Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
    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
    If he had done that he could have disposed it it long before he got toGS

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      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
      I wondered how long it would be before you brought MacNaghten into it. To say that I ‘rely’ on him is nothing more than a lie. And of course you apply far more stringent criteria for MacNaghten than you do for Lawton. Why….because it suits your theory. And you continue to repeat it this your desperation. And in your desperation you try and discredit 2 Police Officers who saw Eddowes when she was arrested whilst claiming infallibility for an officer recalling events that occurred 8 years previously in an account where he made errors.

      You yourself mentioned how accurate Reid’s recollections were in an attempt to strengthen his suggestion that the body parts were all accounted for. I simply pointed out that he wasn’t that accurate after all. Are you now backtracking? If he was wrong about other details he could have been wrong about the parts. You’re simply cherrypicking.
      Regards

      Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        I wondered how long it would be before you brought MacNaghten into it. To say that I ‘rely’ on him is nothing more than a lie. And of course you apply far more stringent criteria for MacNaghten than you do for Lawton. Why….because it suits your theory. And you continue to repeat it this your desperation. And in your desperation you try and discredit 2 Police Officers who saw Eddowes when she was arrested whilst claiming infallibility for an officer recalling events that occurred 8 years previously in an account where he made errors.

        You yourself mentioned how accurate Reid’s recollections were in an attempt to strengthen his suggestion that the body parts were all accounted for. I simply pointed out that he wasn’t that accurate after all. Are you now backtracking? If he was wrong about other details he could have been wrong about the parts. You’re simply cherrypicking.
        I have right from the start stated that the only thing he got wrong in the interview was the time, he got 10 other major points right about Kelly and the murder nobody is perfect not even you !

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          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.
          You keep believing that you might just convince yourslef

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            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.
            He wasnt wiping his arse he was supposedly wiping his two hands

            with two bloody hands how would he not get blood on both sides of the apron piece? All you keep doing is spouting the same old explantions and you totally ignore other salient points that I have stated to prove that she was not wearing and apron but simply been in posession of two old pieces of apron that at some time in the past had made up a full apron before she was murdered.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              You keep believing that you might just convince yourslef

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Trevor, there’s only you that says that she wasn’t. That should give you a clue.
              Regards

              Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                I have right from the start stated that the only thing he got wrong in the interview was the time, he got 10 other major points right about Kelly and the murder nobody is perfect not even you !

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                What about…

                . We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail
                She was seen with Mr Blotchy……he missed that.
                She was seen with Astrakhan Man….he missed that.

                Regards

                Herlock Sholmes

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                  Can you clarify please: were the organs missing because they were taken by someone other than the killer, or not missing at all?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                    Can you clarify please: were the organs missing because they were taken by someone other than the killer, or not missing at all?
                    What Reid says

                    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.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      What about…

                      She was seen with Mr Blotchy……he missed that.
                      She was seen with Astrakhan Man….he missed that.
                      Would you have liked him to give the full results of the police investigation into her murder as I have stated he gave ten facts surrounding the murder and only one mistake that is not the actions of a man suffering from memory loss and if anyone knew what was going on in 1888 it would have been him.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        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.
                        Again this post shows how desparate you are to protect the old previoulsy accepted theory, you are doing yourself no favours on this topic with this type of post

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          He wasnt wiping his arse he was supposedly wiping his two hands

                          with two bloody hands how would he not get blood on both sides of the apron piece? All you keep doing is spouting the same old explantions and you totally ignore other salient points that I have stated to prove that she was not wearing and apron but simply been in posession of two old pieces of apron that at some time in the past had made up a full apron before she was murdered.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          You really need to learn what the word ‘prove’ means Trevor. It’s a huge failing. You’ve ‘proved’ absolutely nothing. What you’ve done, and what you always do, is you’ve looked at an aspect of the case, you’ve arrived at your own interpretation, then you just assume that everyone should doff their caps and agree with you. Then when they don’t you resort to the tired old Marriott Defence (“you’re just defending the old established theories.”) The fact that so many disagree with you, on so many issues, should at least make you pause and consider “what if I’m not actually always right?”

                          And so, I’ll say it again, the evidence tells us that Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she was killed and a piece taken from it was found in Goulston Street and no matter how many ‘theories’ you come up with and no matter what efforts you make to discredit perfectly good witnesses to bolster your case this is simply what happened.

                          Even your assessment of the opinions of others is faulty. Most people faced with a pretty much 100% rejection of a theory would think “ok, perhaps I’ve got this wrong,” but not you, you have to try and brand everyone as ‘defenders of the old established theories’ which is about as weak as it gets. Why the hell would anyone have any kind of ‘attachment’ to the idea of the killer dropping a piece of cloth? Who cares if he did or not? It doesn’t take us any nearer to a solution to the case. It’s relatively unimportant. So the suggestion that someone would ignore the ‘truth’ to maintain some kind of status quo is little short of pitiful.
                          Regards

                          Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Again this post shows how desparate you are to protect the old previoulsy accepted theory, you are doing yourself no favours on this topic with this type of post

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Why??

                            Why couldn’t he have wiped his hands at the scene and then taken a piece of apron away with him so that he could check himself over when he was a safe distance from Mitre Square, near to a lamp to allow him to see better, and at a location where he could have a quick clean up unseen if he found that he needed one. Say, somewhere like Goulston Street.
                            Regards

                            Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Would you have liked him to give the full results of the police investigation into her murder as I have stated he gave ten facts surrounding the murder and only one mistake that is not the actions of a man suffering from memory loss and if anyone knew what was going on in 1888 it would have been him.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              No it wasn’t one mistake.

                              We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail
                              So he ‘forgot’ about Blotchy, and he ‘forgot’ about Hutchinson.

                              And conveniently you ‘forgot’ about this.
                              Regards

                              Herlock Sholmes

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                No it wasn’t one mistake.



                                So he ‘forgot’ about Blotchy, and he ‘forgot’ about Hutchinson.

                                And conveniently you ‘forgot’ about this.
                                I didnt conveniently forget, I was dealing specifically with the article, not the whole of the police investigation into the murder which you seem to think he should have disclosed and why should he have disclosed what you suggest Hutchinson was deemed to be a non starter,

                                For all we know he had retained copies of his report which he was referring to, and besides if Hutchinson is to be believed Blotchy is ruled out because Hutchinsons sighting of her was after she was seen with Blotchy, so Blotchy ruled out back then so need for him to be mentioned by Reid and we all know how suspect Hutchinsons statement was, so again no prime suspects for Reid to mention to the reporter. There is always a simple answer no need for you to get over excited

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X