Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • Originally posted by bolo View Post
    There are three possible reasons why he cut the piece from Kate's apron:

    - He wanted to clean his hands
    - He used the piece to carry organs away
    - He used it as a bandage because he cut himself
    Hi Boris,

    Like others, I think we can strike possibility number 3 from the list as the surviving evidence doesn’t go well with it. As you say, according to the evidence, there was some blood on it, as if he’d wiped his hands and knife on it, while a lot of blood should be expected if he’d actually used it as a bandage because he cut himself.

    Furthermore, the evidence suggests a murderer who was very to-the-point, didn’t waste any time and was very practical. He doesn’t seem to have cared at all about communicating with either the police or anybody else. He seems to have done what he did because he felt like it and, quite probably, enjoyed the notoriety as an extra as he went along. So, in that sense I don’t think he cut off the piece of apron to authenticate any message.

    What makes the most sense to me is that he cut it off so that he would not have to wipe especially the stinking faeces off his hands & knife (and, possibly, also off the organs) on the spot, but could do that while he was getting away or did so when he thought he’d put enough distance between himself and the crime scene.


    Cheers,
    Frank
    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      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
      ”….when it was found that beyond doubt the piece of apron found corresponded exactly with the part missing from the body of the murdered woman.”

      “….and was found to fit in with the portion of apron which had been left by the murderer on his victim. Goulston-street,”

      PC Robinson “The last time I saw her in the Police Cell was at 10 to 9. She was wearing an apron.“

      PC George Hutt “I noticed she was wearing an apron.”


      Nothing more is required. The piece in Goulston Street undoubtedly came from the apron that Catherine Eddowes was undoubtedly wearing at the time of her murder. All other ‘theories’ can undoubtedly be dismissed for what they are….’theories’ just for the sake of having a ‘theory.’


      Regards

      Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
        Hi Boris,

        Like others, I think we can strike possibility number 3 from the list as the surviving evidence doesn’t go well with it. As you say, according to the evidence, there was some blood on it, as if he’d wiped his hands and knife on it, while a lot of blood should be expected if he’d actually used it as a bandage because he cut himself.

        Furthermore, the evidence suggests a murderer who was very to-the-point, didn’t waste any time and was very practical. He doesn’t seem to have cared at all about communicating with either the police or anybody else. He seems to have done what he did because he felt like it and, quite probably, enjoyed the notoriety as an extra as he went along. So, in that sense I don’t think he cut off the piece of apron to authenticate any message.

        What makes the most sense to me is that he cut it off so that he would not have to wipe especially the stinking faeces off his hands & knife (and, possibly, also off the organs) on the spot, but could do that while he was getting away or did so when he thought he’d put enough distance between himself and the crime scene.


        Cheers,
        Frank
        Id say that’s the likeliest scenario Frank.
        Regards

        Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          ”….when it was found that beyond doubt the piece of apron found corresponded exactly with the part missing from the body of the murdered woman.”

          “….and was found to fit in with the portion of apron which had been left by the murderer on his victim. Goulston-street,”

          PC Robinson “The last time I saw her in the Police Cell was at 10 to 9. She was wearing an apron.“

          PC George Hutt “I noticed she was wearing an apron.”


          Nothing more is required. The piece in Goulston Street undoubtedly came from the apron that Catherine Eddowes was undoubtedly wearing at the time of her murder. All other ‘theories’ can undoubtedly be dismissed for what they are….’theories’ just for the sake of having a ‘theory.’

          But there is other evidence to negate those fine upstanding officer that you rely on implicity and is the only evidence to show that when arrested and placed in a cell she was wearing an apron.

          Sgt Byfield mentions nothing about her wearing an apron
          There is no sign of an apron on Fosters crime scene sketch.
          There were only two pieces of apron which didnt make up a full apron
          One piece of apron was listed among her possessions and not under the list of her clothing which was compiled at the time the body was stripped

          and even if those fine officers were correct and everyone else was wrong and she was wearing an apron when she left the police station you cannot prove that she was still wearing that apron when she was murdered, among her possessions was a knife.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Id say that’s the likeliest scenario Frank.
            that dosent stand up to close scrutiny as the blood and faecal matter was only on one side of the apron piece

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              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




              Hmmm welll Rest Times over

              .

              Were not talking about ''The Mutilation'' having Anatomical Knowledge tho are we? Its the organs in the Abdomimal Cavity that are of importance when Anatomical Knowledge is discussed

              You alway seem to get the two confused, which im sure you do on purpose to try and make a point to a lesser uneducated audience......

              You don,t need to be Dr Bond to see that any Psychopath with a knife could do the mutilations to any of the Ripper victims, especially Kelly. So no prizes for Dr Bond there im afaide.

              As for Inspector Reid , well he was simply describing the mutilations wasnt he ?hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.

              FLESH NOT ORGANS.!!!!!



              For like Bond he would have no way of knowing if the organs that were placed around Kellys body were cut out from her ''Before'' the mutilations began.!!!! What evidence is there to show that says the kidneys and uterus or any of her organs for that matter were hacked out of her body and mutilated?

              None.



              ''Both breasts were more or less removed by circular incisions''

              When do you suppose this was done, before of after the mutilations ? Heres a clue, whats the point after?
              Last edited by FISHY1118; 05-14-2022, 11:19 AM.
              '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 Trevor Marriott View Post
                that dosent stand up to close scrutiny as the blood and faecal matter was only on one side of the apron piece
                Hi Trevor,

                Why should it follow that, if there was only blood and faecal matter on only one side of the apron piece, the apron piece couldn’t have been used to wipe hands, knife and possibly also the organs? Why does the blood and faecal matter had to have been on both sides?

                Or aren't you suggesting that? If so, then what are you suggesting?


                Cheers,
                Frank
                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                  Hi Boris,

                  Like others, I think we can strike possibility number 3 from the list as the surviving evidence doesn’t go well with it. As you say, according to the evidence, there was some blood on it, as if he’d wiped his hands and knife on it, while a lot of blood should be expected if he’d actually used it as a bandage because he cut himself.

                  Furthermore, the evidence suggests a murderer who was very to-the-point, didn’t waste any time and was very practical. He doesn’t seem to have cared at all about communicating with either the police or anybody else. He seems to have done what he did because he felt like it and, quite probably, enjoyed the notoriety as an extra as he went along. So, in that sense I don’t think he cut off the piece of apron to authenticate any message.

                  What makes the most sense to me is that he cut it off so that he would not have to wipe especially the stinking faeces off his hands & knife (and, possibly, also off the organs) on the spot, but could do that while he was getting away or did so when he thought he’d put enough distance between himself and the crime scene.


                  Cheers,
                  Frank
                  Hi Frank,

                  I'm not so sure that we can strike possibility number 3 from the list. The Killer would have anticipated that his hands and knife would be covered in blood and brought something with him to wipe them, and if he was intended to take away organs he would have brought something with him in which to carry them. However, cutting himself was not something for which he was prepared. I've looked for a description of the stains on the apron and have found only Long's testimony at the inquest: The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood. I can imagine if he cut his finger he might have applied the apron, starting at the corner, and wrapped it around the finger with some pressure, with the blood wetting that corner.

                  On the other hand, if Stride was also a victim of his then he may have been the man seen wiping his hands in Church Passage, and he may have discarded that cloth and been unprepared for that cleanup task at the Eddowes site.

                  Best regards, George

                  P.S. Thanks for that information Trevor.
                  “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.”

                  Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    But there is other evidence to negate those fine upstanding officer that you rely on implicity and is the only evidence to show that when arrested and placed in a cell she was wearing an apron.

                    Sgt Byfield mentions nothing about her wearing an apron
                    There is no sign of an apron on Fosters crime scene sketch.
                    There were only two pieces of apron which didnt make up a full apron
                    One piece of apron was listed among her possessions and not under the list of her clothing which was compiled at the time the body was stripped

                    and even if those fine officers were correct and everyone else was wrong and she was wearing an apron when she left the police station you cannot prove that she was still wearing that apron when she was murdered, among her possessions was a knife.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    You have gone down the rabbit hole never to return. Too difficult to admit then that you have gone down the wrong road. This is utter nonsense. It is beyond doubt Eddowes wore an apron- it is beyond doubt the killer cut a piece away and left it in Goulston Street. The people who were there and saw it with their own eyes testified to that effect. You draw conclusions from evidence you select that fits the theory you have. That is confirmation bias. But fair to say no one buys this crackpot theory anyways.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                      Hi Trevor,

                      Why should it follow that, if there was only blood and faecal matter on only one side of the apron piece, the apron piece couldn’t have been used to wipe hands, knife and possibly also the organs? Why does the blood and faecal matter had to have been on both sides?

                      Or aren't you suggesting that? If so, then what are you suggesting?


                      Cheers,
                      Frank
                      Well if you have two bloody hands and you wipe them on a piece of cloth then you will transfer the residue to both sides its a simple excercise to try at home another test we did at the mortuary shows the results. but this is academic because if she was wearing an apron then because the killer threw up her clothes above her waist putting the apron piece furthest away from him there would have been other clothing easily accesible to the killer from him to cut

                      or perhaps he was a killer with only one arm


                      Click image for larger version  Name:	Hand wiping on screwed up cloth.jpg Views:	0 Size:	32.8 KB ID:	785878 Click image for larger version  Name:	Handwiping results from scrwed up cloth.jpg Views:	0 Size:	123.8 KB ID:	785879

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        But there is other evidence to negate those fine upstanding officer that you rely on implicity and is the only evidence to show that when arrested and placed in a cell she was wearing an apron.

                        You are trying to discredit witnesses for no reason except in an attempt to bolster your own theory.

                        Sgt Byfield mentions nothing about her wearing an apron - Was he asked?
                        There is no sign of an apron on Fosters crime scene sketch. What if it was bunched up or twisted?
                        There were only two pieces of apron which didnt make up a full apron - According to you and no one else.
                        One piece of apron was listed among her possessions and not under the list of her clothing which was compiled at the time the body was stripped. - It had come away from her body at the time?

                        and even if those fine officers were correct and everyone else was wrong and she was wearing an apron when she left the police station you cannot prove that she was still wearing that apron when she was murdered, among her possessions was a knife.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        No Trevor. You can’t say “everyone else was wrong” because not one single person said that she wasn’t wearing an apron. Not one. The fact that some didn’t mention it is irrelevant. If they weren’t asked, why would they have bothered mentioning it?

                        She was wearing an apron. This is a fact.
                        Regards

                        Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          that dosent stand up to close scrutiny as the blood and faecal matter was only on one side of the apron piece

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          How many people do you know that use both sides of the toilet paper? If the killer used the cloth to clean himself it’s hardly sir-rising that only one side was used.

                          Regards

                          Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Well if you have two bloody hands and you wipe them on a piece of cloth then you will transfer the residue to both sides its a simple excercise to try at home another test we did at the mortuary shows the results. but this is academic because if she was wearing an apron then because the killer threw up her clothes above her waist putting the apron piece furthest away from him there would have been other clothing easily accesible to the killer from him to cut

                            or perhaps he was a killer with only one arm


                            Click image for larger version Name:	Hand wiping on screwed up cloth.jpg Views:	0 Size:	32.8 KB ID:	785878 Click image for larger version Name:	Handwiping results from scrwed up cloth.jpg Views:	0 Size:	123.8 KB ID:	785879

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Or perhaps when he reached a street lamp he saw that he’d got blood on his shoes. He then uses the cloth to clean them. Using one side. Simple.
                            Regards

                            Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                              I'm not so sure that we can strike possibility number 3 from the list. The Killer would have anticipated that his hands and knife would be covered in blood and brought something with him to wipe them, and if he was intended to take away organs he would have brought something with him in which to carry them. However, cutting himself was not something for which he was prepared. I've looked for a description of the stains on the apron and have found only Long's testimony at the inquest: The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood. I can imagine if he cut his finger he might have applied the apron, starting at the corner, and wrapped it around the finger with some pressure, with the blood wetting that corner.
                              Hi George,

                              Of course, it’s possible that he cut his finger and that he applied the apron piece to try and stop the bleeding, but we have more than just Long’s description (and even Long didn’t describe only the wet corner). Dr. Brown described the blood on the apron as smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it and he stated it contained what appeared to be stains of faecal matter.

                              Also, if the Ripper seriously cut himself and had used the apron piece to bandage the wound, then I’d expect the doctors to have recognized this possibility and we, then, would very likely have known about it. I’d find it odd that this possibility wasn’t mentioned at all by any of the medical men involved.

                              Taken all of this together, it doesn’t strike me that the Ripper took the apron piece with him to just bandage a smallish cut. What still makes the most sense to me is that he primarily took it to wipe his knife (on that wet corner) and his hands on it while getting away or when he was some distance away from the crime scene.

                              Best regards,
                              Frank
                              "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                              Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                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?
                                He was giving an interview specifically about about the murder and the finding of the body, not on the whole police investigation, and not forgetting the missing organs which were not missing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                and while on the subject of police officers misinformation remember Macnaghten who you rely so much on in the case of your suspect Druitt did he not say Druitt was a schoolteacher when in fact he was a barrister

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-14-2022, 03:10 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X