The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Sam Flynn]

Its never going to work by looking at them all, and then trying to work out the truth from what is written

That's our only option, whether we like it or not.

because as has been proved its human nature for an individual to accept what that individual wants to believe from how he personally interprets what he reads.

This is where a disciplined historian/researcher can bring at least a degree of objectivity to bear. This means not just evaluating multiple sources, but also applying other factors (historical, logical, etc) to a given situation in order to arrive at the most plausible reconstructions of events.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's our only option, whether we like it or not.This is where a disciplined historian/researcher can bring at least a degree of objectivity to bear. This means not just evaluating multiple sources, but also applying other factors (historical, logical, etc) to a given situation in order to arrive at the most plausible reconstructions of events.

But all you have then is perhaps one mans opinion, based on one mans individual interpretation, and in any event the most plausible may not be correct. When another persons opinion may conflict with the other person.

Lets take all the ancillary add ons reported in the press which are not mentioned in the official inquest testimony. Can we rely on them as being correct especially when many conflict with each other.

Are we really expected to believe that 129 years ago, the police,doctors and other witnesses were 100% correct in everything they said, and did, and we should not question what these persons said or did

Investigative methods have moved on since then, and it is now possible to highlight the flaws in the evidence, and question what was done and said back then.

Why should this not be looked on as not historical research, but a murder investigation. After all many murder investigations and the evidence gathering process, takes place long before a suspect is ever arrested, and that evidence is assessed and evaluated, any ambiguities which arise in witness testimony are looked at and clarified at that stage.

Newspaper reports are not generally used as evidence by either the prosecution or defence because they are generally regarded as secondary evidential sources.

The question is what are researchers looking to get from what they research. I would say an answer as to who the killer might have been,and evidence which may eliminate many suspects from the list of 200.

Other questions might be
How many victims were killed by the same hand
Did the killer remove the organs from all the victims whose organs were found to be missing
Was Eddowes really wearing an apron when she was murdered?
Did the killer take and deposit the apron piecs in GS
Did the police know the identity of the killer
Did The seaside home ID really take place
Did Swanson write all the annotations in the marginalia

Are there definitive answers to these questions, is the evidence that researcher rely on to prop these up reliable and safe?

Researchers should apply themselves in such a way that they start to look at these murder in an unbiased light, and remember the two most important words "prove or disprove" Not readily accept the facts and the evidence without question.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

But all you have then is perhaps one mans opinion, based on one mans individual interpretation

When more than one researcher arrives at the same conclusion, or agrees with it from the perspective of logical and historical consistency, then it lends weight to the interpretation. Doesn't mean it's right, as you say, but it's usually the case that the more plausible/probable interpretations are true, or at least closer to the truth than those of lesser plausibility.

Lets take all the ancillary add ons reported in the press which are not mentioned in the official inquest testimony. Can we rely on them as being correct especially when many conflict with each other.

However, there are many instances when more than one press report agree with each other, too. Provided these arise from truly independent sources, as opposed to a shared press release, then we can have some confidence that the "add-on" in question has some merit.

Why should this not be looked on as not historical research, but a murder investigation. After all many murder investigations and the evidence gathering process, takes place long before a suspect is ever arrested, and that evidence is assessed and evaluated, any ambiguities which arise in witness testimony are looked at and clarified at that stage.

As there is no prospect of an arrest, this is a historical investigation by definition; it can't be a criminal inquiry because the physical evidence, including the witnesses and perpetrators, have long since disappeared. All we have to go on are the comparatively few official documents and the newspaper reports; neither are sufficiently comprehensive or definitive in isolation, which is why we must also apply logic and rationality to those sources in order to arrive at the most plausible reconstructions of what happened at the time.

Researchers should apply themselves in such a way that they start to look at these murder in an unbiased light, and remember the two most important words "prove or disprove". Not readily accept the facts and the evidence without question.

Indeed. That's precisely what I - and others - have been advocating.

[Elamarna]

I find it truly astonishing Trevor that you portray others as being bias, and yourself as a paragon on objectively.
The more you post the more similarities in thinking processes with those who promote fantasy history involving aliens becomes apparent.

Your continual portrayal of "APPARENTLY" is very touching and demonstrates an interpretation based on your theory. That shows a high degree of bias.
You apparently were a police officer, that is what the record shows.

Still let's look at your group of questions?

Other questions might be
How many victims were killed by the same hand

Given the lack of forensics it is impossible to say.
However there are similarities between Chapman, Nichols, Eddowes and to a lesser degree Kelly and Mackenzie.
There are those who wish to show a similarity between only Nichols and Chapman, however this is often to fit a particular suspect, and involves a degree of Cherry picking.
At the end of the day we can have no difintive conclusion.
And like you I remain unconvinced about Stride.
However I also consider it unlikely that Nichols was his first attack.

Did the killer remove the organs from all the victims whose organs were found to be missing

Well Trevor, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Your well known ideas on organs being removed at the mortuary are unproven and indeed unprovable.
You suggest that the mortuaries were left unlocked and anyone could enter, however I see no evidence given to support this position.
We know that in the case of Nichols the mortuary was locked when staff were not in attendance.
So I ask you provide proof that what you propose was EVEN possible.
Then let's look at the medical evidence.

The modern experts used by yourself split 2-2 on the issue, those who say it would not be possible qualify their response by saying:

1. In the light avaible , which of course is actually unknown and which you have given them a view of, which is contrary to the primary evidence of the light at the scene.

2. The size of knife, again one assumes supplied by yourself, and which another experts says is impossible to determine.

Was Eddowes really wearing an apron when she was murdered?


The original inquest testimony suggests that she was.
However you counter this by saying words used by the witnesses demonstrates doubt and are thus unsafe, indeed in the case of Hurt and Robinson you call the two officers liars.

In the case of Collard you again use semantics to attempt to weaken and disregard the testimony.

So it seems we have evidence, signed as you have pointed out several times that says she was wearing an apron.
And against that we have ? Actually no evidence at all, just pure speculation which demonstrates no attempt at objectivety at all.

It is also to me somewhat shameful that a former police officer acusses two others of giving false evidence on nothing but speculation.

Did the killer take and deposit the apron piecs in GS.

The sources (that is evidence) provide nothing to suggest otherwise.
Any other suggestion is pure speculation, completely unsupported.
For the record speculation is NOT evidence.


Did the police know the identity of the killer


A question which cannot be answered conclusively.


Did The seaside home ID really take place



We have it mentioned several times by seperate individuals, therefore on the balance of probabilities it probably did.
If it was conclusive or if they had the correct suspect is another matter entirely.

To argue it did not occur one needs to provide some form evidence to counter the claim.
That is evidence, not opinion, so other officers saying it did not occur would be a start.


Did Swanson write all the annotations in the marginalia


To suggest otherwise is to accuse others of fraud, this requires proof, such an suggestion is extremely serious.
The evidence we do have, provence, handwriting, which I am always less than enamoured of, given it is a matter of individual interpretation, shows no reason to suspect the authorship.


Are there definitive answers to these questions, is the evidence that researcher rely on to prop these up reliable and safe?

Make your case as strong as possible and then prove it is correct.
Instead you ask others to prove what you challenge without getting anywhere close to proving your ideas.



Steve

[PaulB]

"As there is no prospect of an arrest, this is a historical investigation by definition; it can't be a criminal inquiry because the physical evidence, including the witnesses and perpetrators, have long since disappeared. All we have to go on are the comparatively few official documents and the newspaper reports; neither are sufficiently comprehensive or definitive in isolation, which is why we must also apply logic and rationality to those sources in order to arrive at the most plausible reconstructions of what happened at the time." Sam Flynn

It's also history because the world then is different from the world now, and one needs to have at least a basic understanding of the time and place to properly consider the crimes. And because "Jack the Ripper" is history, it is subject to the established, long-accepted rules and methodology of historians. Trevor does not understand this; he thinks he can decide what primary and secondary sources are, he confuses them with police or legal terminologies. And he manifestly doesn't understand the basics of source analysis, or how historians do their best to limit personal bias in their assessment of the source documents, and how history is, ultimately, consensus opinion.

And, if I may say so, it is not what you and others have been advocating. It is what you and others do. What, perhaps, isn't appreciated is that Trevor neither knows nor cares.

[Sam Flynn]

Much appreciated, Paul

[Elamarna]

Well put Paul

Trust you are ok. Just about to start on your book reviews

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Well put Paul

Trust you are ok. Just about to start on your book reviews

Paul's book reviews are so prodigious that, pretty soon, Ripperologist will need to have a regular feature containing reviews of his reviews. I'm trying to work out whether his recommendations/anti-recommendations have saved or lost me money over the years. It's a close call

[Trevor Marriott]

I find it truly astonishing Trevor that you portray others as being bias, and yourself as a paragon on objectively.
The more you post the more similarities in thinking processes with those who promote fantasy history involving aliens becomes apparent.

Your continual portrayal of "APPARENTLY" is very touching and demonstrates an interpretation based on your theory. That shows a high degree of bias.
You apparently were a police officer, that is what the record shows.

Still let's look at your group of questions?




Make your case as strong as possible and then prove it is correct.
Instead you ask others to prove what you challenge without getting anywhere close to proving your ideas.



Steve

There doesn't need to be direct evidence or specific sources to create or prove a doubt, and I am not trying to conclusively prove the alternative theories I have put forward.

What you seem to not be able to comprehend is that there are doubts and flaws in the old accepted theories, which leave the door wide open for alternatives, but you seem to have your head buried in the sand and not want to accept or even acknowledge these other possible explanations.

If a doubt is raised and acknowledged then that weakens the original theory.

All we keep getting from you is the phrase "Where is the evidence" "Where are the sources" if the evidence and sources were available to conclusively prove these new alternatives we would not be having these arguments.

As to not treating it as a murder investigation, how come we have had a multitude of television documentaries over the years, all trying to positively identify the killer, along with hundreds of books. Have all of those involved with both been treating it as a historical exercise? Of course they have not so you so called Historians need to wake up to reality.

What has history given us? A load of facts that when analysed throw up more questions than answers, certain police officials that you would not trust with your shopping list, witness testimony that has more holes in it than a cullender, and over 200 suspects none of which could be classed as a prime suspect.

What did Jack Nicholson say in the film A few good men "The Truth, you cant handle the truth" never more truer words to describe your attitude and your perception of ripperolgy

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

There doesn't need to be direct evidence or specific sources to create or prove a doubt, and I am not trying to conclusively prove the alternative theories I have put forward.


How many times do you need to be told , if there is no evidence it's just wishful thinking.

And in your books, and I have them all, you imply your ideas are supported and that the old ideas fail when they do not.


What you seem to not be able to comprehend is that there are doubts and flaws in the old accepted theories, which leave the door wide open for alternatives, but you seem to have your head buried in the sand and not want to accept or even acknowledge these other possible explanations.

The "flaws" you speak of are not flaws as such, its just that you prefer to peceive them as such .
No one is burying their head in the sand, one looks at issues and attempts to make a working hypothesis based on the sources.
You on the other hand, constantly cherry pick what suites your increasing unrealistic ideas, to the exclusion of everything else. If something does not fit, discard it and rubbish it.

If a doubt is raised and acknowledged then that weakens the original theory.

The one does not always follow the other, a doubt can lead to further investigation that actually strengthens a theory

All we keep getting from you is the phrase "Where is the evidence" "Where are the sources" if the evidence and sources were available to conclusively prove these new alternatives we would not be having these arguments.

And that is how one solves problems by looking at the facts, not by imagination.
The fact that you openly discount evidence as being unimportant shows just how weak the arguments you make are.

As to not treating it as a murder investigation, how come we have had a multitude of television documentaries over the years, all trying to positively identify the killer, along with hundreds of books. Have all of those involved with both been treating it as a historical exercise? Of course they have not so you so called Historians need to wake up to reality.

It is not a murder investigation, you have only the sources which you so openly derided to work with.


What has history given us? A load of facts that when analysed throw up more questions than answers, certain police officials that you would not trust with your shopping list, witness testimony that has more holes in it than a cullender, and over 200 suspects none of which could be classed as a prime suspect.



What did Jack Nicholson say in the film A few good men "The Truth, you cant handle the truth" never more truer words to describe your attitude and your perception of ripperolgy

And just like yours that was a work of fiction.
I see you won't even try and debate details and facts, nor answer the points raised in post. All that happens is the chant of "the old theories are wrong" over and over yet the arguments to support such statements fail time after time.

How shallow an approach, no science, no facts, no history, simply fiction.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

And just like yours that was a work of fiction.
I see you won't even try and debate details and facts, nor answer the points raised in post. All that happens is the chant of "the old theories are wrong" over and over yet the arguments to support such statements fail time after time.

How shallow an approach, no science, no facts, no history, simply fiction.

Steve

I have to now bite my tongue because if I wrote what I really thought of you. I would most likely get banned and I am not going to give you the satisfaction.

What I will do is to throw down the gauntlet to you- A trial by jury- Your research and opinions on all the facts and evidence against my modern day research before a specially invited un biased audience (not ripperolgists) Perhaps student criminologist from a UNI, who can vote on which aspects of this mystery they believe the most plausible from both sides of the arguments

A 2 hour event, 60mins for you to put your case, 60 mins for me to put mine and agreed agenda in advance of what points to deal with from the mystery, so no one has an unfair advantage.

If you dont feel up to it perhaps you might want to nominate Paul Begg to stand in for you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

If you dont feel up to it perhaps you might want to nominate Paul Begg to stand in for you.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No thanks, Trevor. For so many reasons your suggestion is ridiculous, but the fact is that you don't understand what you are dealing with or how to deal with it and therefore arguing with you is a waste of time. Anything you say should be treated with extreme caution.

[Varqm]

Almost everything will end up in,we have to agree to disagree.

[David Orsam]

No thanks, Trevor. For so many reasons your suggestion is ridiculous, but the fact is that you don't understand what you are dealing with or how to deal with it and therefore arguing with you is a waste of time. Anything you say should be treated with extreme caution.

Paul, can I ask you this: rather than responding to Trevor, have you ever thought of settling back, putting your feet up and leaving him to defend his lost cause?

[etenguy]

Almost everything will end up in,we have to agree to disagree.

I find it difficult to agree or disagree with Mr Marriott's theory. There is no evidence to evaluate. As best as I can tell, his approach is to speculate without support for his conclusions.

Most of the posts in this thread have been about whether the current theory - that Catherine was wearing an apron when she was murdered - withstands scrutiny and challenge. As best as I can tell, Mr Marriott's argument is that it cannot and therefore his alternative theory is more plausible. As many have stated, even if he were able to compile evidence and an argument to successfully challenge that Catherine was wearing an apron when she was murdered (which I do not believe he has), there is no evidence advanced to support his re imagining of events. If I have understood his argument, he need only prove the current position to be wrong for his theory to have weight. I find that insufficient to support a theory.