Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    At what point does an apron cease to become an apron, and then is referred to as a piece? When it is so small so it can only be describe as a piece?
    In deference to Steve's reply above, I would say when it is cut up for use as something else.
    Which the officer making the list of possessions naturally assumed when he saw what was removed from around her neck. He listed it as a handkerchief, making the reasonable assumption she wore it as found, as a headcovering.

    The Times reporter had it right...
    "She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

    No-one at the mortuary, or at the crime scene, realized she had been wearing an apron until Dr Phillips showed up at the mortuary with the missing piece to what had already been listed as a "handkerchief, blood stained".

    Consequently, this GS piece was added to the bottom of the list.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
      I

      Consequently, this GS piece was added to the bottom of the list.
      But the lists had already been made up and the piece of apron shown in her possessions before Dr Phillips arrived at the mortuary with the GS piece.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        Its not guesswork you are ignoring the obvious. That victims photo shows how far the intestines recoiled out to. My point which you choose to ignore is that how much further up the body would they have finished up if the abdominal wound would have been bigger and extended higher up the body in line with Eddowes wound.

        You are too quick to accept the old theories, when there are other plausible explanations.

        We keep going round in circles.

        I think you need to realise that it is unlikely that there is ever going to be any primary evidence to conclusively disprove the old accepted theories. But there is evidence, which suggests that what researchers have been asked to rely on an readily accept without question for 129 years does not now stand up to close scrutiny, and the other plausible explanations may be viable.

        All that can be done is to present the facts for both sides and let people decide on what they believe to be correct.

        These forums are not the place where the new plausible explanations get a fair hearing, simply because many who frequent these boards on a daily basis are biased in favour of the old accepted theories and will not consider anything new and have made that plainly clear, when we see posters making up explanations to try to prop up the old theories.

        I am all for open discussion but I find that impossible. We have seen many good researchers leave the boards never to return. To be honest I am at that point. I have some new research to conclude and publish and then perhaps I will exit stage left.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Don´t worry Trevor.

        I for one do not "believe in the old accepted theories".

        I am also unbiased towards the "old accepted theories".

        To me, new explanations is all there is. So I guess you will be happy when you read such explanations.

        And I will never leave the boards.

        Pierre

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          But at the end of the day the beauty of it is that you cannot disprove them !
          And such says all one needs to know.

          Let's look on this thread:

          1. you posted a picture claiming it was a crime scene picture, it was not! However if you had not been challenged would we know that?

          2. You have attempted to discredit two policemen because their view does not agree with yours yet you have offered no evidence to support these aligations, rather you question the words they used.

          3. You constainstly claim press inquest reports are secondary when they are Primary, and it matters not who tells you Historian or other informed persons , you just stubbornly say they are not.


          4. And you say Collard's list is primary and so it cannot be wrong (it is primary; however that does not guarantee it's accuracy).

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          So at the end of the day you still cannot prove conclusively that at the time of her murder she was wearing an apron, and if you cant do that then you cant say the killer cut or tore the Gs piece taking it with him and depositing it in GS.
          Yes we can Trevor!
          We have evidence from Hutt and Robinson that she was wearing an apron while in custody and testimony from Collard that she was when killed.

          You have provided nothing other than semantics to attempt to discredit the first two and to ignore the last.

          The fact you refuse to accept these does not mean they go away, or that they are untrue.

          If you supported your ideas with some sources rather than wishful thinking I for one would listen

          And of course I don't accept all the old theories either, but I just don't try and replace with unsubstantiated new ones.



          Steve

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
            Don´t worry Trevor.

            I for one do not "believe in the old accepted theories".

            I am also unbiased towards the "old accepted theories".

            To me, new explanations is all there is. So I guess you will be happy when you read such explanations.

            And I will never leave the boards.

            Pierre
            I have no issue with new theories if there are supporting sources Pierre.
            Which means I await your work with an open minded.


            Steve

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              But the lists had already been made up and the piece of apron shown in her possessions before Dr Phillips arrived at the mortuary with the GS piece.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              The list will have already been made up, but as I pointed out before, police used their pocketbooks for making notes and this two-page list for the inquest is not written on pocketbook paper.
              The GS piece was simply added to the list made in the pocketbook.

              The list as it was presented for the inquest had been re-written on foolscap paper (or something close). The list that we see is not the original.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                The list will have already been made up, but as I pointed out before, police used their pocketbooks for making notes and this two-page list for the inquest is not written on pocketbook paper.
                The GS piece was simply added to the list made in the pocketbook.

                The list as it was presented for the inquest had been re-written on foolscap paper (or something close). The list that we see is not the original.
                You are making it up again

                Comment


                • Naturally, if I was addressing someone who had actually been a policeman, there would be no argument. The police Pocket-book is well known, and it's intended use is not debatable.
                  The Police Code will explain the need for the pocketbook, and it's uses for taking immediate notes, statements, descriptions of person's or items, etc. No cause to believe Collard was a radical, doing things his own way. He would have followed the rules as well you know.

                  That my friend is a true "Secondary Source", (not 'second-rate source' as you seem to interpret the term).
                  The Police Code explains what an officer is expected to use for taking notes while in the course of his duties.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    Naturally, if I was addressing someone who had actually been a policeman, there would be no argument. The police Pocket-book is well known, and it's intended use is not debatable.
                    The Police Code will explain the need for the pocketbook, and it's uses for taking immediate notes, statements, descriptions of person's or items, etc. No cause to believe Collard was a radical, doing things his own way. He would have followed the rules as well you know.

                    That my friend is a true "Secondary Source", (not 'second-rate source' as you seem to interpret the term).
                    The Police Code explains what an officer is expected to use for taking notes while in the course of his duties.
                    I think it is time to accept that we are not going to convince Mr Marriott that his theory is insufficiently substantiated to convince anyone with more than superficial knowledge of the murders.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                      I think it is time to accept that we are not going to convince Mr Marriott that his theory is insufficiently substantiated to convince anyone with more than superficial knowledge of the murders.
                      I guess we are like moths to a flame.....
                      The darn thing is, Marriott claims to have been a policeman. He does a better job at hiding that than he does at justifying his theories.
                      Marriott seems to lack even the basics of understanding evidence and how to process it.
                      Anyhow, we kick the ball not the man....
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        Naturally, if I was addressing someone who had actually been a policeman, there would be no argument. The police Pocket-book is well known, and it's intended use is not debatable.
                        The Police Code will explain the need for the pocketbook, and it's uses for taking immediate notes, statements, descriptions of person's or items, etc. No cause to believe Collard was a radical, doing things his own way. He would have followed the rules as well you know.

                        That my friend is a true "Secondary Source", (not 'second-rate source' as you seem to interpret the term).
                        The Police Code explains what an officer is expected to use for taking notes while in the course of his duties.
                        It doesnt matter what, or how the notes were taken down, or by whom, they were taken down at the time the body was stripped, and before anyone knew about the GS piece.

                        and if Collard took it all down in his pocket book even more reason to believe he got it all correct. You couldn't get the lists mixed up in a pocket book.

                        The first list clothing worn
                        The second list possesions
                        The third list cut to clothing worn.

                        Those lists were produced in court as evidence

                        If you can show me anything to support your belief then bring it on, because there is nothing. You have made it up, the same as you have made other ridiculous explanations up in the past, in futile attempts at protecting the old accepted theories.

                        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-24-2017, 02:49 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                          I think it is time to accept that we are not going to convince Mr Marriott that his theory is insufficiently substantiated to convince anyone with more than superficial knowledge of the murders.
                          So suddenly you are an expert, having been here for only a couple of months.

                          Let me tell you there are people who have been here since time immemorial who still dont know what they are talking about. People who have no concept as to how to assess and evaluate evidence, or for that matter what the term evidence means.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            ...

                            and if Collard took it all down in his pocket book even more reason to believe he got it all correct. You couldn't get the lists mixed up in a pocket book.

                            The first list clothing worn
                            The second list possesions
                            The third list cut to clothing worn.

                            Those lists were produced in court as evidence
                            I have not suggested there was any mix up in the lists.
                            I suggested the notes were taken down in a pocketbook at the mortuary, then transcribed onto foolscap paper at the station as evidence for the inquest - all neat and tidy.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Verbal evidence took precedence than lists.Brown,Collard were in front of the jury,etc and have to be careful,,and most likely prepared, of what they said,they were under oath.They testified days after the list and would have known about the list and the contradictions,if any.
                              Practically speaking,what was the chance Eddowes took off the apron after she left the police station,close to none,plus the witnesses at the mortuary saw something that made them not contradict she was wearing it.Practically speaking she was wearing it,end of story.But only using the witnesses at the mortuary,there was reasonable doubt she was wearing it because it was not tied.But this is just arguing for argument's sake
                              Last edited by Varqm; 09-24-2017, 04:08 PM.
                              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


                              • I have re-read my post and see why it annoyed you. My apologies, Mr Marriott - I chose my words poorly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X