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:
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Joshua Rogan 6 hours ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Joshua Rogan 6 hours ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Joshua Rogan 7 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Michael W Richards 7 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Michael W Richards 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Kattrup 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (8 posts)
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - (7 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (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 78 39.39%
NO 120 60.61%
Voters: 198. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1701  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:05 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The match could have been made at any time. And there was a match; that's all we need to know.
Yes we know there was a match. But the point is, that the match was not made before the body was stripped after arriving at the mortuary and the lists made up. It could not have been !

Lloyds Weekly News, 30th September.

"At twenty minutes past five, when we left the mortuary . . . there was an expectation on the part of the police that Dr. Phillips, who gave the important evidence in connection with the case of Annie Chapman, would speedily arrive there."

Which part of this do you not understand ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1702  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:18 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I dont care whether they accept it or not, my findings are there for all to read,digest, and then accept or reject all or part.

Either way I will not lose any sleep.

Historical facts are there to be challenged and not accepted as written in stone.
So why not just be cool about it, and put your facts (and sources) in your book, without going on message boards with this sort of ignorant statement:

And what has surprised me is that for 129 years researchers have been naive enough to accept the old accepted theories without question, when clearly the whole mystery is litterer with major flaws in the evidence.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1703  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:30 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
We should not assume that the official report is foolproof either.
For instance if we had say four distinctly seperate reports which all gave roughly the same wording for an exchange while the official report were just to give a generic "x was asked"
There is then a strong case for accepting the press reports. Steve
Well in the case of Eddowes we have the signed depositions, and we can test that evidence, examples of which I have previously shown on this thread. So it must be the truth, unless they lied, or were trying to be to helpful, as in the evidence of Hutt and Robinson.

For instance if we had say four distinctly seperate reports which all gave roughly the same wording for an exchange while the official report were just to give a generic "x was asked"
There is then a strong case for accepting the press reports.

Not unless you can prove they are primary, and not reprints, or copies of other reports, which for whatever reason have been misinterpreted or changed for an ulterior motive. I accept that if there are 4 reporters all taking notes at the same time, the chances are that one or more may get the wording wrong, but when there are major errors, which relate to important issues then we have to look closely at them and decide if it is safe to rely on them whether they be primary or secondary

In the case of Eddowes we have the signed depositions as primary sources. With addons which appear in some of the newspapers, and even those extra addons conflict with each other. I am sure the truth is there somewhere but trying to find out which is true and which isnt is never going to be easy.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1704  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:38 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
So why not just be cool about it, and put your facts (and sources) in your book, without going on message boards with this sort of ignorant statement:

And what has surprised me is that for 129 years researchers have been naive enough to accept the old accepted theories without question, when clearly the whole mystery is litterer with major flaws in the evidence.
Its not an ignorant statement it is a fact, and if the cap fits wear it

All the facts are in my book, and more even. It might pay you to buy a copy and read it as it would others on here, your naivety might diminish

Follow the link http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/jack-ripper-real-truth/

If you are not a reader then there is a DVD

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/dvds/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1705  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:40 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Well in the case of Eddowes we have the signed depositions, and we can test that evidence, examples of which I have previously shown on this thread. So it must be the truth, unless they lied, or were trying to be to helpful, as in the evidence of Hutt and Robinson.
Hutt and Robinson both saw the apron when they identified the clothes at the mortuary/ Bishopsgate Police Station on the 2nd or 3 Oct.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1706  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:42 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Its not an ignorant statement it is a fact, and if the cap fits wear it

All the facts are in my book, and more even. It might pay you to buy a copy and read it as it would others on here, your naivety might diminish

Follow the link http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/jack-ripper-real-truth/

If you are not a reader then there is a DVD

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/dvds/
Does your book have the details of Hutt and Robinson identifying Eddowes clothing ?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1707  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:43 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
Hutt and Robinson both saw the apron when they identified the clothes at the mortuary/ Bishopsgate Police Station on the 2nd or 3 Oct.
Did you dream that ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1708  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:58 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Did you dream that ?
That`s why I won`t buy your book, Trevor.
If I buy a Ripper book, I would expect that sort of important detail in it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1709  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:59 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
Does your book have the details of Hutt and Robinson identifying Eddowes clothing ?
read it an find out

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1710  
Old 09-14-2017, 08:01 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
That`s why I won`t buy your book, Trevor.
If I buy a Ripper book, I would expect that sort of important detail in it.
Well if you dont read it, and find out, you are in no position to criticise

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 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.