The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Kattrup]

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

That's not quite true, is it? Or should I say: "as usual, that's not true at all"?

We have evidence, you just choose to disregard it.

[etenguy]

Dear Etenguy


"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."



Trevor theories ARE insufficiently substantiated, many have NO SUPPORT AT ALL.

And they ARE indeed unlikely to convince any with more than a basic background in the subject.

Which words are you apologising for ?
You said NOTHING which was rude or inaccurate


Steve

Hi Steve

I did not mean it as such, but it could be read that I was implying that Mr Marriott had only superficial knowledge of the murders. Whatever I, or you, think of his theory about the apron, it would be rude and inaccurate to suggest Mr Marriott had only superficial knowledge.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

I did not mean it as such, but it could be read that I was implying that Mr Marriott had only superficial knowledge of the murders. Whatever I, or you, think of his theory about the apron, it would be rude and inaccurate to suggest Mr Marriott had only superficial knowledge.

You are too generous my friend.


Steve

[PaulB]

Thanks for the reply, Paul.
I agree that PC 190H is the only person he is known to have talked to, but can you be certain that he had not heard of the murder before searching the stairs? In Long's police report, he says, on finding the apron and the writing;
"I at once called the PC on the adjoining beat and then searched the stair-cases"

And according to the Times, the inquest went;
"a juryman. - Having heard of the murder, and having afterwards found the piece of apron with blood on it and the writing on the wall, did it not strike you that it would be well to make some examination of the rooms in the building? You say you searched all the passages, but you would not expect that the man who had committed the murder would hide himself there.
Witness. - Seeing the blood there, I thought that the murder had been committed, and that the body might be placed in the building."

And the Daily News;
"a Juror - Having heard of a murder, and subsequently found a piece of apron with blood upon it, did it not appear to you that it might be as well to examine some of the rooms of the building? - No, sir. I did not expect the man had committed the murder in the passage, but I though the body might have been hidden there."

So, unless I'm missing something, it seems that he had indeed heard of the murder before searching the stairwells, either from PC 190H or some other source.

Hi Joshua, you actually quote the source, namely the Daily News, where PC Long states that he thought he'd find a body, not the murderer. He'd hardly have expected to find the body on the stairs f he knew that a body had already been found in Mitre Square.

Hi Joshua,
Reasonably, if PC Long knew a murder had been committed, thought the apron was associated it, and believed that the murder might be lurking in the building, is it likely that he’d have investigated the stairs and landings on his own, or would he have called for support?

A juror thought that P.C. Long should have roused and questioned the residents. PC Long’s reply was variously paraphrased in the newspaper reports, but the Daily News (12 October 1888) quoted him as saying, “No, sir. I did not expect the man had committed the murder in the passage, but I though the body might have been hidden there.” As said, other newspapers paraphrased rather than quoted PC Long, among them was The Times (12 October 1888), which said that P.C. Long replied, “Seeing the blood there, I thought that the murder had been committed, and that the body might be placed in the building.” At one point in the proceedings Mr Crawford sought to clarify P.C. Long’s thinking, “You thought you were more likely to find the body that to find the actual murderer?”

The reports support the view that PC Long did not know that a murder had been committed elsewhere, but thought one may have been committed in the building. Personally, I think he may have had the murder of Martha Tabram in mind.

P.C. Long said he knew about the murder in Mitre Square before he went to the police station, but it is unclear when he heard of it and who he heard it from. A possibility is Halse, but neither Long nor Halse ever mentioned talking to one another. The alternative is P.C. Bettles, summoned from a neighbouring beat and left to watch the entrance to the building. I have found nothing to preclude the possibility that PC Long summoned P.C. Bettles before he began his search, but it seems likely that he did so after he had completed his search.

[Wickerman]

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.

No-one has claimed a particular theory has been proven.
The theories we discuss are either consistent with the evidence, or they are not.

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.

Your method of scrutiny doesn't appear to be the most popular method.

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.

You have not proved anything wrong.
Some points you do not like, and others you criticize, but this is not scrutiny, and it certainly doesn't constitute proof that what has gone before is wrong.
You just don't like it, thats all.

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.

Where does this "conclusive proof" idea come from?
Have you conclusively proven any part of your theory?

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.

Wrong!

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

Testimony stated the apron was produced "in two pieces".
When I went to school that usually meant two halves make a whole.

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.

There are a number of doubts within the existing theories, that doesn't mean they are wrong. Clearly, they cannot all be right, but the doubts are mainly due to missing information, not contradictory information.

One of your favorite whipping posts at present is the suggestion that the apron was cut off to carry away the organs.
This is consistent with the evidence - a piece of cloth that was bloodstained, which it was.
It is also impractical for the killer to put wet organs in his pockets. So the suggestion is both logical and is consistent with the evidence.
You don't like it, I get that. Though speculating that those organs were removed at the mortuary does not create a parallel argument.
It's a weak argument because it is entirely speculation, with no evidence to support it.

Because someone 'might' have been able to get passed the constable on guard at the mortuary, does not mean they did.
(Does this constable say he let someone in?)

Because someone 'might' have had the time to remove them from the corpse, does not mean they did.
(Does the Constable say there were people inside while the doctors were absent?)

Because someone 'might' have had a market for those organs, does not mean they had one.
(Any evidence such a market existed for those organs?)

Because someone 'might' have had authorization to remove the organs prior to the autopsy, does not mean they did.
(Any note, report, suggestion, or even a clue in writing that medical people were permitted to be alone with the corpse without Dr Brown's knowledge?)

You have no evidence, this entire scenario is the stuff of fiction until you start providing evidence that some activity you claim 'could' have happened actually occurred.

[Elamarna]

No-one has claimed a particular theory has been proven.
The theories we discuss are either consistent with the evidence, or they are not.



Your method of scrutiny doesn't appear to be the most popular method.



You have not proved anything wrong.
Some points you do not like, and others you criticize, but this is not scrutiny, and it certainly doesn't constitute proof that what has gone before is wrong.
You just don't like it, thats all.




Where does this "conclusive proof" idea come from?
Have you conclusively proven any part of your theory?



Wrong!




Testimony stated the apron was produced "in two pieces".
When I went to school that usually meant two halves make a whole.



There are a number of doubts within the existing theories, that doesn't mean they are wrong. Clearly, they cannot all be right, but the doubts are mainly due to missing information, not contradictory information.

One of your favorite whipping posts at present is the suggestion that the apron was cut off to carry away the organs.
This is consistent with the evidence - a piece of cloth that was bloodstained, which it was.
It is also impractical for the killer to put wet organs in his pockets. So the suggestion is both logical and is consistent with the evidence.
You don't like it, I get that. Though speculating that those organs were removed at the mortuary does not create a parallel argument.
It's a weak argument because it is entirely speculation, with no evidence to support it.

Because someone 'might' have been able to get passed the constable on guard at the mortuary, does not mean they did.
(Does this constable say he let someone in?)

Because someone 'might' have had the time to remove them from the corpse, does not mean they did.
(Does the Constable say there were people inside while the doctors were absent?)

Because someone 'might' have had a market for those organs, does not mean they had one.
(Any evidence such a market existed for those organs?)

Because someone 'might' have had authorization to remove the organs prior to the autopsy, does not mean they did.
(Any note, report, suggestion, or even a clue in writing that medical people were permitted to be alone with the corpse without Dr Brown's knowledge?)

You have no evidence, this entire scenario is the stuff of fiction until you start providing evidence that some activity you claim 'could' have happened actually occurred.

A good response Jon,


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

A good response Jon,


Steve

If you think that is a good response from a poster who blatantly and continuously makes things up in order to prop up the old theory then you need a reality check.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

Hi Joshua, you actually quote the source, namely the Daily News, where PC Long states that he thought he'd find a body, not the murderer. He'd hardly have expected to find the body on the stairs f he knew that a body had already been found in Mitre Square.

Hi Joshua,
Reasonably, if PC Long knew a murder had been committed, thought the apron was associated it, and believed that the murder might be lurking in the building, is it likely that he’d have investigated the stairs and landings on his own, or would he have called for support?

A juror thought that P.C. Long should have roused and questioned the residents. PC Long’s reply was variously paraphrased in the newspaper reports, but the Daily News (12 October 1888) quoted him as saying, “No, sir. I did not expect the man had committed the murder in the passage, but I though the body might have been hidden there.” As said, other newspapers paraphrased rather than quoted PC Long, among them was The Times (12 October 1888), which said that P.C. Long replied, “Seeing the blood there, I thought that the murder had been committed, and that the body might be placed in the building.” At one point in the proceedings Mr Crawford sought to clarify P.C. Long’s thinking, “You thought you were more likely to find the body that to find the actual murderer?”

The reports support the view that PC Long did not know that a murder had been committed elsewhere, but thought one may have been committed in the building. Personally, I think he may have had the murder of Martha Tabram in mind.

P.C. Long said he knew about the murder in Mitre Square before he went to the police station, but it is unclear when he heard of it and who he heard it from. A possibility is Halse, but neither Long nor Halse ever mentioned talking to one another. The alternative is P.C. Bettles, summoned from a neighbouring beat and left to watch the entrance to the building. I have found nothing to preclude the possibility that PC Long summoned P.C. Bettles before he began his search, but it seems likely that he did so after he had completed his search.

I'm far from being Pc Long's greatest admirer but if, as may be the case, he had heard about both the murders which had already been committed that night, would it be unreasonable for him to fear that there might have been a third?

[Bridewell]

If you think that is a good response from a poster who blatantly and continuously makes things up in order to prop up the old theory then you need a reality check.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's a serious accusation, Trevor. I think you should either support it with specific examples of things made up by Wickerman or withdraw the slur.

[Elamarna]

If you think that is a good response from a poster who blatantly and continuously makes things up in order to prop up the old theory then you need a reality check.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Posts 1973 & 2041
Incorrect information to promote the new unsupported ideas.

Those in glass houses?

Steve

[PaulB]

I'm far from being Pc Long's greatest admirer but if, as may be the case, he had heard about both the murders which had already been committed that night, would it be unreasonable for him to fear that there might have been a third?

He might have done. He might have thought anything, but don't you think it unlikely that anyone would expect three murders in one night.

[Trevor Marriott]

No-one has claimed a particular theory has been proven.
The theories we discuss are either consistent with the evidence, or they are not.

Yes but does it not occur to you that the evidence is ambiguous and at times flawed as has been pointed out to you and which you choose to ignore

Your method of scrutiny doesn't appear to be the most popular method.

I will wager mine against yours any day

You have not proved anything wrong.

I dont need to prove anything wrong. All I need to do is create a doubt

Some points you do not like, and others you criticize, but this is not scrutiny, and it certainly doesn't constitute proof that what has gone before is wrong.
You just don't like it, thats all.

No I dont like it, because I can see the obvious flaws and the ambiguities. You have already been told by a medical expert the much of what the doctors stated as opinion or fact back then was nothing more than guesswork.

Where does this "conclusive proof" idea come from?

Well if you readily accept the old theories without question its up to you or others to prove that all that has been written is the truth, and clearly that is not the case so you cant conclusively prove that the old accepted theories can be relied on beyond a reasonable doubt

Have you conclusively proven any part of your theory?

Yes I have proved that the organs were not taken away in the apron piece, as you suggest, and given plausible explanations as to why there would be no need for the killer to cut or tear a piece of her apron, to wipe his knife or his hands on.

Testimony stated the apron was produced "in two pieces".
When I went to school that usually meant two halves make a whole.

But where does it mention anywhere two halves you are making it up again

There are a number of doubts within the existing theories, that doesn't mean they are wrong. Clearly, they cannot all be right, but the doubts are mainly due to missing information, not contradictory information.

No the doubts are caused by ambiguities, and flaws in the evidence and the conflicting newspaper reports, which seem to be held in high esteem by some on here

One of your favorite whipping posts at present is the suggestion that the apron was cut off to carry away the organs.
This is consistent with the evidence - a piece of cloth that was bloodstained, which it was. It is also impractical for the killer to put wet organs in his pockets. So the suggestion is both logical and is consistent with the evidence.
You don't like it, I get that.

I have shown that the organs could not have been taken away in the apron piece, nothing more to say on that

Though speculating that those organs were removed at the mortuary does not create a parallel argument. It's a weak argument because it is entirely speculation, with no evidence to support it.

If it can be proved that the killer did not remove the organs from the body then there has to be another explanation because they were only found to be missing at the post mortem stage

Because someone 'might' have been able to get passed the constable on guard at the mortuary, does not mean they did.
(Does this constable say he let someone in?)

Does he say he let no one in?

Because someone 'might' have had the time to remove them from the corpse, does not mean they did.
(Does the Constable say there were people inside while the doctors were absent?)

Does he say there were not, if did then we would want to know who those were, and what he did while they were inside

Because someone 'might' have had a market for those organs, does not mean they had one.
(Any evidence such a market existed for those organs?)

There was no market I dont know why this term keeps being used. As I have stated dozens of times, bona fide medical personnel, Doctors, anatomists. medical student could lawfully obtain organs for medical research from mortuaries and in some case they could take the whole body.

Because someone 'might' have had authorization to remove the organs prior to the autopsy, does not mean they did.

They could only obtain organs if there were bodies there to obtain them from

(Any note, report, suggestion, or even a clue in writing that medical people were permitted to be alone with the corpse without Dr Brown's knowledge?)

Dr Brown would not have know any organs were missing until the post mortem, when it was then believed that the killer had taken them, when in fact someone form the medical profession could have whipped them out in haste. Bearing in mind both the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes (the only two victims to have organs taken) were left at the mortuary for almost 12 hours before the postmortems were carried out. Neither I nor you or anyone else can say what happened during those windows. We know the bodies should not have been tampered with, but we know that Chapmans body was, so is it wrong to speculate that this is what might have happened?

We also know that no organs were taken or any attempts made to remove organs from any of the other victims, and why was that? Was it because their abdomens had not been ripped open like those of Chapmam and Eddowes thus making it impossible for any organs to be removed at the mortuary for fear of detection.

Lets look at Kelly it has been part of the old accepted theory that the same killer killed Kelly as killed all of the others, and in doing so took away an organ from her in line with taking organs from the other two.

Well if that didn't happen and that the heart was not taken away, not only does it kick a big hole in the overall mystery but it adds even more weight to the organs of Eddowes and Chapman being taken at the mortuary and not by the killer.

You have no evidence, this entire scenario is the stuff of fiction until you start providing evidence that some activity you claim 'could' have happened actually occurred.

There doesn't need to be direct evidence because that is not likely to happen, its all about creating a doubt about the old accepted theories and offering other new plausible explanations, and then it is a matter for the worldwide public to accept or reject, based on the value of the arguments put forward from both camps.

I know that no matter what is put forward on these ripper forums is going to change the way some look at these murders.

I have nothing further to add to this thread now

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

That's a serious accusation, Trevor. I think you should either support it with specific examples of things made up by Wickerman or withdraw the slur.

I do not have no the time or the inclination to go back over all the posts on this thread. But he is one of several who have made things up to fit, and to counter an argument and I have no intention of withdrawing what I said because he know its true, and it has been pointed out to him. but he still keeps doing it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Posts 1973 & 2041
Incorrect information to promote the new unsupported ideas.

Those in glass houses?

Steve

How petty can you get? Posts 1973/2014 were posted in good faith, the book referred to was a German book written in German. From what i was able to understand all the photos in the book were crime scene photos. The victims photo at first glance does not show the body laid out in a mortuary so an easy mistake. Which I rectified in a later post.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

I dont need to prove anything wrong. All I need to do is create a doubt

In that, you've succeeded.