 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Elamarna;403004]Pierre, i made a big one last week in my project, and it has set me back a week, in my case i was not doing it on purpose to test, but missed one small word.
However I take your point.

Quote:
The point is how one reacts is it not?

Do we admit to it?
Do we just not mention it again?

Or

Do we continue to use it when we know it is wrong?
Hi Steve,

Well, I see it like this: if hypotheses are disproved then there is no meaning in not accepting it. If an event wasn´t there, it wasn´t there.

What we are looking for is events inside a black box called the past.

Exclusively speculating about the contents is not history.

And if it is not history it has no historical value.

And if it has no historical value it is useless.

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 12-11-2016, 07:17 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

[quote=Pierre;403010]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Pierre, i made a big one last week in my project, and it has set me back a week, in my case i was not doing it on purpose to test, but missed one small word.
However I take your point.



Hi Steve,

Well, I see it like this: if hypotheses are disproved then there is no meaning in not accepting it. If an event wasn´t there, it wasn´t there.

What we are looking for is events inside a black box called the past.

Exclusively speculating about the contents is not history.

And if it is not history it has no historical value.

And if it has no historical value it is useless.

Regards, Pierre

Agreed in the greater part.

However when the disproved ideas are still produced, they can be misleading and confusing to those who do not have the knowledge, that’s why I feel such must be challenged.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:05 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Elamarna;403013]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post


Agreed in the greater part.

However when the disproved ideas are still produced, they can be misleading and confusing to those who do not have the knowledge, that’s why I feel such must be challenged.

Steve
Yes, indeed. Richard Dawkins is doing the same with the God hypothesis. The problem he has, according to the believers, is that he can not disprove God.

This is not a problem with Lechmere. It is easy to disprove the hypothesis that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, since it is a well established fact that Lechmere found the victim on his way to work, went to tell a PC about it, told the PC and also went to the inquest.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 12-14-2016, 08:10 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryd View Post
It's simple, really Trevor, do you agree the "cut" you have circled and I marked with a black arrow is NOT on the body? I never thought you were trying to mislead.
Everyone can see it. Can´t Trevor see it?

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 12-28-2016, 10:15 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
What on earth are you rambling on about?

How difficult is it to slip skirts and petticoats off a body when they are affixed around the waist you simply have to raise the body up slightly and pull them down. "CAREFULLY" as Dr Brown tells us !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The bodice was buttoned down the front so no problem there either
Mortuary attendant Robert Mann from the Polly Nichols inquest;

"[Coroner] How did you get the clothes off? - Hatfield had to cut them down the front.
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 10:59 PM.


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