PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Monty]

What you state as 'facts', are merely theories in most Ripperoloists eyes.

You aren't the first to challenge them, they were debated on these boards since 2000, and they are not accepted 'fact'.

And let's be clear, you have dispelled nothing, merely added to the murk.

Monty

[Debra A]

This myth about the killer taking the organs away follows on from the false perception of a man in a black hat wearing a black cape carrying a black back.
.

Trevor, are you sure you aren't actually the one promoting this myth every time you attempt to destroy it? Do people on yours tours ask if the apron was used to transport the organs? Is that where this idea of yours that it is a widely promoted theory comes from?
Do you know specifically of any posters or authors who actively promote the belief that the organs were carried in the apron piece? Or actively promote the belief that the organs were carried in the apron piece as a means to support the idea that JTR was an organ stealer? It's an interesting point Roy made.

[Monty]

Have you seen the original? Or a second/third generation copy?

Monty

No? Not gonna aswer that huh?

Monty

[Monty]

Trevor, are you sure you aren't actually the one promoting this myth every time you attempt to destroy it? Do people on yours tours ask if the apron was used to transport the organs? Is that where this idea of yours that it is a widely promoted theory comes from?
Do you know specifically of any posters or authors who actively promote the belief that the organs were carried in the apron piece? Or actively promote the belief that the organs were carried in the apron piece as a means to support the idea that JTR was an organ stealer? It's an interesting point Roy made.

Perfectly summed up by Debs and Roy.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Lynn.

We could also ask why Sutcliffe tried to saw the head off one of his victims, but only one.
Or, why he stabbed one victim in the eye, and only one.

Are we asking the right questions?

The difference is that the nicking of the eyelids and the triangles on Eddowes were done almost by design almost artistic,whereas Peter Sutcliffe in the case referred to went back to visit the victims body and carried out those mutilations in a fit of rage caused by a specific incident.

In his late murders he constantly stabbed his victims in various parts of their bodies

Sutcliffe is not a very good analogy

Did the killer have time to show his artistic side in Mitre Square ?

[Trevor Marriott]

No? Not gonna aswer that huh?

Monty

How many originals are there? Certainly all the ones shown so far don't show triangles on the cheeks.

But feel free to post ?

[Monty]

How many originals are there? Certainly all the ones shown so far don't show triangles on the cheeks.

But feel free to post ?

I'll take that as a no, you haven't seen the original. And yet you preach about primary sources.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

I'll take that as a no, you haven't seen the original. And yet you preach about primary sources.

Monty

Well what has been posted are copies of the original are they not ?

As we don't have the original on our desks in front of us we can only go by what we do have. If I went down to the archives today and photographed the original what I produced thereafter would be a copy.

Secondary evidence i.e copies is admissible when the original is not available and for the purpose of this exercise as we speak its not available.

If you are suggesting that the original shows things on it that are not readily visible on the ones shown so far then please feel free to enlighten us.

[Monty]

You are basing your conclusion on secondary sources. The very thing you accuse others of doing.

Why, therefore, is it acceptable for you to operate like that and not others?

And no, I'm not going to 'enlighten' you. I'm afraid you shall have to do your own research.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

You are basing your conclusion on secondary sources. The very thing you accuse others of doing.

Why, therefore, is it acceptable for you to operate like that and not others?

And no, I'm not going to 'enlighten' you. I'm afraid you shall have to do your own research.

Monty

Well in this case we are never going to be able to see the primary source.

I don't need to do my own research it is you that is questioning what I have suggested. You show me a crime scene picture, which shows a triangle plainly visible as a triangle and not just a mark or squiggle in and around her cheek going in the same direction as all the other facial cuts at the same angle.

If you can, and it conclusively proves those nicks and triangles were there at the crime scene, then fine, I will accept that and move on.

[Debra A]

Trevor, one last time -do you have an official description of the blood spots on the apron? The one you gave your expert to work and draw conclusions from?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, one last time -do you have an official description of the blood spots on the apron? The one you gave your expert to work and draw conclusions from?

and the relevance of that question is ?

[El White Chap]

Did the killer have time to show his artistic side in Mitre Square ?

Quite obviously yes.

The killer had enough time to cut her throat more than once, open her up like a fish, pull out her intestines and place them over her right shoulder, purposely leave 2ft of severed intestines between her torso and left arm, cut off the lobe of her right ear, cut off her nose. Remove her uterus. All that at the very least.

Now we have the perpetrator of the nicks to her face and the remover of her kidney being doubted as the same person who did all the rest to her?

Here comes the..."How did he do all that in approximately 5 minutes?" baloney.

Do we have exact and accurate timings to the minute of how long the killer had to work in Mitre Square or do we have approximations?

The answer to that is 100% the latter, but please do humour us further old boy.

[lynn cates]

signatures and such

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Are we asking the right questions?"

Let's see. I begin with this.

Q: Did Peter Sutcliffe:

1. have a signature

or

2. wish merely to kill?

In consequence of our answer:

"We could also ask why Sutcliffe tried to saw the head off one of his victims, but only one.
Or, why he stabbed one victim in the eye, and only one."

If 2 is correct, then these questions are all but moot.

Now, did Polly and Annie establish a signature? If you think that the facial bruising, strangulation and parallel neck cuts establish just that, then we are in agreement. Consequently, any departure from the signature requires explanation.

On the other hand, if those items do NOT indicate signature, then all the "JTR" talk is, in and of itself, moot.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

questions, questions

Hello Neil. Think that's the right question? Then please have a go at my response to Jon.

Cheers.
LC