Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • #16
    Click image for larger version

Name:	mitre-square-murder-corner.jpg
Views:	214
Size:	69.7 KB
ID:	784260 Sutton only needed the apron piece to ensure there was not a trail of blood droplets when returning to the rear of 6 Mitre Street through the gate.
    He then waited until the coast was clear before taking off with the apron in order to throw the investigation away from his bolt hole.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	mitre-sq-jan1887.jpg
Views:	212
Size:	247.1 KB
ID:	784261


    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      No you are wrong they are all equal if he gets stopped and searched then he becomes a prime suspect, If he is found in Mitre Square he becomes a prime suspect, if he is found leaning over the body he becomes a prime suspect unless of course he gives his name as Charles Cross !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      And no one has todate come up with a plausible explantion as to why he would allegedly cut a piece of her apron and take it away with him and then having done so discards it 10 mins later because we know by the decsription of the apron piece he could not have taken the organs away in it. Cutting his hand and using it to stem the blood flow is again disproven by the condition of the apron piece.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      We have debated this long time ago. JTR had organs and a knife in him and some blood, with or without the apron he still would be in danger if stopped, asked and searched. Having the apron does not add much. He had to avoid any contact with police as he got away from the crime scenes, which he did in all cases.

      On your second point, with some help from your experiment, that's why using the apron to carry organs was not the reason, putting the apron with the message was, more likely. According to police some residents of the building said they did not notice a graffito there, at least not when there was daylight.

      I believe the messages stemmed from the anti-semitic responses from the Chapman murder.
      I believe he carried some kind of pouch to carry the organs, he already knew the mess of handling and carrying those from Chapman's murder.
      Last edited by Varqm; 04-08-2022, 12:03 AM.
      Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
      M. Pacana

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        No you are wrong they are all equal if he gets stopped and searched then he becomes a prime suspect, If he is found in Mitre Square he becomes a prime suspect, if he is found leaning over the body he becomes a prime suspect unless of course he gives his name as Charles Cross !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        And no one has todate come up with a plausible explantion as to why he would allegedly cut a piece of her apron and take it away with him and then having done so discards it 10 mins later because we know by the decsription of the apron piece he could not have taken the organs away in it. Cutting his hand and using it to stem the blood flow is again disproven by the condition of the apron piece.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        I disagree. They are not equivalent risks. Murdering and mutilating requires being in a location for an extended period of time, and also risks the victim crying out and drawing attention to the situation. Carrying an apron, while it is incriminating, simply requires one to avoid police and there is always the possibility of discarding it unseen, which appears to have been the case. He also has a knife on him, blood stains will be present, and he's got organs with him (though I know you don't accept the last point; but even if we set that aside, the other two are enough).

        According to those who saw it, it appears he used it to wipe his knife and hands on, probably to get the fecal matter off (which was present on the apron). You have decided to not accept the opinion of those who actually saw the apron, so I know you reject that explanation but I see no good reason to presume the doctor didn't know what he was looking at and conjecture by those of us who have not seen the actual piece of apron does not bare weight (meaning my acceptance of the doctor's interpretation of what he saw doesn't make his opinion better, but neither does your rejection make it weaker). As such, the only evidence we have points to him using the piece of apron to clean his hands and knife. I do agree with on the point that there's nothing to indicate he carried organs in it.

        We've been over this before, and neither of us is going to change our minds as we've both presented out views and we disagree, which is fine.

        - Jeff
        Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-08-2022, 12:26 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post
          Or he absent-mindedly wiped the knife on it and stuck it in his pocket, later realising what he had done and discarding it.

          Or he carried the organs away in it and then found a better receptacle, so discarded it.

          Or he had cut himself during the attack so used it to staunch the blood flow, and discarded it once the blood had stopped flowing from the wound.

          I'm sure there are plenty of other possible explanations.
          Bingo!
          “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.”

          “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Varqm View Post
            I believe he carried some kind of pouch to carry the organs, he already knew the mess of handling and carrying those from Chapman's murder.
            But cutting himself was something he did not anticipate.

            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.”

            “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              I disagree. They are not equivalent risks. Murdering and mutilating requires being in a location for an extended period of time, and also risks the victim crying out and drawing attention to the situation. Carrying an apron, while it is incriminating, simply requires one to avoid police and there is always the possibility of discarding it unseen, which appears to have been the case. He also has a knife on him, blood stains will be present, and he's got organs with him (though I know you don't accept the last point; but even if we set that aside, the other two are enough).

              According to those who saw it, it appears he used it to wipe his knife and hands on, probably to get the fecal matter off (which was present on the apron). You have decided to not accept the opinion of those who actually saw the apron, so I know you reject that explanation but I see no good reason to presume the doctor didn't know what he was looking at and conjecture by those of us who have not seen the actual piece of apron does not bare weight (meaning my acceptance of the doctor's interpretation of what he saw doesn't make his opinion better, but neither does your rejection make it weaker). As such, the only evidence we have points to him using the piece of apron to clean his hands and knife. I do agree with on the point that there's nothing to indicate he carried organs in it.

              We've been over this before, and neither of us is going to change our minds as we've both presented out views and we disagree, which is fine.

              - Jeff
              Yet you still refuse to accept the results of tests that have been done to disprove the wiping of the hands/Knife and the taking away of the organs.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Yet you still refuse to accept the results of tests that have been done to disprove the wiping of the hands/Knife and the taking away of the organs.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Hi Trevor,

                I'm a little confused. I thought your position was that the cloth found in Goulston St wasn't from Eddowes apron? What were the tests that disproved the wiping of hands on the found cloth?

                Cheers, George
                Last edited by GBinOz; 04-08-2022, 08:06 AM.
                “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.”

                “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                Comment


                • #23
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                    Hi Trevor,

                    There is no dispute that the GS piece was from Eddowes apron

                    I'm a little confused. I thought your position was that the cloth found in Goulston St wasn't from Eddowes apron? What were the tests that disproved the wiping of hands on the found cloth?

                    Cheers, George
                    The first which negate the wiping of hand is from the original apron description that being that the blood and facela matter was only on one side of the apron if the killer had blood stained hands and he wiped them on the apron piece there would have been residue on both sides. This was confirmed by a test I commissioned in mortuary where blood on hands was wiped on a piece of material to show the transmission of blood on both sides of the material

                    A similar test was condcuted with regards to the suggestion that the killer wiped his knife, again the results disprove this theory

                    At the same time and in order to disprove the suggestion that the organs were taken away in the apron piece a uterus was removed from a live donor and wrapped in a piece of material and left for 10 mins and then photographed the result show a large volume of blood form the organ on the material which is not consistent with how the apron piece was described.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      The first which negate the wiping of hand is from the original apron description that being that the blood and facela matter was only on one side of the apron if the killer had blood stained hands and he wiped them on the apron piece there would have been residue on both sides. This was confirmed by a test I commissioned in mortuary where blood on hands was wiped on a piece of material to show the transmission of blood on both sides of the material

                      A similar test was condcuted with regards to the suggestion that the killer wiped his knife, again the results disprove this theory

                      At the same time and in order to disprove the suggestion that the organs were taken away in the apron piece a uterus was removed from a live donor and wrapped in a piece of material and left for 10 mins and then photographed the result show a large volume of blood form the organ on the material which is not consistent with how the apron piece was described.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Hi Trevor!

                      If as postulated previously, the rag was used to staunch blood flow from a wound sustained by the killer during the attack, that could perhaps explain why blood was only on one side of the rag (depending on how it was folded or bundled up).

                      I'm not saying that's definitely what happened, but it's a possibility surely?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                        Hi Trevor!

                        If as postulated previously, the rag was used to staunch blood flow from a wound sustained by the killer during the attack, that could perhaps explain why blood was only on one side of the rag (depending on how it was folded or bundled up).

                        I'm not saying that's definitely what happened, but it's a possibility surely?
                        The apron was decsribed as having blood spots if the killer did cut himslef I would expect to see a more localised blood stain and possible seepage through the piece visble on both sides

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 04-08-2022, 10:13 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Yet you still refuse to accept the results of tests that have been done to disprove the wiping of the hands/Knife and the taking away of the organs.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Trevor, without having the original piece of apron, you cannot test it. You have no idea how much blood was on the apron, you do not know if your tests used too much, too little, or if the cloth you used was similar, and so forth. There's no way for you to know if your test was done properly. So no, I don't accept your tests because they are not actually tests. You would have to have the original cloth because you have to see if wiping a knife or hand on cloth could make those stains, and try different amounts of blood, etc, until you either show it could happen, or show that it can't. But you don't know what the actual cloth looks like, so in the end what you've done is show that you can make a stain that you think looks different from something you haven't seen. That's not a test anyone should accept.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Good point.
                            '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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                              Hi Trevor!

                              If as postulated previously, the rag was used to staunch blood flow from a wound sustained by the killer during the attack, that could perhaps explain why blood was only on one side of the rag (depending on how it was folded or bundled up).

                              I'm not saying that's definitely what happened, but it's a possibility surely?
                              I could envisage a folded piece of cloth used to stem a cut producing blood spots. I would think the murderer would have prepared for other contingencies but not anticipated a self inflicted wound.

                              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.”

                              “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                But why take so long before discarding it? it was blood stained and therefore had he been stopped and checked by the police he would have been in great difficulty so why would he wait so long before discarding it, or perhaps he didnt discard it, and it got there by another means?

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Yes, that is a good point but why do you want to assign rational thought and behavior to a man who had just slit a woman's throat, cut up her face and ripped out her kidney?

                                c.d.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X