The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[etenguy]

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.

None of us can say with complete confidence and conviction that the prevailing consensus on what happened is entirely accurate. Nevertheless, there is considerable evidence that Eddowes was wearing an apron (even if your reading of one or two of the sources creates a doubt in your mind - the fact that six witnesses would have all had to be incorrect overwhelmingly swamps the potential different readings you give to one or two sources). For your theory that she had not been wearing an apron to have any weight, you would need to provide a basis for setting aside the whole body of evidence - which you have not yet done.

So I have nothing more to say on this thread.

I suspect you have, and I suspect you will and I hope you do.

[PaulB]

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

I'm sorry, Trevor, I could answer this point by point, but I find it extraordinarily naive. You can shake your head and find the basics of source analysis "really incomprehensible", but that's because you evidently have very little idea about what history is, what historians do, and how they go about doing it. And, please, I don't say that from a spirit of rudeness, but as a statement of fact, and I say it because your naivety on this topic makes it difficult to explain why your thinking is skewed. What do you mean by "historical facts"? Are you talking about the sources or the conclusions drawn and based on them? And who is it that you imagine readily accepts these "historical facts"? You see, analysing historical sources is what historians do and what they are trained to do, and looking at the sources in different ways is one of the ways historians have of advancing knowledge and understanding. Historians don't bury their heads in the sand - that's just your way of explaining to yourself why they don't think your ideas hold water - they examine the sources and wring every nuance of meaning from them. And they don't readily accept anything, they demand facts and evidence, and because they don't readily accept anything they demand facts and evidence even from you, and it's back to the drawing board for you if it doesn't come up to scratch. Just because you posit that Eddowes didn't wear an apron, you wouldn't really expect people to accept that as a reasonable possibility without asking you for evidence and facts to support it, would you?

To be honest, Trevor, if I was you I'd have popped out and bought a book about historical methodology, or borrowed one from the library, or looked it up on the internet, just to make sure that I knew what I was talking about. But you evidently can't even be bothered to go to pucker internet sites to find out what primary sources are. Personally, I'd be absolutely delighted if your thinking was true and if it brought us nearer to what actually happened. And so would everybody here. If you were delivering the goods, the patting on your back would loosen your fillings, folk would be lining up to shake your hand. But you haven't delivered. Nobody's head-hiding, nobody's lacking a pair. It's simply that you haven't delivered and you're somewhat lost in the neighbourhood.

[PaulB]

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.

There isn't any doubt that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron. Those who were there said she was, accepted that she was. There isn't a single source, not one, anywhere, that questions, doubts, or refutes that she was wearing an apron. There isn't one voice, not even a tiny whispering one, suggesting that Eddowes apron was torn into more than two parts. Nobody in the whole world, not then nor since, thought the apron piece in Goulston Street was used for sanitary or toilet purposes. One man who actually handled the Goulston Street piece said that it looked as if a knife had been wiped on it; he didn't think anyone had wiped their bottom with it or used it as a sanitary towel. The Home Secretary asked the police to make sure that the apron piece was taken to Goulston Street by the killer, and they did what they could. Almost everyone who came into contact with Eddowes was asked at the inquest if she was wearing an apron, and they all said she was. what we see at the inquest was probably only a small part of the efforts expended to satisfy the Home Secretary's request.

All you've done is present some marginally ambiguous newspaper reports and other documents and tried hard to wring an alternative meaning from them, but unsurprisingly the argument hasn't convinced anyone. That Eddowes was wearing an apron and that part of it was torn or cut away by her murderer and discarded in Goulston Street is clearly what was believed at the time (it isn't a modern theory or anything like that) and you have produced no evidence to make people think that wasn't the case.

[Wickerman]

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 something is a fact, it is not open to dispute. The dispute stage has already passed.

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.

By all means question the theories, but raising modern questions is not proving the old theories are wrong. No-one at the time ever questioned whether Kate was wearing an apron, there was no doubt, it was not an issue.

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.

You have a habit of talking in generalities. You condemn newspaper articles, but we do not use articles, we use inquest reports. Articles, as a term, can cover a multitude of sins, but that is your intent. Water it down to make it seem less reliable.

Likewise you talk about "10 different newspaper reports", when in actual fact we use reports from 10 different newspapers (more actually, but not to split hairs).
The reports are not different, though due to editorial preferences, and limited publishing space we read different selections of testimony.
It takes time to evaluate the various reports, to determine which have originated via an agency, and which originated from single sources.
Agencies did send their reporters to these inquest, along with single reporters from the Times, Morning Post, Star, Echo, etc.

So an agency report, even though it may be widely circulated across the country, is no less valid just because it originated with an agency.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm sorry, Trevor, I could answer this point by point, but I find it extraordinarily naive. You can shake your head and find the basics of source analysis "really incomprehensible", but that's because you evidently have very little idea about what history is, what historians do, and how they go about doing it. And, please, I don't say that from a spirit of rudeness, but as a statement of fact, and I say it because your naivety on this topic makes it difficult to explain why your thinking is skewed. What do you mean by "historical facts"? Are you talking about the sources or the conclusions drawn and based on them? And who is it that you imagine readily accepts these "historical facts"? You see, analysing historical sources is what historians do and what they are trained to do, and looking at the sources in different ways is one of the ways historians have of advancing knowledge and understanding. Historians don't bury their heads in the sand - that's just your way of explaining to yourself why they don't think your ideas hold water - they examine the sources and wring every nuance of meaning from them. And they don't readily accept anything, they demand facts and evidence, and because they don't readily accept anything they demand facts and evidence even from you, and it's back to the drawing board for you if it doesn't come up to scratch. Just because you posit that Eddowes didn't wear an apron, you wouldn't really expect people to accept that as a reasonable possibility without asking you for evidence and facts to support it, would you?

To be honest, Trevor, if I was you I'd have popped out and bought a book about historical methodology, or borrowed one from the library, or looked it up on the internet, just to make sure that I knew what I was talking about. But you evidently can't even be bothered to go to pucker internet sites to find out what primary sources are. Personally, I'd be absolutely delighted if your thinking was true and if it brought us nearer to what actually happened. And so would everybody here. If you were delivering the goods, the patting on your back would loosen your fillings, folk would be lining up to shake your hand. But you haven't delivered. Nobody's head-hiding, nobody's lacking a pair. It's simply that you haven't delivered and you're somewhat lost in the neighbourhood.

Well thats your opinion, and not the opinion of the majority thankfully, and you have good personal reasons for propping up the old theories. These relate to all the books you have published and all the expert opinions you have offered up over the years, which have made some think that you are the real deal in ripperology, so any back tracking now on all of that would not do much for your credibility nor much for all you have written in those books which might now be proven wrong. I know it is a hard pill to swallow, Its the same for me when I see those delibertate adverse reviews you have given my books both in Ripperologist and on Amazon, cheap shots? and goes to show what type of creature you really are .

And you bottled out of a direct confrontation when challenged to present the old historical facts against my research. So that challenge is still there, so either now put up or shut up.

Your other historical comrade in arms on here was offered the same challenge but in using a trick he obviously learnt from you he also side stepped the challenge in slippery Begg`esque fashion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Your other historical comrade in arms on here was offered the same challenge but in using a trick he obviously learnt from you he also side stepped the challenge in slippery Begg`esque fashion.

You use "historical" as if it were a pejorative. It isn't.

[PaulB]

Well thats your opinion, and not the opinion of the majority thankfully,

Unfortunately, I think you'll find that it is the opinion of the majority.

and you have good personal reasons for propping up the old theories. These relate to all the books you have published and all the expert opinions you have offered up over the years, which have made some think that you are the real deal in ripperology, so any back tracking now on all of that would not do much for your credibility nor much for all you have written in those books which might now be proven wrong. I know it is a hard pill to swallow,

Why on earth do you think anything new would adversely affect my credibility? It wouldn't. But, of course, you don't really think it would, it's just of your make-believe explanation to avoid facing the fact that your thinking simply isn't accepted.

Its the same for me when I see those adverse reviews you have given my books both in Ripperologist and on Amazon, cheap shots? and goes to show what type of creature you really are .

Do you dispute the accuracy of those reviews? You do claim the public has been misled, and you say you have undertaken research that reveals the truth at last. But your research doesn't seem to have extended beyond Googling some internet sites and copying verbatim some useful information you found there. Do you dispute that? I give several examples of text you've lifted from those sites. And this appears to be what you have done with every book you have produced. Publishing and copyrighting someone else's words under your own name and without proper attribution is ethically unacceptable. Let's not go further than that. But it suggests that you have no real interest in or special knowledge of your subject, but just want to sell books and accompanying talks by pretending to have conducted "long and lengthy" research when you've actually done no more than lift your material from freely available web sites. Do you dispute any of that?

How is telling the truth about your books a cheap shot? Why does it make me a "creature"? I think you've managed to get your moral wires crossed somewhere.

I don't recall commenting on any of your books on Amazon.

And you bottled out of a direct confrontation when challenged to present the old historical facts against my research. So that challenge is still there, so either now put up or shut up.

I didn't "bottle out" of a direct confrontation, Trevor. I thought your suggestion was childish and silly, I don't believe historical argument should be turned into a piece of cheap theatre, and I wouldn't flatter your ego by engaging with you in public debate and making it seem that your arguments were sensible and worthwhile. Anyway, you can't debate sensibly on Casebook or JTRForums. I doubt you'd do better in the flesh.

Your other historical comrade in arms on here was offered the same challenge but in using a trick he obviously learnt from you he side stepped the challenge in slippery Begg`esque fashion.

I doubt it. I'd like to think that people sit at my feet and absorb my wisdom. I'd call them Grasshopper. It would be fun. But I suspect he was more than capable of recognising how dumb your suggestion was for himself.

[harry]

.As for Trevor or I being the only two persons that have challenged long held beliefs,and that in the main is what recent postings infer,then what of the numerous authors and countless internet postings been doing.
It's obvious we do not play follow the leader,or hold others in such high esteem that we are loath to challenge their views.Perhaps that ranks with some.
Ivé been challenged to put forward a reason why Long might have written the
graffito,and played games with the apron piece.It was a prank that got out of hand.Consider that,and do not,because I mention the word prank,insist it is my belief as to what took place.Yes,law enforcement officers do play pranks on duty,as do people in other industries.
There is a source that suggests Eddowes might not have been wearing an apron.The list that was made at the mortuary which is of the clothes she was wearing.It does not include an apron.
Did persons defecate on the streets of London in 1888?.They have in recent times,why not then?Why not Eddowes?How did they clean themselves?Paper,rag,anything usable.Did a policeman who found such,rush off and show his Inspertor?What is impossible about Trevor's suggestion?

[John G]

.As for Trevor or I being the only two persons that have challenged long held beliefs,and that in the main is what recent postings infer,then what of the numerous authors and countless internet postings been doing.
It's obvious we do not play follow the leader,or hold others in such high esteem that we are loath to challenge their views.Perhaps that ranks with some.
Ivé been challenged to put forward a reason why Long might have written the
graffito,and played games with the apron piece.It was a prank that got out of hand.Consider that,and do not,because I mention the word prank,insist it is my belief as to what took place.Yes,law enforcement officers do play pranks on duty,as do people in other industries.
There is a source that suggests Eddowes might not have been wearing an apron.The list that was made at the mortuary which is of the clothes she was wearing.It does not include an apron.
Did persons defecate on the streets of London in 1888?.They have in recent times,why not then?Why not Eddowes?How did they clean themselves?Paper,rag,anything usable.Did a policeman who found such,rush off and show his Inspertor?What is impossible about Trevor's suggestion?

But if PC Long wrote the graffiti it would have represented far more than a mere prank-more like an attempt to derail the investigation, particularly as he drew attention to it (and if he didn't realize what the consequences would be he must have been a total idiot). Are there any other examples of police officers acting in such an irresponsible manner simply because they thought it might be fun to do so? Is there any evidence that PC Long, throughout his career, was anything other than a diligent officer?

[etenguy]

.As for Trevor or I being the only two persons that have challenged long held beliefs,and that in the main is what recent postings infer,then what of the numerous authors and countless internet postings been doing. It's obvious we do not play follow the leader,or hold others in such high esteem that we are loath to challenge their views.Perhaps that ranks with some.

No-one is objecting to anyone challenging the prevailing consensus. It is simply the challenge fails as it is counter to the evidence available and is not supported by any evidence to substantiate the alternative theory/speculation.

. Ivé been challenged to put forward a reason why Long might have written the graffito,and played games with the apron piece. It was a prank that got out of hand.Consider that,and do not,because I mention the word prank,insist it is my belief as to what took place.Yes,law enforcement officers do play pranks on duty,as do people in other industries.

You might speculate a number of reasons why PC Long wrote the GSG and then lied about it. Perhaps he heard voices telling him to do it. Perhaps an alien appeared and forced him to do it. Perhaps he was playing a prank. These are all speculation, unless you can provide supporting evidence they remain speculation. The current view, that he found the writing, is supported by evidence (Long's statement to the effect and the fact that he spelt Jews correctly when he took down the message). It is not definitive proof, but it is evidence which supports the current view of events. If you wish to challenge this scenario, then you do need to provide more than mere speculation.

There is a source that suggests Eddowes might not have been wearing an apron.The list that was made at the mortuary which is of the clothes she was wearing.It does not include an apron.
Did persons defecate on the streets of London in 1888?.They have in recent times,why not then?Why not Eddowes?How did they clean themselves?Paper,rag,anything usable.Did a policeman who found such,rush off and show his Inspertor?What is impossible about Trevor's suggestion?

There is a whole body of evidence confirming that Eddowes was wearing an apron. The evidence may not be complete in every instance of it and there may be mistakes in parts of it. Nevertheless, across six independent witnesses, the evidence states she was wearing an apron. You may be able to pick holes in one or two pieces of the evidence, but to be convincing with an alternative theory, you would need to provide a compelling reason to set aside the whole body of evidence. None has so far been provided. The alternative theory remains unconvincing as a result - and is in fact counter to the evidence which is available.

[etenguy]

But if PC Long wrote the graffiti it would have represented far more than a mere prank-more like an attempt to derail the investigation, particularly as he drew attention to it (and if he didn't realize what the consequences would be he must have been a total idiot). Are there any other examples of police officers acting in such an irresponsible manner simply because they thought it might be fun to do so? Is there any evidence that PC Long, throughout his career, was anything other than a diligent officer?

Hi John

I agree with the point you make, but as to your last question, PC Long was dismissed for being drunk on duty in July the following year.

[Sam Flynn]

PC Long was dismissed for being drunk on duty in July the following year.

Career-wise, the writing was on the wall.

[John G]

Hi John

I agree with the point you make, but as to your last question, PC Long was dismissed for being drunk on duty in July the following year.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that! Maybe he was blind drunk when he wrote the graffiti, but then quickly sobered up when Warren arrived!

And here's another point: where is the evidence that PC Long had a history of playing pranks?

[etenguy]

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that! Maybe he was blind drunk when he wrote the graffiti, but then quickly sobered up when Warren arrived!

And here's another point: where is the evidence that PC Long had a history of playing pranks?

Indeed.

[etenguy]

Career-wise, the writing was on the wall.

Now that you mention it, there is the definition of Juwes which refers to drunk policemen - the writing was clearly a prophecy.