Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Not mistaken, the two pieces were matched but they didnt make up a full apron your reading it wrong but no need to apologise, and you are referriing to a newspaper report which is in direct conflcit with the signed deposition

    www.trevormarriott.co,uk
    Forget about conjecture, speculation and conspiracist-type thinking…..just point us to one Police Officer or Doctor (or even the woman who did the cleaning at the Police Station) who stated that there was a piece of apron missing. Just one. Even a hint would do.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      Maybe for the other murders he’d brought a piece of cloth with him but this time he’d forgotten it so he needed to improvise.
      Alternatively, Herlock, he could have brought a piece of cloth out with him but discarded it after cutting Stride's throat and using it to wipe the knife clean. If people can argue that the apron piece might never have been picked up or connected with a murder, that could apply equally to any piece of cloth discarded between Berner Street and Mitre Square.

      Love,

      Caz
      X

      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Forget about conjecture, speculation and conspiracist-type thinking…..just point us to one Police Officer or Doctor (or even the woman who did the cleaning at the Police Station) who stated that there was a piece of apron missing. Just one. Even a hint would do.
        Are you thick or just plain stupid it has been explained many times how the matching of the two apron pieces could not have made a full apon

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          ah so now they matched-but didnt make up a full apron. lol.

          not that it matters one bit-if they matched the piece from Goulston street to the piece from Eddowes-its end of story. it dont even matter if it still didnt make a complete apron, because there may have been a piece missing already.

          but how do you know it didnt make a full apron???

          im quivering with anticipation for your reply
          You are another who opens your mouth without engaging your brain first it has been explained that the two pieces by reason of how Brown matched them could not have made a full apron .this is like pulling teeth with some on here

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Are you thick or just plain stupid it has been explained many times how the matching of the two apron pieces could not have made a full apon

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            And why can’t you understand Trevor…..I don’t agree with you. You are incorrect. Why can’t you stop assuming that just because you’ve given your opinion that everyone should agree with you. You should have learned by now that few posters get disagreed with more on here than yourself and there’s a damned good reason for that. It’s your constant proposing of utterly baseless, barking mad theories that hold about as much water as a dwarfs thimble.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post

              Alternatively, Herlock, he could have brought a piece of cloth out with him but discarded it after cutting Stride's throat and using it to wipe the knife clean. If people can argue that the apron piece might never have been picked up or connected with a murder, that could apply equally to any piece of cloth discarded between Berner Street and Mitre Square.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Yes, I’d forgotten about Stride. He wouldn’t have planned on two ‘events’ on one night and there can’t be anything unbelievable or far fetched about a killer bringing a piece of cloth with him in case he didn’t have time to clean up at the scene or in case he missed something like some blood on his shoe after he’d left the scene.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Yes, I’d forgotten about Stride. He wouldn’t have planned on two ‘events’ on one night and there can’t be anything unbelievable or far fetched about a killer bringing a piece of cloth with him in case he didn’t have time to clean up at the scene or in case he missed something like some blood on his shoe after he’d left the scene.
                hi herlock
                I think he probably did take a cloth or something like that out with him the night of the double event, but had to clean up blood after the botched stride attempt. and there is evidence for it-the sighting of a man fitting the description of the suspect the other witnesses saw that night, acting suspicious, hiding his face and wiping his hands with a cloth on Church st. in between time and place of the dutfield yard and mitre square murders.
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  And why can’t you understand Trevor…..I don’t agree with you. You are incorrect. Why can’t you stop assuming that just because you’ve given your opinion that everyone should agree with you. You should have learned by now that few posters get disagreed with more on here than yourself and there’s a damned good reason for that. It’s your constant proposing of utterly baseless, barking mad theories that hold about as much water as a dwarfs thimble.
                  Its not an opinon it is my interpreation based on the evidence that is before me which I have set out in great detail in a previous post to you and I stand by that evidence which you are not able to rebut and that is clearly pissing you off because you have no answer to the issues I have highlighted other than to keep doing your polly parrot impression which is getting boring and tedious now.

                  I dont expect for one minute that you or the others who sit here in judgement will agree because over the years you have clearly been brainwashed into beliveing and accepting the old accpeted theories. History is there to be analysed not readily accepted as being correct in how it was written

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Are you thick or just plain stupid it has been explained many times how the matching of the two apron pieces could not have made a full apon

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    I see you've taken to personal insults yet again. Desperate.
                    '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

                      You are another who opens your mouth without engaging your brain first it has been explained that the two pieces by reason of how Brown matched them could not have made a full apron .this is like pulling teeth with some on here

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      And again.
                      '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


                      • This topic is headed for closer no doubt.
                        '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

                          There are several newspaper reports from 1888 which corroborate the fact that no body parts were taken away, and such a horrific murder as that for anyone involved in the investigation, I am sorry I dont buy the memory failure to suggest that I see as nothing more than an excuse for not accepting the reality of Reids newspaper interview.

                          Walter Dew another Detective involved in the murder also makes no mention of any organs taken away in his memoirs
                          Dr Bond in his letter to Anderson on the murders makes no mention of any organs taken away by the killer

                          How can such an important part of this particluar murder have simply been forgotten back then, the answer is that it was not forgotten because the heart was not taken away by the killer.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          As you know, there are also multiple news reports saying that body parts were missing, and I believe one of them even says it was the heart. We also have the post-mortem report indicating the heart was absent, though this could be interpreted as absent from the chest cavity but still in their possession. However, we have no report in the post-mortem of an examination of the heart, which suggests it was not available at all. We also have a list of the organs and body parts found in the room, detailing where they were found, and again, no mention of the heart is made.

                          We are left having to interpret the bread crumbs, and while your suggestion that the heart was in their possession, based solely upon statements made many years after that from memory, can be argued for (as you do), it is not a safe argument because memory is not safe. The alternative, that the heart was taken away by the killer, is also entirely justified.

                          In my opinion, the later is the more probable situation. Clearly, you favour the former. But the idea that memory failure is simply an excuse is incorrect, and to dismiss it is unwise.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            And why and how did the killer manage to cut the GS piece when it was a corner piece with a string attached when it would have been easier for him to cut a piece from the bottom half of the apron doesnt make any sense, what happend to the other corner with the remaining string attached, On the subject of the matching of the two pieces of apron they were matched by Dr Brown who matched them by the seams of the borders corresponding which as I have stated time and time agsin means that they were from the same side of what was an old apron, the corner piece being from the top left/right and the bottom piece from the bottom left/right

                            The we have PC Long who in his signed deposition makes no mention of examaning the apron piece and noticing yet in his testimony recorded by the Times Newspaper. He found the apon piece over an hour after the murder and states one corner was wet with blood.

                            As you can see there is more than enough evidence to cast a major doubt as to whether or not she was wearing an apron.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            From signed depositions:

                            Inspector Edward Collard: I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which was cut through and found outside her dress.

                            Alfred Long: I found a portion of a woman's apron which I produce. There appear bloodstains on it, one portion was wet......

                            Dr Brown: My attention was called to the apron - It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to be found in Goulstone St. I fitted the piece of the apron which had a new piece of material on it which had apparently been sewn onto the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding - some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion in Goulstone St.


                            Was the apron piece separated from the body before the body was taken to the morgue?

                            I can find no evidence of anyone suggesting that when the the two pieces of apron were matched the apron was incomplete.

                            Cheers, George
                            Last edited by GBinOz; 05-18-2022, 02:57 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


                            • Hi GBinOz,

                              "which deceased was apparently wearing . . ."

                              Was does that mean?

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                                Hi GBinOz,

                                "which deceased was apparently wearing . . ."

                                Was does that mean?

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Hi Simon,

                                I just report it, I don't explain it.

                                The deceased that was being referred to by Collard was Eddowes. My interpretation is that the apron was not under the clothing that was lifted to expose the abdomen, as suggested by Trevor. I would think that the apron may have been cut before the abdominal mutilations and, since the string was cut, maybe the piece that stayed with Eddowes was put to one side of the body. Just a possibility.

                                Let's have some discussion as to that meaning.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X