The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Kattrup]

This argument keeps rolling on and on let me explain where i am with this

As an example a Times reporter attends court and make a written note of the proceedings and that report is published in its entirety in The Times. That is a primary source because it was written down at the time by the person who published it, who was present. I am sure we all agree on that point. It will never become a secondary source.

If the same report is later copied by another reporter who wasn't present and then published and there are conflicts, then that report becomes secondary which is what we have all through this mystery conflicts in the evidence, conflicts in the newspaper reports.

We see time and time again newspaper reports from as far a field as Scotland, Ireland, with conflicting evidence, and it is quite clear that those newspapers did not have reporters at the proceedings. So how in gods name can they be primary sources in the true sense.

I fully understand that from a historical perspective all historical documents can be loosely described as primary sources because they were all made at the time. But in the case of the Ripper we have the original documents and original reports, which in themselves are primary sources, and all others that are not originals in my opinion then become secondary. because primary sources will always take preference over secondary.

In criminal trials secondary evidence will only be admitted if the primary sources are not available for whatever reason.

I have right from the start always looked on this mystery from a criminal investigative perspective, which entails assessing and evaluating the primary sources. Because the problem has been as I see it, is that far to many people have become embroiled in all the various econdary conflicting newspaper reports to the point that the real facts, and real evidence, have become lost in individuals attempts to prop up theories,explanations by using what I deem to be secondary

You only have to look back on this thread and see all those who have been posting various newspaper reports, and all of these conflict with each other.

I have to ask where does the truth really lie?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I must say I am pleasantly surprised that you are conscious of the distinction between primary and secondary sources.

It is surprising, because you have always insisted - and still do - that newspaper reports that contradict your baseless theory are secondary and not to be relied on.
It is pleasant, because it means you might still arrive at a truthful understanding of the Ripper-events.

I certainly hope you will apply an analysis of the sources on those reports, official or otherwise, which should form the basis of your theory.

Perhaps you would then understand, that if you wish to know what Eddowes was wearing, we have primary sources containing a firsthand account of what witnesses during the inquest said she was wearing.

Yes, Collard's list is a primary source - but it is not the only one!

Perhaps you would then realize that newspaper reports from the inquests are, in fact, also primary sources if you wish to know what was said during the proceedings. Bonus points for realizing, as you mention, that not all such reports are primary since there were such things as syndication and copying from one newspaper to another.

Perhaps you would then refrain from making broad, sweeping statements about sources and posters that disagree with you.


And perhaps you might stop accusing others of being gullible. "researchers have been naive enough to accept the old accepted theories without question"

The truth is that everyone else mainly accept the "old theory" because everybody knows that serious research has to based on the sources available. It is after a close reading of the sources, including questioning previous assumptions, that we can state as historical facts that Eddowes was wearing an apron when murdered, and that approximately half the apron was later deposited in Goulston Street.

So please don't pretend that others accept anything without question. Apply the categories of primary /secondary sources you refer to above, and see what happens to your theory.

[Hunter]

Again that is not quite correct there is a newspaper report from a reporter who was it would appear waiting at the mortuary, he states that Dr Phillips had not arrived at the mortuary with the Gs piece before 5.20am, and by then the body had been stripped and the lists made up, so the two pieces could not have been matched before then, and by then the body had been already stripped and the lists made up.

There is no evidence that shows a preliminary post mortem examination took place.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I really ought to know better than to even provide information here by now.
Have a good day.

[Sam Flynn]

Again that is not quite correct there is a newspaper report from a reporter who was it would appear waiting at the mortuary, he states that Dr Phillips had not arrived at the mortuary with the Gs piece before 5.20am, and by then the body had been stripped and the lists made up, so the two pieces could not have been matched before then

The match could have been made at any time. And there was a match; that's all we need to know.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;429096]

It may just be that the sources are so bad an answer is not possible, hence the number of utterly ridiculous suspects.

Hi Steve,

On the contrary, actually. The sources are very good and if you study them you may see the pattern.

Cheers, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Because they are only theories, unsupported by facts.

If you really have uncovered facts that CHALLENGE the historical record, you won`t need acceptance from the hardliners.

I dont care whether they accept it or not, my findings are there for all to read,digest, and then accept or reject all or part.

Either way I will not lose any sleep.

Historical facts are there to be challenged and not accepted as written in stone.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The match could have been made at any time. And there was a match; that's all we need to know.

Yes we know there was a match. But the point is, that the match was not made before the body was stripped after arriving at the mortuary and the lists made up. It could not have been !

Lloyds Weekly News, 30th September.

"At twenty minutes past five, when we left the mortuary . . . there was an expectation on the part of the police that Dr. Phillips, who gave the important evidence in connection with the case of Annie Chapman, would speedily arrive there."

Which part of this do you not understand ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

I dont care whether they accept it or not, my findings are there for all to read,digest, and then accept or reject all or part.

Either way I will not lose any sleep.

Historical facts are there to be challenged and not accepted as written in stone.

So why not just be cool about it, and put your facts (and sources) in your book, without going on message boards with this sort of ignorant statement:

And what has surprised me is that for 129 years researchers have been naive enough to accept the old accepted theories without question, when clearly the whole mystery is litterer with major flaws in the evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

We should not assume that the official report is foolproof either.
For instance if we had say four distinctly seperate reports which all gave roughly the same wording for an exchange while the official report were just to give a generic "x was asked"
There is then a strong case for accepting the press reports. Steve

Well in the case of Eddowes we have the signed depositions, and we can test that evidence, examples of which I have previously shown on this thread. So it must be the truth, unless they lied, or were trying to be to helpful, as in the evidence of Hutt and Robinson.

For instance if we had say four distinctly seperate reports which all gave roughly the same wording for an exchange while the official report were just to give a generic "x was asked"
There is then a strong case for accepting the press reports.

Not unless you can prove they are primary, and not reprints, or copies of other reports, which for whatever reason have been misinterpreted or changed for an ulterior motive. I accept that if there are 4 reporters all taking notes at the same time, the chances are that one or more may get the wording wrong, but when there are major errors, which relate to important issues then we have to look closely at them and decide if it is safe to rely on them whether they be primary or secondary

In the case of Eddowes we have the signed depositions as primary sources. With addons which appear in some of the newspapers, and even those extra addons conflict with each other. I am sure the truth is there somewhere but trying to find out which is true and which isnt is never going to be easy.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So why not just be cool about it, and put your facts (and sources) in your book, without going on message boards with this sort of ignorant statement:

And what has surprised me is that for 129 years researchers have been naive enough to accept the old accepted theories without question, when clearly the whole mystery is litterer with major flaws in the evidence.

Its not an ignorant statement it is a fact, and if the cap fits wear it

All the facts are in my book, and more even. It might pay you to buy a copy and read it as it would others on here, your naivety might diminish

Follow the link http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/jack-ripper-real-truth/

If you are not a reader then there is a DVD

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/dvds/

[Jon Guy]

Well in the case of Eddowes we have the signed depositions, and we can test that evidence, examples of which I have previously shown on this thread. So it must be the truth, unless they lied, or were trying to be to helpful, as in the evidence of Hutt and Robinson.

Hutt and Robinson both saw the apron when they identified the clothes at the mortuary/ Bishopsgate Police Station on the 2nd or 3 Oct.

[Jon Guy]

Its not an ignorant statement it is a fact, and if the cap fits wear it

All the facts are in my book, and more even. It might pay you to buy a copy and read it as it would others on here, your naivety might diminish

Follow the link http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/jack-ripper-real-truth/

If you are not a reader then there is a DVD

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/dvds/

Does your book have the details of Hutt and Robinson identifying Eddowes clothing ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hutt and Robinson both saw the apron when they identified the clothes at the mortuary/ Bishopsgate Police Station on the 2nd or 3 Oct.

Did you dream that ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Did you dream that ?

That`s why I won`t buy your book, Trevor.
If I buy a Ripper book, I would expect that sort of important detail in it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Does your book have the details of Hutt and Robinson identifying Eddowes clothing ?

read it an find out

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

That`s why I won`t buy your book, Trevor.
If I buy a Ripper book, I would expect that sort of important detail in it.

Well if you dont read it, and find out, you are in no position to criticise

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk