Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    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
    I dont expect you or all of the others who continually prop up the old accpted theory that the killer cut the apron piece and took it away with along with the organs.

    But it is fact that the tests conducted do not corrobrate the old accepted theories and cannot be disregaraded based on your own personal beliefs

    We do know how much blood was on the apron, the blood was decribed as blood spots on one side along with faecal matter on the same one side !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If the killer had blood stained hands then when he used the cloth to wipe his hands there would be traces of blood on both sides of the cloth. The same if he was wiping his knife. The type of material is irrelevant

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • #32
      From an old thread, i believe it was also called GSG Conclusion or The Apron Was Dropped

      ------

      The GSG is not coincidental. Jack never left a clue of a bloodied apron or such like before, why wait until the 4th victim? He left the clue because he knew it would be picked up and connected to the writing on the wall. It could not be any more deliberate. He wanted that message to be read.

      If it was old graffiti and as anti-semitic as Charles Warren believed, why did no locals clean it? It was just chalk after all. Charlie understood the message. He also oversaw the official report that was submitted by PC Long. There is a chance Long's transcription may not be 100% accurate and potentially for a reason that only old Charlie would know at that time.

      As was pointed out in many previous threads, the double event simply contains too many references to Jewish locations to be coincidental.
      1) Dutfields Yard and the international working mens eductional club
      2) The great synagogue at Mitre square (most obvious spontaneous choice after plan A failed)
      3) Goulston Street (already planned to drop hint there on way back home)
      The logical conclusion is that the Ripper, influenced by the newspaper reports about Leather Apron, set out to put a clear spotlight on the Jewish community that night.
      The inference is, that the Ripper himself was not a Jew.

      Comment


      • #33
        The inference is, that the Ripper himself was not a Jew.

        But we can't discount the fact that he might have been a Jew and cleverly used the GSG as a way to mislead the police.

        c.d.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by IchabodCrane View Post
          From an old thread, i believe it was also called GSG Conclusion or The Apron Was Dropped

          ------

          The GSG is not coincidental. Jack never left a clue of a bloodied apron or such like before, why wait until the 4th victim? He left the clue because he knew it would be picked up and connected to the writing on the wall. It could not be any more deliberate. He wanted that message to be read.

          If it was old graffiti and as anti-semitic as Charles Warren believed, why did no locals clean it? It was just chalk after all. Charlie understood the message. He also oversaw the official report that was submitted by PC Long. There is a chance Long's transcription may not be 100% accurate and potentially for a reason that only old Charlie would know at that time.

          As was pointed out in many previous threads, the double event simply contains too many references to Jewish locations to be coincidental.
          1) Dutfields Yard and the international working mens eductional club
          2) The great synagogue at Mitre square (most obvious spontaneous choice after plan A failed)
          3) Goulston Street (already planned to drop hint there on way back home)
          The logical conclusion is that the Ripper, influenced by the newspaper reports about Leather Apron, set out to put a clear spotlight on the Jewish community that night.
          The inference is, that the Ripper himself was not a Jew.
          Why would Jack leave athe apeon piece and write nonsenical graffiti in a location where neither might be found- Come on people get real !!!!!!!!!!!!

          He could have simply posted the apron piece to the police with a note attached

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Why would Jack leave athe apeon piece and write nonsenical graffiti in a location where neither might be found- Come on people get real !!!!!!!!!!!!

            He could have simply posted the apron piece to the police with a note attached

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Im always amazed by people who post stuff that the ripper didnt do (but should have!?!) and ignore what he actually did do.
            "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


            • #36
              Originally posted by DJA View Post
              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.
              Nobody responded to this, Dave.

              Sutton was a frail old man by that time. Granting Eddowes was only 5 feet tall, he still would have struggled getting her out of the back window and dragging her through the back gate, assuming he had a key (or did it bolt from the inside?). After mutilating Eddowes in the corner of the square, would it make sense to wait in his bolt hole at no. 6 Mitre Street until the coast was clear (policeman within a couple of minutes), or did he immediately leave with the apron from the corner of the square?

              This theory in general terms isn't bad, as I believe the killer stopped somewhere to clean-up and deposit organs, before depositing the piece of apron in the doorway in Goulston Street. But I don't think the writing on the wall had anything to do with the Ripper.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                I dont expect you or all of the others who continually prop up the old accpted theory that the killer cut the apron piece and took it away with along with the organs.
                Personally, I don't expect anybody to view your attempts at recreation of the blood and fecal matter patterns as a test of the doctor's opinion because I think everyone understands that in order to evaluate the recreation, the blood and fecal matter patterns on the original apron need to be available to compare with. How do you know you didn't get exactly the same pattern?
                But it is fact that the tests conducted do not corrobrate the old accepted theories and cannot be disregaraded based on your own personal beliefs
                It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, it has to do with how one actually does research and testing.

                You did not do a proper test, all you've shown is that if you use a different type of cloth, and use the wrong amount of blood, you can make a blood stain. You can't even say that stain is unlike the original one because you do not have the original one to compare with.


                We do know how much blood was on the apron, the blood was decribed as blood spots on one side along with faecal matter on the same one side !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                And stains, and smears. I am unaware of these units of measurement for size and area, are they like stones for weight? Could you please convert those to metric units, or at least point me to where I can find the conversion factors?

                And how many spots, stains, and smears were there? Did they overlap? Were they equally distributed over the cloth? Are the concentrated in any particular area? Is the cloth oily (fats from food, swet, body oils, etc) or had it been washed recently? What other materials might be in/on the cloth that might influence how fluids react to it?

                If you just mean spots as people use them, vague descriptions, then if you didn't get spots, stains, and smears, then you used the wrong amount of blood, and/or your cloth has different absorbent characteristics, and/or you use spots/stains/smears differently than the doctors of 1888 did.

                Research like this requires you use the same materials, in the same state (so not fresh cloth, but old cloth that may be stained with other matter; an apron that has absorbed various fats and oils may very well spread blood differently than a fresh piece of cloth). You must recreate the materials, and the amounts, very precisely. You've done none of those because we do not know those details. So you would have to do a large number of attempts to see if you can create a similar pattern - you tried once. There are many combinations of invalid cloth/blood quantities, you need to show there is no combination that would work. You tried once, got what you wanted, and stopped. That's not a test.

                And there's no way to know if you get a match because, once again, you can't make a comparison without the original to compare with.

                I've got a glass here, it's fairly full. Go get a glass and put some water in it, and tell me if you've been able to recreate the amount of water in my glass.


                If the killer had blood stained hands then when he used the cloth to wipe his hands there would be traces of blood on both sides of the cloth. The same if he was wiping his knife. The type of material is irrelevant

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                No Trevor, if one folds the apron piece, even just in half, then the blood will be on one side. This has been explained a few times now but maybe you can't visualise it, so take a towel, fold it in half. Cover your hands in flour, and pick up the cloth and wipe your hands with the folded towel to your hearts content. Unfold the towel, and your flour will be on only one side! The fold means both "sides" are the "same side" - it's like a magic tick, it seems amazing, but it's simple once you know how.

                - Jeff
                Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-08-2022, 06:50 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                  But we can't discount the fact that he might have been a Jew and cleverly used the GSG as a way to mislead the police.

                  c.d.
                  It comes down to a question of probability.
                  If you are the killer, and there are reports in the newspapers in September about the killer perhaps being leather apron, a local Jewish man.
                  If you were the killer and a Jew, would you then try to draw more attention to the probability of the murderer being a Jew by
                  - accosting and killing a victim on the premises of the Jewish International Working Men's society
                  - accosting the next victim right in front of the great synagogue
                  - writing a graffito implicating the Jewish community, and dropping a piece of cloth from the victim right under it, to draw attention to the graffito

                  I think the chances are about 95 : 5 % that you would not do that if you were the killer and yourself a member of the Jewish community.
                  Because you wouldn't like the investigation to zero in on Jewish suspects.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by IchabodCrane View Post

                    It comes down to a question of probability.
                    If you are the killer, and there are reports in the newspapers in September about the killer perhaps being leather apron, a local Jewish man.
                    If you were the killer and a Jew, would you then try to draw more attention to the probability of the murderer being a Jew by
                    - accosting and killing a victim on the premises of the Jewish International Working Men's society
                    - accosting the next victim right in front of the great synagogue
                    - writing a graffito implicating the Jewish community, and dropping a piece of cloth from the victim right under it, to draw attention to the graffito

                    I think the chances are about 95 : 5 % that you would not do that if you were the killer and yourself a member of the Jewish community.
                    Because you wouldn't like the investigation to zero in on Jewish suspects.
                    totally agree. good point. would a jew also use the ethnic slur lipski against another jew? i dont think so.
                    "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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                      Nobody responded to this, Dave.

                      Sutton was a frail old man by that time. Granting Eddowes was only 5 feet tall, he still would have struggled getting her out of the back window and dragging her through the back gate, assuming he had a key (or did it bolt from the inside?). After mutilating Eddowes in the corner of the square, would it make sense to wait in his bolt hole at no. 6 Mitre Street until the coast was clear (policeman within a couple of minutes), or did he immediately leave with the apron from the corner of the square?

                      This theory in general terms isn't bad, as I believe the killer stopped somewhere to clean-up and deposit organs, before depositing the piece of apron in the doorway in Goulston Street. But I don't think the writing on the wall had anything to do with the Ripper.
                      Sutton was 53 years old and had been moving corpses around at night by himself for over 20 years at the London Hospital.
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                        Personally, I don't expect anybody to view your attempts at recreation of the blood and fecal matter patterns as a test of the doctor's opinion because I think everyone understands that in order to evaluate the recreation, the blood and fecal matter patterns on the original apron need to be available to compare with. How do you know you didn't get exactly the same pattern?

                        It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, it has to do with how one actually does research and testing.

                        You did not do a proper test, all you've shown is that if you use a different type of cloth, and use the wrong amount of blood, you can make a blood stain. You can't even say that stain is unlike the original one because you do not have the original one to compare with.


                        And stains, and smears. I am unaware of these units of measurement for size and area, are they like stones for weight? Could you please convert those to metric units, or at least point me to where I can find the conversion factors?

                        And how many spots, stains, and smears were there? Did they overlap? Were they equally distributed over the cloth? Are the concentrated in any particular area? Is the cloth oily (fats from food, swet, body oils, etc) or had it been washed recently? What other materials might be in/on the cloth that might influence how fluids react to it?

                        If you just mean spots as people use them, vague descriptions, then if you didn't get spots, stains, and smears, then you used the wrong amount of blood, and/or your cloth has different absorbent characteristics, and/or you use spots/stains/smears differently than the doctors of 1888 did.

                        Research like this requires you use the same materials, in the same state (so not fresh cloth, but old cloth that may be stained with other matter; an apron that has absorbed various fats and oils may very well spread blood differently than a fresh piece of cloth). You must recreate the materials, and the amounts, very precisely. You've done none of those because we do not know those details. So you would have to do a large number of attempts to see if you can create a similar pattern - you tried once. There are many combinations of invalid cloth/blood quantities, you need to show there is no combination that would work. You tried once, got what you wanted, and stopped. That's not a test.

                        And there's no way to know if you get a match because, once again, you can't make a comparison without the original to compare with.

                        I've got a glass here, it's fairly full. Go get a glass and put some water in it, and tell me if you've been able to recreate the amount of water in my glass.

                        No Trevor, if one folds the apron piece, even just in half, then the blood will be on one side. This has been explained a few times now but maybe you can't visualise it, so take a towel, fold it in half. Cover your hands in flour, and pick up the cloth and wipe your hands with the folded towel to your hearts content. Unfold the towel, and your flour will be on only one side! The fold means both "sides" are the "same side" - it's like a magic tick, it seems amazing, but it's simple once you know how.

                        - Jeff
                        I am not going to continue to argue with you I have stated my point and I am happy that the test results do not corroborate the suggestion that the killer wiped his hands or the knife on the apron piece. The original apron piece is never going to be available to compare but the decsription of that piece is avaialble to us to use as a guideline, and there are only so many ways to wipe a bloodstained knife or to wipe bloody hands both will leave an identifiable residue on any type of material.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          I am not going to continue to argue with you I have stated my point and I am happy that the test results do not corroborate the suggestion that the killer wiped his hands or the knife on the apron piece. The original apron piece is never going to be available to compare but the decsription of that piece is avaialble to us to use as a guideline, and there are only so many ways to wipe a bloodstained knife or to wipe bloody hands both will leave an identifiable residue on any type of material.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Would you post those three photos again Trevor.

                          We could do with a good laugh
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            I am not going to continue to argue with you I have stated my point and I am happy that the test results do not corroborate the suggestion that the killer wiped his hands or the knife on the apron piece. The original apron piece is never going to be available to compare but the decsription of that piece is avaialble to us to use as a guideline, and there are only so many ways to wipe a bloodstained knife or to wipe bloody hands both will leave an identifiable residue on any type of material.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Hi Trevor,

                            I'm aware you're happy with your results, and as you know, I do not agree for the reasons I've again outlined above. We've both stated our positions multiple times, and it would be odd if either of us were to suddenly convert the other. It's fine that we disagree, that's the nature of the topic. We do agree that it is not a good use of our time to draw out everything that has been said before on positions I think are both sufficiently presented that anyone who is interested can read and decide for themselves. Fortunately, there are areas where we do converge, and those have always been more useful topics to explore in my opinion.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Hi Trevor,

                              Can you point me to the references you are using for the description of the stains on the apron please?

                              I found this primary evidence from Long's testimony at the inquest:
                              [Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

                              This from a dissertation, A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour by Jon Smyth:
                              If you have blood-stained hands, and you wipe them on a cloth you don't easily wet the cloth, but only badly stain it. Blood is not wet like water and does not soak in as easily, so if the portion of apron was wet with blood then something may have been leaking into the cloth for a few minutes to make it that way.

                              It seems to me that this is consistent with a piece of cloth being wrapped, starting from the corner, around a bleeding 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.”

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by DJA View Post

                                Would you post those three photos again Trevor.

                                We could do with a good laugh
                                Not half as much of a laugh im getting from the ''SUTTON THEORY ''....... in he goes at No6 on the M.R.S. list.
                                '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

                                Working...
                                X