The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Elamarna]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Temper, temper my good man.
It hurts when you get back what you dish out does it not.
I am certainly up to it, in case you are unaware I was a politician and am more than use to public debate, and certainly faced more hostile audiences than you normally face.

You are laying down the challenge, so logically the audience selection should be mine, not set by you.
And of course we need to agree a price for my time and expenses.

What a poor overall response, I was prepared to stay quiet as you asked only 2 days ago, and what do i find? You continuing with the same nonsense after I agree to stop as you said you would.

Say what you want Trevor, I really don't care.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Temper, temper my good man.
It hurts when you get back what you dish out does it not.
I am certainly up to it, in case you are unaware I was a politician and am more than use to public debate, and certainly faced more hostile audiences than you normally face.

You are laying down the challenge, so logically the audience selection should be mine, not set by you.
And of course we need to agree a price for my time and expenses.

What a poor overall response, I was prepared to stay quiet as you asked only 2 days ago, and what do i find? You continuing with the same nonsense after I agree to stop as you said you would.

Say what you want Trevor, I really don't care.

Steve

Well I would have bet my house on you and Paul Begg declining the offer.

You and Paul Begg are clearly not confident that your old historical facts will stand up to close scrutiny in the public domain when you are away from your comfort zone.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Well I would have bet my house on you and Paul Begg declining the offer.

You and Paul Begg are clearly not confident that your old historical facts will stand up to close scrutiny in the public domain when you are away from your comfort zone.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Where did I decline Trevor?
Now apologise for misrepresenting my reply please!!
However because of that reply my fee is now substainally increased.
Just as a matter of interest uni is my comfort zone, 35 years working in them.
I am truly amazed by the tone of these responses.

Steve

[Varqm]

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.

From my previous posts my view is everything points towards she was wearing the apron when she was murdered with no contradictions or objections from the police and the mortuary witnesses who were there and saw details which we can only dream of.I think,most of all, the fact that there were no photos and the witnesses were not thoroughly cross-examined make it kind of vague- this lack of fact(s)makes another view possible.
But I think Trevor is pointing out the difference between historical and legal.
First the witnesses were not thoroughly cross-examined so therefore their testimony cannot be accepted as absolute/legal proof.If in a trial where somebody is to hang,it cannot be proven that Eddowes did not took off her apron and therefore it came down only to the mortuary witnesses and since these witnesses were not thoroughly cross-examined,it is not legal proof.
Would you hang a man based on the mortuary witnesses's statements alone without thorough cross-examination whether she was wearing it (guilty)or not (not guilty)?
But as i posted this is just arguing for arguments sake.

[Elamarna]

From my previous posts my view is everything points towards she was wearing the apron when she was murdered with no contradictions or objections from the police and the mortuary witnesses who were there and saw details which we can only dream of.I think,most of all, the fact that there were no photos and the witnesses were not thoroughly cross-examined make it kind of vague- this lack of fact(s)makes another view possible.
But I think Trevor is pointing out the difference between historical and legal.
First the witnesses were not thoroughly cross-examined so therefore their testimony cannot be accepted as absolute/legal proof.If in a trial where somebody is to hang,it cannot be proven that Eddowes did not took off her apron and therefore it came down only to the mortuary witnesses and since these witnesses were not thoroughly cross-examined,it is not legal proof.
Would you hang a man based on the mortuary witnesses's statements alone without thorough cross-examination whether she was wearing it (guilty)or not (not guilty)?
But as i posted this is just arguing for arguments sake.

Yes this was an inquest and there was no cross examination.
To then attempt to use such to call the statements into question is futile and starts from a view that cross examination would alter the testimony. That is pure speculation and guesswork is it not?

Steve

[etenguy]

From my previous posts my view is everything points towards she was wearing the apron when she was murdered with no contradictions or objections from the police and the mortuary witnesses who were there and saw details which we can only dream of.I think,most of all, the fact that there were no photos and the witnesses were not thoroughly cross-examined make it kind of vague- this lack of fact(s)makes another view possible.
But I think Trevor is pointing out the difference between historical and legal.
First the witnesses were not thoroughly cross-examined so therefore their testimony cannot be accepted as absolute/legal proof.If in a trial where somebody is to hang,it cannot be proven that Eddowes did not took off her apron and therefore it came down only to the mortuary witnesses and since these witnesses were not thoroughly cross-examined,it is not legal proof.
Would you hang a man based on the mortuary witnesses's statements alone without thorough cross-examination whether she was wearing it (guilty)or not (not guilty)?
But as i posted this is just arguing for arguments sake.

There are, as you rightly state, different standards of proof required for different purposes. We might very well want the highest standard (beyond reasonable doubt) if a man's life depended on the outcome.

I would suggest when it comes to whether the victim was wearing an apron or not, the balance of probability is sufficient. Given the evidence we have, I believe, on the balance of probability, Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was murdered.

Whatever I believe, we have the evidence we have. It all points to the victim wearing an apron with no challenge from anyone who was in a position to know. I find that more compelling than the argument that because the witnesses were not subject to a thorough cross examination their evidence is to be disregarded.

[etenguy]

Yes this was an inquest and there was no cross examination.
To then attempt to use such to call the statements into question is futile and starts from a view that cross examination would alter the testimony. That is pure speculation and guesswork is it not?

Steve

I should have waited, you articulated the point better than I.

[Varqm]

Yes this was an inquest and there was no cross examination.
To then attempt to use such to call the statements into question is futile and starts from a view that cross examination would alter the testimony. That is pure speculation and guesswork is it not?

Steve

CORONERS ACT, 1887

"It must be admitted that, ordinarily, where there can be
no cross-examination, depositions are not admissible ; but
those taken before the coroner have been said to be an
exception to this general rule'

It may have.It's just the apron's position/description by the mortuary witnesses could have been more clear,as such it is kind of vague which allows a different view.But I guess it was clear enough for those present that there was no need to be further described.99.9 % she was wearing it.

[Varqm]

There are, as you rightly state, different standards of proof required for different purposes. We might very well want the highest standard (beyond reasonable doubt) if a man's life depended on the outcome.

I would suggest when it comes to whether the victim was wearing an apron or not, the balance of probability is sufficient. Given the evidence we have, I believe, on the balance of probability, Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was murdered.

Whatever I believe, we have the evidence we have. It all points to the victim wearing an apron with no challenge from anyone who was in a position to know. I find that more compelling than the argument that because the witnesses were not subject to a thorough cross examination their evidence is to be disregarded.

I agree.Common sense.

[Trevor Marriott]

Where did I decline Trevor?
Now apologise for misrepresenting my reply please!!
However because of that reply my fee is now substainally increased.
Just as a matter of interest uni is my comfort zone, 35 years working in them.
I am truly amazed by the tone of these responses.

Steve

I can see why you were in politics. Politicians never can give a straight answer, and do more ducking and diving than the ducks on the river.

No fee involved, this is for the benefit of ripperology and all who sail in her !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I can see why you were in politics. Politicians never can give a straight answer, and do more ducking and diving than the ducks on the river.

No fee involved, this is for the benefit of ripperology and all who sail in her !


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So still insulting, still rude.
If it was not so sad, it would be funny.
More importantly no apology for misrepresenting what I posted.
For the benefit of Ripperology, I seriously doubt that after post 2201, which was apparently without meaning!

I must admit it would be tempting to watch a presentation of the case without sources and evidence and claiming such is not needed to university students, that would be hilarious.

However you normally charge for your efforts and time, and considering that I have no need to partake in such an event , being content to debate on what are freely accessable forums; and you are the one desperately suggesting what amounts to advertising for your "work", I also charge for my time and effort.
So it's no fee, no show I'm afraid.

It's your choice Mr Marriott.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

So still insulting, still rude.
If it was not so sad, it would be funny.

For the benefit of Ripperology, I seriously doubt that.

I must admit it would be tempting to watch you present a case without sources and evidence to university students.

However you normally charge for your efforts and time, and considering that I have nothing to prove, being content to debate on what are freely accessable forums; and you are the one desperately suggesting what amounts to advertising for your "work", I also charge for my time and effort.
So it's no fee, no show I'm afraid.

Steve

It's your choice Mr Marriott.

Steve

I will take that as a refusal on the terms that I offered. If you are so sure about these historical facts standing up to close scrutiny against mine. I would have thought you would relish the chance to publicly prove me wrong for free, just as you have tried to do many times on here and failed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I will take that as a refusal on the terms that I offered. If you are so sure about these historical facts standing up to close scrutiny against mine. I would have thought you would relish the chance to publicly prove me wrong for free, just as you have tried to do many times on here and failed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

To the contrary, I have shown time after time that your arguments are without foundation or support.

It is not I who refuses to answer questions nor I who abscons from posting after each encounter.

Why explain to me would I give up my time for free, the proposed theories, if one can even call them such, are neither important enough or serious enough to warrant such attention.

Steve

[Wickerman]

Jon,
The source says Long said no, he didn't know.It is not suggestive of anything other than Long was unaware of Eddowes murder..It was an answer in response to a question.

Yes, you have said before that this was a reply to a juror, but I cannot find a juror asking that question.
One juror did ask why Long did not think to search each tenement in the building. That was the longest exchange with a juror.

The sources all indicate that Long did not hear of the Eddowes murder until just before he left for the station. Not before he searched the building.

Nothing indicates that Long would not have gone regardless of the circumstance,and nothing indicates the why he took the cloth with him.The last thing was his going to the station,so the press reports mean little,and I see you now only assume Long was told.

The court record tells the same story...
"Having searched I at once proceeded to the Station Before proceeding there I had heard of a murder having been committed I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square"

It's pretty clear he learned of the City murder after his search, but before he left with the apron.

Why are you pursuing this line, what is the significance for you?

If there is no argument to pursue,why keep comparing the paper's reports to the source I named.Why not answer my questions.

The source you named was the A-Z wasn't it?
That is not a source Harry. The only sources we have is the court record, the contemporary press coverage, and one police report written by Long on Nov. 6th.

I only asked if the theory was possible,Pleased you replied in the affirmative.

Lots of things are possible.

[Wickerman]

Ok Harry, this quote below seems to be the one you keep referring back to.

Sourced from th A to Z book.
He(Long)was mildly criticised by a juror for not conducting a thorough search of the rooms in the buildings.,but reasonably replied that he did not know of the Eddowes murder. He conducted a search of the staircases and landings,because he(Long),on discovering the apron piece,thought a victim of crime,and not a criminal was inside.
So it is clear from the above,that after a search,what he had thought,proved to be without evidence,and the reference to an apron piece,was not that he knew it was an apron piece,but something he had learned of since.As Trevor says.
So where was there an incentive or reason to go haring down to a police station,clutching a piece of soiled material that he neither knew nor had reason to believe,was evidence of a crime.
Someone,a long time ago,gave an answer.

My first question to you is, why do you criticize the press coverage when you keep quoting from the very same press coverage?

The court record makes no mention of a juror asking a question. We only learn of this from the press. Can you explain exactly what it is in the press you will accept, and what it is you will not - it might help in trying to answer your questions.