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
    You know that isn't going to happen, why fix something that isn't broken? You can strengthen it and make it stronger though

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Oh dear, your methods are broken, your results are therefore invalid.

    Steve

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      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.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Not good enough, Trevor. You've made a specific allegation that another poster has made things up. You can either back that allegation up or withdraw it. Either that or the original post gets reported.
      I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
        Now that's interesting. Why did he choose to kiss the Holy Book?
        According to the PMG the jury were asked to do this when being sworn in, so perhaps Barnett, being the first witness, was just following their lead?

        PMG 12th Nov;
        "Each kiss the book and pass it round, gentlemen please," cried the officer again"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
          According to the PMG the jury were asked to do this when being sworn in, so perhaps Barnett, being the first witness, was just following their lead?

          PMG 12th Nov;
          "Each kiss the book and pass it round, gentlemen please," cried the officer again"
          Thanks for clarifying, Joshua.
          I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
            [/b]
            The so called flaws have been looked at and the majority exist only to you, why is that one asks?
            Could it be due to the need to push these “new ideas” as you so quaintly call them



            [/b]
            To achieve what precisely Trevor?
            And just to say something is doubtful does not make it so, I refer you again to Erich Anton Paul von Daniken, he along with others of his kind take the very same approach.



            Yet you do not accept Biggs when he tells you the intestines are unlikely to fly out, or when he says the organs could have been removed in Mitre Square, its classic “Cherry Picking”, accept what fits the idea you have and reject what does not, that is not how history and science in general work.



            If one wishes to challenge accepted ideas the onus is on the challenger to defend the new view.

            Again its the Ancient Aliens approach,: “you can’t prove how the pyramids were built, so alien help is probably”



            You have not proven such at all, you have made a suggestion, that is all.
            You cannot claim you have proven something just because you believe your view is correct, you need to well…. Actually prove it, with evidence. You have not!



            The same approach time after time, “you cant prove” and “it does not actually say it made a whole apron so it didn't”
            That is not a scientific and unbiased approach, it is one of desperation to fit the sources to a specific argument.



            They are called sources Trevor, and to refuse to use them in preference to what appears to be some supernatural insight is utterly perposterous and somewhat comical.



            You have NOT shown THEY COULD NOT BE, you have given an argument that they may not have been.



            However you have not proved such, and are a great distance from making such a suggestion even plausabile.



            The negative approach again, just because he does not say something specifically you cannot assume such happened. You need more than mere absence.



            See above, however in the Nichols case the Mortuary was locked when no one was in attendence so one needs to see if the same was the general rule.



            Can you show such was allowed in the case of Murder Victims before PM, thus interfering with a murder inquiry?
            And you have singularly failed to explain what these organs, some damaged would be used for?
            I suspect this is because you have no idea, and just find the term Medical Research convenient to hide behind.



            Most specimens for Medical research would be supplied by the institution the researcher was attached to, you seem to see them rushing to the Mortuary every time there was a murder, its the stuff of fiction Trevor!




            What you suggest is the equivalent of a case being taken to court with no evidence, just hearsay or what may have happened
            Pure unsupported speculation, not a single source to back it up.



            That is not so,the Nichols killer was in all probability disturbed, however recent assessments of her wounds suggest very strongly she was ready to have organs removed, even Christer and I agree on that.
            In Addition Tom Wescott in his latest book has suggested that organs may have been taken, this is another new theory, but like yours it is unsupported and unprovable at this stage. Should we accept it, just because he causes some doubt on the matter.



            That is the point is it not “IF”.
            The majority of researchers believe that organs were taken from Kelly, your contrary view of that is not proof, just an alternative idea, again used to push a predetermined theory.



            So in the end its all about selling the story to the public who generally are not well versed in the subject,
            The suggestion that actual evidence is not required is shameful and once again I can only think of “Ancient Aliens” and von Daniken.



            Actually people would listen if you put forward a supported argument, you seldom do.



            The normal retreat,

            Steve


            Nicely countered Steve.
            Mr Marriott could learn a great deal from these exchanges if he were not so blind to the helpful opinions of others.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • ......Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
              I still remain unconvinced the killer wrote the GSG.

              That does not mean I rule it out, just that I see no overwhelming evidence for it.
              Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              That's pretty much my position, too, Steve.
              Well, I guess that makes three of us.

              I don't think there's a whole lot to be said for the subject thread, you either think he did, or you don't.
              There's nothing new to discuss on the matter, not enough to keep a thread alive.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                Nicely countered Steve.
                Mr Marriott could learn a great deal from these exchanges if he were not so blind to the helpful opinions of others.
                Thank you Jon.


                Steve

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  Well, I guess that makes three of us.

                  I don't think there's a whole lot to be said for the subject thread, you either think he did, or you don't.
                  There's nothing new to discuss on the matter, not enough to keep a thread alive.
                  But we are 222 pages in!

                  Clearly there is no definitive evidence either way, so we should all probably say on the basis of what we know I think it is probable he did(n't).

                  What I find interesting are the reasons people lean one way rather than the other.

                  I think it is slightly more probable that he did rather than he didn't, largely because the time difference makes me think he came back specifically to leave an authenticated message. Of course, PC Long may simply have missed it on his previous patrol round, but he seemed clear that it was not there earlier. Also, PC Halse stated the writing looked fresh.
                  Last edited by etenguy; 09-26-2017, 01:29 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    Well, I guess that makes three of us.

                    I don't think there's a whole lot to be said for the subject thread, you either think he did, or you don't.
                    There's nothing new to discuss on the matter, not enough to keep a thread alive.
                    We need some new information I feel to advance and possibly change people's views.

                    It will be interesting when Adam's Swanson book comes out if it is touched on at all.

                    And when Pierre gives his report we MAY have some new details to asses, but I agree until we get something new the thread is going nowhere.

                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                      We need some new information I feel to advance and possibly change people's views.

                      It will be interesting when Adam's Swanson book comes out if it is touched on at all.

                      And when Pierre gives his report we MAY have some new details to asses, but I agree until we get something new the thread is going nowhere.

                      Steve
                      Pierre's report?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        I obviously have been reading the papers,plus many other sources of information.In addition ivé read overseas papers,and one thing is obvious,they could not all have had reporters at the inquest.In fact,only if one could prove a certain reporter from a particular paper was present,could one speak from a position of certainty when quoting papers.....
                        So you want to know a specific reporter was present before you will accept press coverage of the inquest?

                        Were you aware that there is no mention in the court record of sending PC Long to get his pocketbook. We only know of that, and what was subsequently deduced from this, from the press coverage.

                        Let me just give you an example of why the press coverage is so beneficial.
                        The first paragraph below in italics, is a direct quote from the Court Record (CLRO).
                        Call it the official version if you like....

                        (CLRO) By Mr Crawford The words that were written on the wall – The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing – I copied the words from the wall into my report – I could not say whether they were recently written – I wrote down into my book and the Inspector noticed that Jews was spelt Juews – There was a difference between the spelling

                        What follows is the equivalent section as reported by the Daily Telegraph (DT), then the Times (T), then the Daily News (DN), followed by the Morning Advertiser (MA), and the Morning Post (MP), and the Standard (STD).
                        As you can see, their coverage is quite lengthy when compared to the Court version.
                        The Court version is the least reliable from the point of view of complete coverage. This is not an isolated case, the press coverage is by far more detailed than either of the two Court records (Eddowes, Kelly) that have survived.


                        (DT) Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
                        [Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.
                        [Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place.
                        Did you make an entry of the words at the time? - Yes, in my pocket-book. Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place? - It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
                        [Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.
                        [Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.
                        [Coroner] Did the writing appear to have been recently done? - I could not form an opinion.
                        [Coroner] Do I understand that you made a search in the model dwelling-house? - I went into the staircases.
                        [Coroner] Did you not make inquiries in the house itself? - No.
                        The Foreman: Where is the pocket-book in which you made the entry of the writing? - At Westminster.
                        [Coroner] Is it possible to get it at once? - I dare say.
                        Mr. Crawford: I will ask the coroner to direct that the book be fetched.
                        The Coroner: Let that be done.
                        At this point Constable Long returned, and produced the pocket-book containing the entry which he made at the time concerning the discovery of the writing on the wall.
                        Mr. Crawford: What is the entry? - Witness: The words are, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." [Coroner] Both here and in your inspector's report the word "Jews" is spelt correctly? - Yes; but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt "Juwes."
                        [Coroner] Why did you write "Jews" then? - I made my entry before the inspector made the remark.
                        [Coroner] But why did the inspector write "Jews"? - I cannot say.
                        [Coroner] At all events, there is a discrepancy? - It would seem so.



                        (T) By Mr. Crawford. - Witness repeated as before the words which he saw written on the wall.
                        Mr. Crawford. - Have you not put the word "not" in the wrong place? Is it not, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? Witness repeated the words as he had previously read them.
                        Mr. Crawford. - How do you spell "Jews"? Witness. - J-e-w-s.
                        Mr. Crawford. - Now, was it not on the wall J-u-w-e-s? Is it not possible you are wrong? - It may be as to the spelling?
                        Mr. Crawford. - And as to the place where the word "not" was put? Witness again read the words as before.
                        By Mr. Crawford. - He had not noticed the wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood. His light was on at the time. His attention was attracted to the writing on the wall while he was searching. He could not form an opinion as to whether the writing was recent.
                        He went on to the staircase of the dwelling, but made no inquires in the house itself.
                        By a juryman. - The pocket-book in which he entered the words written on the wall at the time he noticed them was at Westminster.
                        The witness's examination was postponed, and the pocket-book was ordered to be produced.

                        The witness Long having returned with the pocket-book referred to, stated, in reply to Mr. Crawford, that the book contained the entry which he made at the time as to the words written on the wall. They were, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." The inspector made the remark that on the wall the word was "Jeuws." Witness entered in his book what he believed was an exact copy of the words.
                        Mr. Crawford. - At all events there was a discrepancy between what you wrote down and what was actually written on the wall, so far as regards the spelling of the word "Jews." Witness replied that the only remark the inspector made was as to the spelling of the word "Jews."



                        (DN) Mr. Crawford - I want you to repeat the words on the wall. Have you not put the words in the wrong place? Was it not "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."
                        You did not copy from the wall? - Yes, I copied from the wall into my pocket book.
                        How have you spelt the word "Jews"? - J-e-w-s.
                        Is it not possible it was "juwees"? - It is possible I might have written it wrongly.
                        Were not the words "The juwees are not the men that will be blamed for nothing?" - "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."
                        Which did you see first, the piece of apron or the words on the wall? - The apron.
                        What called your attention to the writing on the wall? - From searching to see of there were any marks of blood.
                        And it appeared to have been recently written? - That I could not form an opinion upon. I did not go into the dwelling house, but simply up the staircase.
                        You made no inquiry in the dwelling house itself? - No.
                        On the return of Long he was further examined by Mr. Crawford - Have you got your book? - Yes.
                        Does it contain the entry you made at the time from the writing on the wall? - Yes. "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."
                        I see you use the word "Jews"? - Yes, but the inspector remarked that the word was "Juwees."
                        Why did you write J-e-w-s? - This was before the inspector made the remark.
                        At all events there was a discrepancy between you and what the inspector thought the word was? - Yes.
                        That was the only mistake the inspector pointed out? - Yes.



                        (MA) Mr. Crawford - Was not what was written above the apron "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing?" - The words were as I have stated.
                        Is it not possible you put the "not" in the wrong place? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
                        Was the word spelt, not "Jews" but "Juwes"? - It may have been.
                        What called your attention to the writing on the wall? - On searching for marks of blood.
                        Did it appear to have been recently written? - That I could not say.
                        Did you make any inquiries in the dwelling house itself? - No.
                        Police constable Long, recalled, produced the book in which he made his entry of the writing on the wall, from which it appeared the words of the entry were, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." In answer to Mr. Crawford, he said the inspector who took down the words had made the remark that the word Jews was spelt Juews - not Juwes. That was the only mistake the inspector pointed out.



                        (MP) Mr. Crawford – Were not the words, “Juews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing?”
                        The Witness – I may be wrong about the spelling, but the words are as I have given them. After further questioning the witness was sent to fetch the pocket-book into which he originally copied the sentence.
                        Police-constable Long now produced his pocket-book, containing the entry of the writing on the wall made at the time of its discovery. The words were the same as previously given by the witness, but he now added that the Inspector pointed out at the time that “Jews” was spelt “Juews.”



                        (STD) Mr. Crawford - Was not what was written above the apron "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing?" - The words were as I have stated.
                        Is it not possible you put the "not" in the wrong place? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
                        Was the word spelt, not "Jews" but "Juwes"? - It may have been.
                        What called your attention to the writing on the wall? - On searching for marks of blood.
                        Did it appear to have been recently written? - That I could not say.
                        Did you make any inquiries in the dwelling house itself? - No.
                        Police-constable Long, recalled, produced the book in which he made his entry of the writing on the wall, from which it appeared the words of the entry were, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." In answer to Mr. Crawford, he said the inspector who took down the words had made the remark that the word Jews was spelt Juews - not Juwes. That was the only mistake the inspector put out.

                        * * * * * * * * * *
                        Does any of the press coverage look 'invented' to you?
                        Do you think there was a broad conspiracy to manufacture witness testimony?
                        Do you think it's possible all these media outlets "got it wrong", collectively?
                        I remember having similar debates over the extra detail the press provided of Sarah Lewis's testimony and how "well, the press HAVE to be wrong because the Court version is the true version", and similar ridiculous comments like that - not from you, I might add, I think you know who I am talking about. But the subject was the same.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                          Pierre's report?
                          He tells us there will be one.
                          Call me unendingly optimistic.

                          Steve

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            He tells us there will be one.
                            Call me unendingly optimistic.

                            Steve
                            I have a slightly different phrase for that condition, Steve

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                              But we are 222 pages in!
                              Yes, but how many posts deal with the subject of the thread?, and how many posts repeat the same opinions, and same arguments, over and over again?
                              There's only so much we can say about whether we think he wrote it or not.

                              I guess I'm just being a party-pooper
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                                Yes, but how many posts deal with the subject of the thread?, and how many posts repeat the same opinions, and same arguments, over and over again?
                                There's only so much we can say about whether we think he wrote it or not.

                                I guess I'm just being a party-pooper
                                Point taken - maybe Pierre's report will shed some new light on the subject.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X