Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    …….despite what you say I belive Reid is a credible witness and in 1896 he was not subjected to memory failure because if you read the article he is so precise aboout the Kelly murder and the events surrounding the murder, and thats because he was head of Whitechapel CID and went to the crime scene and the post mortem so there is no reason whatsoever to not believe him,

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Its interesting that you’ll claim that Reid was accurate when recalling events 8 years earlier and yet you disbelieve Hutt and Robinson when they were only recalling seeing Eddowes a matter of hours earlier.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Its interesting that you’ll claim that Reid was accurate when recalling events 8 years earlier and yet you disbelieve Hutt and Robinson when they were only recalling seeing Eddowes a matter of hours earlier.
      Hutt and Robinson gave their depositions 4 days after having contact with Eddowes and as has been said before they could have been shown any old piece of white apron and they would still have sworn it came from Eddowes. All women back then wore white aprons so what was so special and identifiable about Eddowes apron for them to remember 4 days later?

      Reid as head of Whietchapel CID would have had all the relevant statements and paperwork in front of him almost as soon as it had been taken down.

      Go back and read the article, he is accurate about everything connected to the murder apart from a time he gets wrong, thats not consistent with the suggestion he had memory failure, thats just a cop out excuse for not accepting his evidence as a senior police office who was directly involved in that specific murder.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
        One question at at time , So is it a ''fact'' that organs were removed from Kellys body at the murder scene.?
        Its is a fact that organs were "ripped" out and scattered around the room, but all were later accounted for according to Reid and no anatomical knowledge was show in doing so which goes against the anatomical knowledge shown by whoever removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Hutt and Robinson gave their depositions 4 days after having contact with Eddowes and as has been said before they could have been shown any old piece of white apron and they would still have sworn it came from Eddowes. All women back then wore white aprons so what was so special and identifiable about Eddowes apron for them to remember 4 days later?

          Reid as head of Whietchapel CID would have had all the relevant statements and paperwork in front of him almost as soon as it had been taken down.

          Go back and read the article, he is accurate about everything connected to the murder apart from a time he gets wrong, thats not consistent with the suggestion he had memory failure, thats just a cop out excuse for not accepting his evidence as a senior police office who was directly involved in that specific murder.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Of course they couldn’t have picked out a specific apron. The point is that they definitely saw Eddowes wearing an apron. If they said that it was the same one because they were making an assumption. That the apron in Eddowes possession and the apron piece found in Goulston Street matched up perfectly. More accurately they should have just left it at saying that she was wearing an pron when she was arrested.

          Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was arrested. Part of it was found in Goulston Street. There can be no doubt about this.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Of course they couldn’t have picked out a specific apron. The point is that they definitely saw Eddowes wearing an apron. If they said that it was the same one because they were making an assumption. That the apron in Eddowes possession and the apron piece found in Goulston Street matched up perfectly. More accurately they should have just left it at saying that she was wearing an pron when she was arrested.

            Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was arrested. Part of it was found in Goulston Street. There can be no doubt about this.
            You have to remember that there is no evidence to show that when the two pieces were matched they made up a full apron

            furthermore they could not have made up an apron-one piece was a corner piece with a string attached the second piece was matched by the seams which means that the piece that was matched had to have originally come from the same side of the original apron but from the lower half of the original apron but from the same side as the corner piece

            now I am not going to bother to ask what happened to the rest of the apron as that question only invites hypothetical answers from you and others who are hell bent on propping up the old previously accepted theory

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              You have to remember that there is no evidence to show that when the two pieces were matched they made up a full apron

              furthermore they could not have made up an apron-one piece was a corner piece with a string attached the second piece was matched by the seams which means that the piece that was matched had to have originally come from the same side of the original apron but from the lower half of the original apron but from the same side as the corner piece

              now I am not going to bother to ask what happened to the rest of the apron as that question only invites hypothetical answers from you and others who are hell bent on propping up the old previously accepted theory

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              please not the apron nonsense again!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                please not the apron nonsense again!
                Its you that brought it up, if you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • On looking at the Inquest testimony I picked up on something rather interesting that PC Long said. When asked about the graffitti there was this exchange:

                  Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall?

                  - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.

                  Now that is interesting as it says to me that the graffitti was not immediately noticeable as connected to the Apron. If you were the Ripper and you wanted to deliver a message and the Apron was acting almost as a marker it doesn't seem particularly good. Long obviously on believing that someone may have been attacked looked for signs of blood on the wall and came across the graffitti. I think it fair to say it was all a coincidence that blew out of proportion and is still being blown out of proportion today.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    You have to remember that there is no evidence to show that when the two pieces were matched they made up a full apron

                    furthermore they could not have made up an apron-one piece was a corner piece with a string attached the second piece was matched by the seams which means that the piece that was matched had to have originally come from the same side of the original apron but from the lower half of the original apron but from the same side as the corner piece

                    now I am not going to bother to ask what happened to the rest of the apron as that question only invites hypothetical answers from you and others who are hell bent on propping up the old previously accepted theory

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Nonsense Trevor. Your assessment of how the apron is made up is your opinion and nothing more. So a piece of apron was missing from Eddowes apron and a piece that fitted was found in Goulston Street but they were unconnected. Yeah right. Give it up Trevor, your just trying to prop up a silly, baseless theory. The old ‘accepted’ theory is ‘accepted’ because we know that the Goulston Street piece came from the apron that Eddowes was definitely wearing. What you need to do is to stop thinking like a conspiracy theorist. You are simply looking for ‘new’ theories and then defending them at all costs. You’re simply wrong on this. The apron piece came from Eddowes apron.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Nonsense Trevor. Your assessment of how the apron is made up is your opinion and nothing more. So a piece of apron was missing from Eddowes apron and a piece that fitted was found in Goulston Street but they were unconnected. Yeah right. Give it up Trevor, your just trying to prop up a silly, baseless theory. The old ‘accepted’ theory is ‘accepted’ because we know that the Goulston Street piece came from the apron that Eddowes was definitely wearing. What you need to do is to stop thinking like a conspiracy theorist. You are simply looking for ‘new’ theories and then defending them at all costs. You’re simply wrong on this. The apron piece came from Eddowes apron.
                      I wish you would read the posts correctly instead of rushing to try to prop up the old theory and getting your facts all wrong !!!!!!!

                      There is no argument that the two pieces of apron matched but there is no evidence that when matched they made up a full apron and this is one of the reasons the old accpted theory is flawed.

                      Do you accpet that the evidence tells us that the two pieces were matched by the seams which means the seams were down the outside of both pieces so top left/right for the piece with the string attached, bottom left/right for the second piece, so no full apron. its not rocket science !!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      There is no evidence that there was any signs of an apron being cut from the body it clearly decsribes the apron as a corner piece with a string attcahed, not a corner piece with the strings still attached which might have been the case if the killer cut through the waistband, and bearing in mind the killer did stab her in the abdomen a number of times and drawing the knife downwards i would have expected that to have been the case, and not to mention that there was no sign of any cuts to either pieces of apron which there would have been had she been wearing one when she was murdered, but that isnt the case because the evidence tells us somthing different. It tells us that in her posessions was an old white apron piece so how did that get from her body into her possessions?

                      Taking into account all of those facts it is not unreasonable to suggest that at some time during the day and before her arrest she was simply in possession of two old pieces of apron that at some time in the past had come from a full apron, that would explain why the two pieces didnt make up a full apron, and the reason why that fact is not mentioned in any evidence

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-13-2022, 11:48 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Go back and read the article, he is accurate about everything connected to the murder apart from a time he gets wrong, thats not consistent with the suggestion he had memory failure, thats just a cop out excuse for not accepting his evidence as a senior police office who was directly involved in that specific murder.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Hi Trevor,

                        Can you provide me with a link to Reid's article please?

                        Cheers, George
                        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
                        If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
                        Everybody lies - Greg House MD

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Its is a fact that organs were "ripped" out and scattered around the room, but all were later accounted for according to Reid and no anatomical knowledge was show in doing so which goes against the anatomical knowledge shown by whoever removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          No , its a fact ''you'' believe they were ripped out ,i dont see any written evidence that suggest that DrBond used the word ''ripped'' while performed his post mortem iin regards to organs

                          Kellys post mortem


                          'The abdominal cavity emptied of its viscera.''


                          ''Both breasts were more or less removed by circular incisions''[suggest a little bit more than just a mad hacker]






                          So if one wants to use a word or phase that lends itself to a perticular theory, thats their right too , But it also works the other ways, especially when the other way has evidence to suggest it.

                          This is the problem with new theory of late , they dont seem to eliminate the Accepted Theories!
                          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                            No , its a fact ''you'' believe they were ripped out ,i dont see any written evidence that suggest that DrBond used the word ''ripped'' while performed his post mortem iin regards to organs

                            Kellys post mortem

                            'The abdominal cavity emptied of its viscera.''

                            ''Both breasts were more or less removed by circular incisions''[suggest a little bit more than just a mad hacker]

                            So if one wants to use a word or phase that lends itself to a perticular theory, thats their right too , But it also works the other ways, especially when the other way has evidence to suggest it.

                            This is the problem with new theory of late , they dont seem to eliminate the Accepted Theories!
                            Dr Bonds report

                            “In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific or anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals. I think this describes a hacker as you put it

                            Also this is what Insp Reid says in his article "
                            he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.

                            I rest my case !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk





                            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-14-2022, 07:19 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Hi Trevor,

                              Can you provide me with a link to Reid's article please?

                              Cheers, George
                              This is the relevant part of his interview relative to the Kelly murder

                              “This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.

                              Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.

                              I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain.
                              The suggestion having been made that in the eyes of a murdered person a reflection of the murderer might be retained, we had the eyes of Kelly photographed and the photographs magnified, but the effort was fruitless. We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail. An example of the difficulty we had may be found in that women came forward who swore that they saw Kelly standing at the corner of the court at eight o’clock of the morning her body was found, but the evidence of the doctors proved this to be an impossibility. By that hour the woman had been dead not less than four hours.”


                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                This is the relevant part of his interview relative to the Kelly murder

                                “This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.

                                Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.

                                I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain.
                                The suggestion having been made that in the eyes of a murdered person a reflection of the murderer might be retained, we had the eyes of Kelly photographed and the photographs magnified, but the effort was fruitless. We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail. An example of the difficulty we had may be found in that women came forward who swore that they saw Kelly standing at the corner of the court at eight o’clock of the morning her body was found, but the evidence of the doctors proved this to be an impossibility. By that hour the woman had been dead not less than four hours.”


                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                So he was around 3 hours out on the time of the discovery of the body and he couldn’t recall Blotchy man or Hutchinson’s meeting with Kelly and Astrakhan man?
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X