The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Abby Normal]

I think you are wrong there Abby, did he not prefer Hutchinson?
However I am happy to be corrected. And if wrong will happily withdraw the comment.

Steve

Hutch? LOL! No-I preferred hutch and my first encounters with Fish was him arguing constantly, passionately, and a lot of times, contentiously, with me (and Ben) against Hutch.

[Elamarna]

And what conclusion should we come to, one that supports the old theory,one that supports a new theory, or can we say either theory could be correct due to the conflicting reports?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's not about old theories or new theories, it's about attempting to anaylise the various sources in an unbias way, which some argue is impossible and while that may be so because we all have bias, we should at least try.

We should judge those sources not on which theory they fit, but what they suggest.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hutch? LOL! No-I preferred hutch and my first encounters with Fish was him arguing constantly, passionately, and a lot of times, contentiously, with me (and Ben) against Hutch.

Then I stand corrected.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hutch? LOL! No-I preferred hutch and my first encounters with Fish was him arguing constantly, passionately, and a lot of times, contentiously, with me (and Ben) against Hutch.

He did however propose Fleming in an article in Ripperologist.

My mistake.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

It's not about old theories or new theories, it's about attempting to anaylise the various sources in an unbias way, which some argue is impossible and while that may be so because we all have bias, we should at least try.

We should judge those sources not on which theory they fit, but what they suggest.

Steve

But what they then suggest is again open to personal interpretations, and which theory an individual supports.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But what they then suggest is again open to personal interpretations, and which theory an individual supports.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's the problem Trevor, what theory someone has should have nothing to do with unbias anaylise.
One either wants the Truth or one wants to push ones own theories.
Unfortunately the trend is to interpret the sources to fit a theory, no matter how unrealistic the interpretation may be.
The "you can't prove it didn't happen" approach is the one used over and over again, rather than trying to prove the idea.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

He did however propose Fleming in an article in Ripperologist.

My mistake.

Steve

hi El
thanks, I didn't know that. Kind of weird because Ben favored hutch and he thought there was a good chance flemming and hutch were one in the same.and as you probably know ben and fish had some epic hutch battles.

[Elamarna]

hi El
thanks, I didn't know that. Kind of weird because Ben favored hutch and he thought there was a good chance flemming and hutch were one in the same.and as you probably know ben and fish had some epic hutch battles.

That suggestion that The two may have been the same was probably at the back of my mind when I said Hutchinson.

The article is in #97


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

That's the problem Trevor, what theory someone has should have nothing to do with unbias anaylise.
One either wants the Truth or one wants to push ones own theories.
Unfortunately the trend is to interpret the sources to fit a theory, no matter how unrealistic the interpretation may be.
The "you can't prove it didn't happen" approach is the one used over and over again, rather than trying to prove the idea.

Steve

Unbiased analysis are words that would not appear to be in the vocabulary of some posters on this forum.

But you cant prove that it all happened in the way we have been led to believe, when there are so many anomalies, and flaws in the evidence and the supporting facts, right throughout this mystery. So it is wrong to keep saying it didn't happen when quite clearly it could have, and there doesn't have to be specific sources as you keep asking for. because the sources you seek to rely on to prop it all up are unreliable in any event and dont stand up to close scrutiny.

So if these original theories/opinions/explanation or whatever you want to call them are proved to be suspect, then other plausible explanations have to be considered in an attempt to prove or disprove them one way or the other.

Take the apron piece we know it was connected to the victim that is fact
We know it was found in GS -fact
How did it get to GS? unknown
Who took it to GS? unknow
When was it taken to GS? unknown

If you cant conclusively prove the killer cut or tore it and deposited it GS, then there has to be another explanation, especially if you cannot conclusively prove that she was actually wearing an apron at the time she was murdered.

Collards list shows she wasn't wearing an apron, or any piece of an apron that could have been noted down wrongly when the body was stripped.

We have evidence of pieces of an apron being mentioned by various witnesses

We have no evidence that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron

Look at all of these in the right context using an unbiased analysis and I hope you can see why you and others must now see a doubt about the original theory.

We had all of this before with regards to Kelly`s heart where we had primary evidence from two senior police officer involved in the case. We also had a plethora or newspaper articles corroborating what the officer said that the heart was not taken away, yet no, the "prop up the old theory gang" want to rely on one ambiguous statement and a hearsay article from another doctor to prop up the old theory to show that the killer took it away.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

If you cant conclusively prove the killer cut or tore it and deposited it GS, then there has to be another explanation

If this is how you reason, I can see how you've convinced yourself that your theory is as valid as any other.

[Sam Flynn]

We have no evidence that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron

It is enough to know that the pieces matched exactly. Whether, after the matching process, they ended up with a complete or partial apron is neither here nor there.

[Trevor Marriott]

It is enough to know that the pieces matched exactly. Whether, after the matching process, they ended up with a complete or partial apron is neither here nor there.

Of course it is because if she had not been wearing an apron, and only been in possession of two old pieces of apron that at some time in the past had come from a full apron, but in themselves did not make a full apron then it makes a big difference. There are many other equally valid explanations for the ambiguities with regard to this apron which I have put forward.

If we accept that the killer did not write the graffiti, then we have to ask was the killer ever at GS, or did the apron piece get there by some other means.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Unbiased analysis are words that would not appear to be in the vocabulary of some posters on this forum.

Pot and Kettle come to mind.

But you cant prove that it all happened in the way we have been led to believe, when there are so many anomalies, and flaws in the evidence and the supporting facts, right throughout this mystery.

The flaws are on the whole only ones you see because you wish to push you unprovable points.

So it is wrong to keep saying it didn't happen when quite clearly it could have, and there doesn't have to be specific sources as you keep asking for. because the sources you seek to rely on to prop it all up are unreliable in any event and dont stand up to close scrutiny.

If you have no sources you ave NO evidence it is all supposition. If that is how you approach research it will ALWAYS fail and be rejected.

So if these original theories/opinions/explanation or whatever you want to call them are proved to be suspect, then other plausible explanations have to be considered in an attempt to prove or disprove them one way or the other.

The problem is that on the whole they have not be proven to be suspect.
You see them as such because they do not fit the narrative you desire.

Take the apron piece we know it was connected to the victim that is fact
We know it was found in GS -fact
How did it get to GS? unknown
Who took it to GS? unknow
When was it taken to GS? unknown

If you cant conclusively prove the killer cut or tore it and deposited it GS, then there has to be another explanation, especially if you cannot conclusively prove that she was actually wearing an apron at the time she was murdered.

We know Eddowes was wearing an apron in custody. Hurt and Robinson swear to this and sign a deposition.

You say these are suspect; however you have no proof for that at all.its just YOUR opinion.

We know Eddowes was killed in Mitre square, and the apron piece found in GS matched that she was wearing. Collard swore under oath that she was wearing it, the fact that you interpret "apparently" as showing doubt is your problem and yours alone.

The suggestion that Eddowes torn the apron in custody and used it as a sanity device
was a novel idea, however there is no proof for this.

The suggestion that Eddowes went To GS before going to Mitre Square is again completely unsupported by any evidence.

Hence in your above "example" a reasoned case can be made for the conventional view, and that is from someone who does not beleive the GSG as anything to do with the killer.

However the alternatives you suggest, which are enticing to those not aware of all the facts, are not supported by anything other than your imagination.


Again it's the you can't prove my view is wrong approach.

Collards list shows she wasn't wearing an apron, or any piece of an apron that could have been noted down wrongly when the body was stripped.

No it asks a question that is all, that question is answered at the inquest.
Collard clarifies his position at the inquest by saying she was wearing one.

We have no evidence that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron.

Again it the you can't prove approach, beloved of such serious researchers as Erich Anton Paul von Däniken .

Look at all of these in the right context using an unbiased analysis and I hope you can see why you and others must now see a doubt about the original theory.

That comment is comical given that ALL your posts are bias beyond reason.

We had all of this before with regards to Kelly`s heart where we had primary evidence from two senior police officer involved in the case. We also had a plethora or newspaper articles corroborating what the officer said that the heart was not taken away, yet no, the "prop up the old theory gang" want to rely on one ambiguous statement and a hearsay article from another doctor to prop up the old theory to show that the killer took it away.

One officer whom you claimed was quoted was not, there was no indication that the article you refered to was quoting him or had interviewed him. Indeed there was much to say such was not the case in the article, however i suspect the response will be "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT".

The other report was from an interview many years after the event and was contested by other reports nearer to the time.

If you want Trevor we can do that all again.
The result will be the same!
You cannot prove your case and you then go on as above that it's all a conspiracy against you and your ideas.

The reason the ideas fail is not because others are defending the status quo for some obscure reason, it's that the ideas fail to have any factual support, and fail to stand up to scrutiny of even the mildest degree.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

if she had not been wearing an apron, and only been in possession of two old pieces of apron that at some time in the past had come from a full apron, but in themselves did not make a full apron then it makes a big difference.

But she was still wearing one piece, which was "still attached by strings to the body". So, it was still a functional apron, and there's nothing in the evidence to suggest that, once the GS piece was reunited with the rest of it, it wasn't a whole one.

There are many other equally valid explanations for the ambiguities with regard to this apron which I have put forward.

Self-invented ambiguities don't count. For most of us, the matter of Eddowes' apron is one of the most straightforward in the entire case.

[Elamarna]

If we accept that the killer did not write the graffiti, then we have to ask was the killer ever at GS, or did the apron piece get there by some other means.

No we do not Trevor. I do not beleive the killer wrote the GSG, the dropping of the cloth was purely coincidence. That does not mean I question if he was there, to suggest such with no actual support is dreaming.


Steve