The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Christie was in the Specials.Not nearly the same thing,but apart from that, his evidence was accepted as superior to Evans..However it is also accepted that Christie lied,so if you wish to draw comparison with Long,perhaps you will accept that Long also could have lied.

Well, the matter at hand was whether it could be pointed to any cases where policemen were believed over other people, Harry. I donīt think we need to expand it into any other angles, but I will say that it goes without saying that Long COULD have lied.
The problem only appears if we suggest a lie on Longs behalf as a better option than him telling the truth. The reason this poses a problem is that there is nothing at all to base such an assumption on, whereas we know quite well that Christie lied through his teeth.

[Elamarna]

But Historical facts are there to be questioned, and not readily accepted as being correct. They are there to be proved or disproved as best they can be given the passage of time. If they cannot be proved conclusively either way, but a doubt can be created surrounding one some or all of the facts and that is all that is needed, a doubt, then we have to say that the historical facts relied upon are unsafe and should not be readily accepted as being correct.

This is where in the Ripper case, the historians have their heads buried in the sand. Time and time again we see the Historical facts and evidence being brought into question, and time and time again we see replies from Historians, asking for evidence, facts etc. If there was real and proper irrefutable evidence then it would change the historical facts but there is not, so we are left to assess and evaluate those historical facts that have been left to us, and what modern day investigative work can bring to the table.

When a real and proper doubt is created about a specific issue and if it is a genuine supported doubt, then it should now stand along side the original theory for those who are interested in this mystery to assess and evaluate what is presented to them, and for those Historians to grow a pair and come out and accept the historical facts are unsafe.

The trouble is that as I see it many cant accept, and will not accept the fact that much of the what The Ripper mystery is built on is unsafe to totally rely on.

You said previous that we cant look on this as a murder investigation. I disagree. We have the witness statements we can look at them and see the flaws in them, we are now able to question the medical evidence, we have modern day evidence to question what has been written by some of the senior police officials, we can show flaws in may of the main issues in the mystery, and despite what you and others say, all of what is now put forward to question the old accepted theories cant all be wrong, and it is totally wrong to believe that all that was said and done in 1888 and the years that followed is 100% accurate.

How Historians on here can look at 10 differing newspaper reports of the same occurrence, and pick the bones out of each, to make up what they believe to be an accurate account is really incomprehensible.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

One voice saying I doubt something, does not mean there is doubt about an issue, particularly when that voice has their own agenda.
The doubts claimed are often not based on fact but on so called "common sense" and unbridled imagination. Trying to use words such as "apparently" to cast doubt on statements does no such thing.

And this approach you champion has achieved what?

Have you been able to demonstrate that Eddowes was not wearing an apron?

The answer of course No.
The approach taken is firstly to attempt to question the reliability and validity of the newspaper inquest reports.
This leaves the Official Report, and then we have selective acceptance of statements, well actually a rejecting of any which say she was wearing an apron in preference to an idea.
The support offered is that the list supplied by Collard does list this as clothing. And because this is signed it is infallible.
A pity that Collard's own testimony is also disregarded the reason given is a personal interpretation of the word "APPARENTLY"

I in short there is nothing to support the idea other than a personal belief, no facts no evidence.
The testimony of Hutt & Robinson is not only tabled as unsafe, but they are actually called liars based on this belief.



Have you been able to demonstrate that the organs were not removed on site?

Again the answer is no. Even with a veritable army of modern medical experts it was not possible to get a majority in favour of the view that to remove the organs on site was impossible, and of course those who did agree, based that view on very subjective information on lighting levels and blade length supplied by yourself.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

But can you not see the flaws in many of the old accepted theories when they are now tested.

Frankly, no. They may need refining here and there, provided such refinements are evidence-based, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Tried and trusted tools of the historical method, science and logic are never on their own going to solve a murder case.

We're never going to solve this murder case, unless some spectacular, authentic, new evidence comes to light. The best we can hope for is to establish as faithful a reconstruction of events as possible, and the only way we have a hope of doing that is by adhering to a rigorous historical approach.

In fact the method adopted of picking the bones out of 10 newspaper reports and coming up with what is then believed to be a definitive answer is ridiculous, especially if you cannot prove that all the reports were compiled at the time by reporters who were actually present.

Those reports constitute the biggest body of sources we have at our disposal. We have no choice but to use them, in conjunction with the comparatively lesser corpus of official records, and make sense of them all in a coherent, rational way.

Especially as The Newspaper lists on here show at least 60 different newspapers who printed details of inquests and other relevant reports. They are from the length and breadth of the country?Not to mention hundreds of other newspaper articles from around the world

Indeed, which is why a responsible researcher will recognise that some sources are more reliable than others, and weigh any arguments based upon those sources in a sensible manner.

[Elamarna]

Tried and trusted tools of the historical method, science and logic are never on their own going to solve a murder case. In fact the method adopted of picking the bones out of 10 newspaper reports and coming up with what is then believed to be a definitive answer is ridiculous, especially if you cannot prove that all the reports were compiled at the time by reporters who were actually present.

Trevor, You appear to be taking the approach, cant be sure which is real so reject all.

However work has been carried out in an attempt to see which reports are syndicated, and which are from a single reporter covering several papers
its actually fairly easy, if time consuming to shift out the reports which are syndicated.

the fact youappear find this too onerous a task is your choice

Especially as The Newspaper lists on here show at least 60 different newspapers who printed details of inquests and other relevant reports. They are from the length and breadth of the country?Not to mention hundreds of other newspaper articles from around the world who also reported on the murders. of which we see articles quoted from on here regularly.

It seems once again you wish to muddy the waters an lump Articles, interviews and speculation in with the Inquest Reports.
A reading of the papers shows that often a paper will carry stories which vary greatly from their own inquest coverage, thus demonstrating an independence in these reports and an attempt to give unbiased factual reporting.


steve

[Elamarna]

The support offered is that the list supplied by Collard does list this as clothing. And because this is signed it is infallible.

The Joys of typing on the phone,

above should of course have read:


"The support offered is that the list supplied by Collard does not list this as clothing. And because this is signed it is infallible."

Sorry for the mistake



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Steve

One voice saying I doubt something, does not mean there is doubt about an issue, particularly when that voice has their own agenda.
The doubts claimed are often not based on fact but on so called "common sense" and unbridled imagination. Trying to use words such as "apparently" to cast doubt on statements does no such thing.

I am not the only voice, and the only agenda I have is seeking the truth, which is clearly not fully visible in the witness statements,the facts,opinions and everything else those who seek to prop up the old theories keep trying to avoid.

The word apparently as you keep referring to it, as you know appears in Collards official inquest testimony, and if you for one who cannot see that word has a significant impact on not only his testimony but the documents he produced then there is no hope for you.

The only common sense approach is to question both his statement and what he produces. One doesn't need imagination to do that, it is commons sense to question it because of the implications

Despite what you and others say. It is there, it is in evidence and by reason of the contents of both it therefore creates a doubt

And this approach you champion has achieved what?

In highlighting the ambiguities and the flaws in the evidence it has made a lot of people think about the old facts and ask could they be unsafe to rely on. Conversely it has made the old theory brigade bury their heads in the sand deeper only surfacing to fire a volley of made up explanations, and not even acknowledge that fact that much of the old theories are unsafe.

Have you been able to demonstrate that Eddowes was not wearing an apron?

Have you been able to demonstrate she was wearing one at the time of her murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

The answer of course No.

Is it? You are misguided in that respect

The approach taken is firstly to attempt to question the reliability and validity of the newspaper inquest reports.

I agree but that is almost impossible when they are so conflicting

This leaves the Official Report, and then we have selective acceptance of statements, well actually a rejecting of any which say she was wearing an apron in preference to an idea.
The support offered is that the list supplied by Collard does list this as clothing. And because this is signed it is infallible.

Isnt that good prime evidence, notes made at the time. As far as evidence is concerned that is prime evidence

A pity that Collard's own testimony is also disregarded the reason given is a personal interpretation of the word "APPARENTLY"r
I in short there is nothing to support the idea other than a personal belief, no facts no evidence.

I dont think you understand what the difference is with regards to evidence and how it is used, and how it can be tested, and what results can be gathered from all of those actions. Apparenty in that context tells me that at the time he gave that evidence there was a doubt

The testimony of Hutt & Robinson is not only tabled as unsafe, but they are actually called liars based on this belief.

Interpret what has been said how you like. But it doesn't detract that their evidence does not stand up to close scrutiny. And if you are another who believes that the police could not, and did not ever lie throughout this murder mystery, then are even more misguided than I suspect.

So we have two police officers, One who says she was wearing an apron at the police station, but he only got a fleeting glimpse of her in the cell. Then we have Sgt Byfield who says he didnt notice if she was wearing and apron, when she stood before him, when she was first brought to the station, when she again stood before him when she was being released by him, when it was he who would have taken her possessions from her, and he who would have given them back. All that time and he didn't notice, yet two Mr Plods are positive that she was wearing one, who both probably saw less of her than Byfield.

Have you been able to demonstrate that the organs were not removed on site?

I have managed to create enough doubt, and that negates the reasonable doubt you rely on to prove that they were

Again the answer is no. Even with a veritable army of modern medical experts it was not possible to get a majority in favour of the view e to remove the organs on site was impossible, and of course those who did agree, based that view on very subjective information on lighting levels and blade length supplied by yourself.

As I have said its not about proving conclusively because you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killer did remove them at the scene. Its about creating a doubt, and assessing and evaluating all the evidence in unbiased fashion, and there is without a doubt a doubt created. Even with the conflicting modern day medical statements.

And finally my previous post was in respect of the whole ripper mystery not just Mitre Square

In the grand scheme of things whether or not she was wearing an apron is but a small cog in the big wheel. The fact is that we accept the piece of apron found in GS matched a similar piece of apron found with the body when it was stripped at the mortuary.

What I do dispute is the fact that the killer may not have left Mitre Sq with the piece and deposit in GS. He certainly as has been proved couldn't have taken away the organs in it, and had no reason to take it that far for the purpose of wiping his hands or his knife. Now if you think i am wrong then i would be happy to argue again any evidential points you seek to put forward which would remove the doubts.

Steve

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

It certainly has has been proved couldn't have taken away the organs in it, and had no reason to take it that far for the purpose of wiping his hands or his knife

It most definitely hasn't been proved, on either count. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

In contrast, what evidence can you supply that supports the idea that it got there for any other reason or by any other means?

[Trevor Marriott]

It most definitely hasn't been proved, on either count. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

In contrast, what evidence can you supply that supports the idea that it got there for any other reason or by any other means?

As much evidence as you can to prove that the killer cut or tore it and took it away with him. You see these arguments cut both ways especially when there is no conclusive proof, and with out that all we have is a doubt, and thats all we need to show the old accepted theories are unsafe.

All that being said these points have been argued over and over again so I dont intend to keep re posting it all over again. I neither have the time or the inclination

All my supporting facts and evidence can be found in my book "Jack The Ripper-The Real Truth" or The DVD "Jack the Ripper-A 21st Century Investigation" both available on my my website www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So I have nothing more to say on this thread.

[Elamarna]

One voice saying I doubt something, does not mean there is doubt about an issue, particularly when that voice has their own agenda.
The doubts claimed are often not based on fact but on so called "common sense" and unbridled imagination. Trying to use words such as "apparently" to cast doubt on statements does no such thing.

I am not the only voice, and the only agenda I have is seeking the truth, which is clearly not fully visible in the witness statements,the facts,opinions and everything else those who seek to prop up the old theories keep trying to avoid.

We appear to have a different understanding of the word "truth".

And again the same mantra that those who disagree are propping up old ideas.
No one is avoiding anything, present a case with some facts and then we can have a real debate.

The word apparently as you keep referring to it, as you know appears in Collards official inquest testimony, and if you for one who cannot see that word has a significant impact on not only his testimony but the documents he produced then there is no hope for you.

The word as been defined for you several times, that you chose to ignore that and use a different interpretation, just shows that the truth does not matter. It appears all that is important is ones own opinion and views, somewhat at odds with the first statement above.

The only common sense approach is to question both his statement and what he produces. One doesn't need imagination to do that, it is commons sense to question it because of the implications

Despite what you and others say. It is there, it is in evidence and by reason of the contents of both it therefore creates a doubt.[/b]

Sorry Trevor, its not in the evidence, its only a rather odd, self serving interpretation of the evidence.

And this approach you champion has achieved what?

In highlighting the ambiguities and the flaws in the evidence it has made a lot of people think about the old facts and ask could they be unsafe to rely on. Conversely it has made the old theory brigade bury their heads in the sand deeper only surfacing to fire a volley of made up explanations, and not even acknowledge that fact that much of the old theories are unsafe.

Yes there are flaws, but not the ones you go on and on about.

Have you been able to demonstrate that Eddowes was not wearing an apron?

Have you been able to demonstrate she was wearing one at the time of her murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yes actually, its in the evidence as you say above, not just one persons account(source), but multiple accounts (sources).

The answer of course No.

Is it? You are misguided in that respect

Pardon, you have demonstrated nothing to support your idea.
No evidence, which it appears is regarded as unimportant; just picking a word here and a word there to propose people lied.
Where is your supporting evidence? Without such its pure speculation.
Responding to this approach is so easy, there are NO FACTS to counter.

The approach taken is firstly to attempt to question the reliability and validity of the newspaper inquest reports.

I agree but that is almost impossible when they are so conflicting

Of course you do, its your approach I am describing.

This leaves the Official Report, and then we have selective acceptance of statements, well actually a rejecting of any which say she was wearing an apron in preference to an idea.
The support offered is that the list supplied by Collard does list this as clothing. And because this is signed it is infallible.

Isnt that good prime evidence, notes mad at the time. As far as evidence is concerned that is prime evidence

I take it you have evidence that the notes presented were made at the time and not later written up for the inquest?

Its a primary source, the same as everything else in the official report, and the paper reports of the inquest, it holds no special significance.

A pity that Collard's own testimony is also disregarded the reason given is a personal interpretation of the word "APPARENTLY"r
I in short there is nothing to support the idea other than a personal belief, no facts no evidence.

I dont think you understand what the difference is with regards to evidence and how it is used, and how it can be tested, and what results can be gathered from all of those actions. Apparenty in that context tells me that at the time he gave that evidence there was a doubt

Its not evidence, we are not in a trial, witnesses cannot be cross examined, the physical evidence no longer remains!
Its an historical investigation, wake up please!

Apparently does not mean he doubted it, how many times do you need to be told this, it means to the best of his knowledge it is true, if he meant something different, he would have said so.

The testimony of Hutt & Robinson is not only tabled as unsafe, but they are actually called liars based on this belief.



Interpret what has been said how you like. But it doesn't detract that their evidence does not stand up to close scrutiny. And if you are another who believes that the police could not, and did not ever lie throughout this murder mystery, then are even more misguided than I suspect.

So we have two police officers, One who says she was wearing an apron at the police station, but he only got a fleeting glimpse of her in the cell. Then we have Sgt Byfield who says he didnt notice if she was wearing and apron, when she stood before him, when she was first brought to the station, when she again stood before him when she was being released by him, when it was he who would have taken her possessions from her, and he who would have given them back. All that time and he didn't notice, yet two Mr Plods are positive that she was wearing one, who both probably saw less of her than Byfield.

I see, the lower ranks are less Trustworthy, Really?
And it appears you have no trouble with labelling these two men with no support!

Byfield does not say she was not wearing one, you interpret that as a negative, which is not the way to progress; and of course you ignore Collard, having convinced yourself that apparently means he does not believe so.

If any theory is flawed the above is a great example of such, that is truly flawed.

Have you been able to demonstrate that the organs were not removed on site?

[b]I have managed to create enough doubt, and that negates the reasonable doubt you rely on to prove that they were/B]

Sorry you have not, the continued repeating of such does not make it true,

Again the answer is no. Even with a veritable army of modern medical experts it was not possible to get a majority in favour of the view e to remove the organs on site was impossible, and of course those who did agree, based that view on very subjective information on lighting levels and blade length supplied by yourself.

As I have said its not about proving conclusively because you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killer did remove them at the scene. Its about creating a doubt, and assessing and evaluating all the evidence in unbiased fashion, and there is without a doubt a doubt created. Even with the conflicting modern day medical statements

.

The negative approach again, one which always displays a complete lack of evidence to support the idea put forward.

Trevor with all due respect you do not evaluate in an unbiased fashion, you evaluate in a sensationalist fashion, looking to push your own ideas.

What I do dispute is the fact that the killer may not have left Mitre Sq with the piece and deposit in GS. He certainly as has been proved couldnt have taken away the organs in it, and had no reason to take it that far for the purpose of wiping his hands or his knife. Now if you think i am wrong then i would be happy to argue any evidential points you seek to put forward which would remove the doubt

Actually you have not proven that, although the evidence is somewhat against it being used for such, the staining as reported is somewhat at odds with what could. be ecxpected in those circumstances, but it is not overwhelming and far from conclusive at this stage.

Again, there is no way you can know, why he may have carried it that far, to say you do is guesswork and demonstrates, not for the first time, a degree of certainty that boarders on arrogance.


Steve

[Elamarna]

All my supporting facts and evidence can be found in my book "Jack The Ripper-The Real Truth" or The DVD "Jack the Ripper-A 21st Century Investigation" both available on my my website www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So I have nothing more to say on this thread.

Now where have I heard that before? and when?

Here, last week!

Got them all Trevor, they contain little, if anything, that is not presented here. they are far from convincing.
Without doubt the best bits are the medical experts, something I commend you for often.



Steve.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Christie being believed over Evans is probably not the best example of a policeman being believed over a witness. As been pointed out he was not a copper as such plus Evans was prone to inventing stories about himself to boost his self-esteem, a trait that continued into adulthood and interfered with his efforts to establish credibility when dealing with the police. Also their marriage was characterised by angry quarrels, exacerbated by Beryl's poor housekeeping and inability to manage the family's finances. However, Timothy also misspent his wages on alcohol, and his heavy drinking at the time exacerbated his already short temper. The arguments between Timothy and Beryl were loud enough to be heard by the neighbours and physical violence between them was witnessed on several occasions. I am not sure if the jury knew these facts but if they did i would imagine it would have sown seeds of doubt about his innocence.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Lets put a scenario forward. A new suspect is discovered who was released from prison early 1888 for attacking a woman with a knife. Do we think that could point to him being Jack ? Of course we do. He was also known to have lived in say, Flower and Dean st at the time of the murders. Another pointer. He was also known to have a workshop/residence somewhere near Mitre sq/Goulston st.Do we consider this a pointer ? No, because the apron was there at 2.20 and Jack went straight home after the murder of Eddowes, so he had no need of a bolt hole. I don't think so. While it is entirely possible that Pc Long could have genuinely missed it lying there the first time. We simply cannot, on the available evidence discount completely that it wasn't. Otherwise we might be overlooking a vital clue.

[Varqm]

2 cents...


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'

Cross-examination yielded the most true as implied above.If there was an accused present,"no cross-examination, depositions are not admissible" applied - it had to be,the accused had the right to cross-examine and had the most to gain (dispute the accusation),all testimonies then that she was wearing an apron for ex. were inadmissible including Collard's and Brown's until they could be cross-examined and all reasonable theories are possible.

If there was no accused,such as the ripper inquests - the inquest were unwilling to spend the time and money for prolonged inquests with thorough cross-examination(most cross-examinations were left to the accused),the loophole "exception to this general rule'" made it "evidence" (witnesses were under oath) without the ordinarily required "cross-examination"'This is 2nd best as far as clarity.

It depends on which scenario you are arguing from.The 2nd is the one and the best we have,the 1st is hypothetical.

[etenguy]

The Joys of typing on the phone,

above should of course have read:


"The support offered is that the list supplied by Collard does not list this as clothing. And because this is signed it is infallible."

Sorry for the mistake



Steve

This made me smile - you make your point eloquently through your own omission.

[etenguy]

Fisherman
I have not invented any scenario.It is Long's evidence that puts him(Long) in that particular building.There is no evidence that the writing was written before that night,and I have never claimed there is evidence Long wrote it.Just that there was opportunity.Just as some people believe the murderer had the opportunity,though he,unlike Long,cannot be placed in the building
As far as you can see Sam,and can you see all the way?

Etenguy,
Can you give an example of an actual case where a policemn's evidence was preferred,just because he was a policeman,in a court of law.
In the case of Long, I was not comparing his testimony with that of another person,so what's your point.There was no other testimony presented that conflicted with Long's.
All evidence can be challenged.It happens in courts on a daily basis,and I am sure had there been a trial,his e vidence would have been.

To your first question, there are numerous examples, the more famous cases being where it was subsequently found the policeman had lied (eg the birmingham six).

I'm not suggesting evidence cannot be challenged. In this situation, where we cannot ask PC Long to expand on his evidence or test it through questioning him direct, the challenge would need a basis.

Your contention is that PC Long could have lied and written the GSG himself. That is possible, but to make such a claim now, there would need to be a reason to believe he lied. Not necessarily conflicting evidence from another witness (as none exists) but perhaps from some inconsistency between the facts as we know them and his evidence. None has so far been found, so to suggest this as a possible scenario is speculation with no basis.

If we applied that to other witnesses, we could say that one or more of the doctors lied about the injuries or organ removal, Diemshultz lied about finding Stride, Abberline lied about knowing the ripper's identity, Lusk lied about receiving a letter sent with half a kidney etc... All these things are possible, but without a reason or evidence to support the proposition, it is just unfounded speculation.