The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[PaulB]

.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?

Harry,
Where, for you, does fiction and fact separate? You have pointed out that PC Long was there, alone and unobserved, and could have written the message. That's true. It can be taken on board and considered. But there is absolutely no evidence that he did so. Nothing. It’s something that could have happened, but there’s not a scrap of evidence that it did happen.

When asked why Long might have done it, it's not good enough to think up some plausible explanation (and there are those who would dispute that a prank is at all plausible). Anybody can do that. And it's complete fiction. Utterly lacking any supportive evidence.

Even if the list of Eddowes’ possessions doesn’t mention the piece of apron, that alone doesn’t make a case that she may not have been wearing one. The overwhelming evidence from the time is that she was. Trevor has laid out his case time and time again, and it’s always met with the same objections from people who have a very good understanding of this case and a good grasp of the facts. There's a reason for that.

People defecated in the street and still do, and nobody has disputed that. But that’s not evidence that the Goulston Street piece of apron was used for toilet purposes. In fact, there isn’t any evidence that it was used that way. None. There isn’t a single source, not anywhere, that suggests the apron was used liked that. And for what it’s worth, a doctor who saw and handled it said it looked like a knife had been wiped on it. Whatever reason the murderer had for taking the apron piece, the impression gained by the doctor was not that someone had used it to clean themselves but that residue had been wiped from a knife.

So when does an utterly unsupported piece of speculation become a worthwhile historical possibility? Because I can’t see where any of the above is elevated beyond the level of unsupported speculation.

[harry]

You see all the replies to my last post are based on it being my theory.I was asked to give a reason,that was all.I gave a reason.I did not provide a theory.I distinctly implied I was not claiming it was the answer,or that it happened.The surprising thing is that none of the answers show it was an impossibility.I did not claim there was evidence to support the reason.I do not have any idea what Long was capable of,neither does any other poster..What he did have was opportunity.That cannot be disputed?
Nothing Long did would have ,or could have derailed an investigation.Any ensuing activities would be at the discretion of a senior officer,once long reported to that officer.So long,for whatever reason he took the cloth to the police station,could not have forseen the consequences.So why did he do it?
W hat Long did,and there was no reason to do it,was interfere with an evidence scene.Is that good police work?He removed evidence.Is that good police work?

Dr Brown stated it was not possible to tell whether the blood on the apron was human or animal.He did not mention the excrement.Was that animal or human?Who knows.

[Sam Flynn]

Dr Brown stated it was not possible to tell whether the blood on the apron was human or animal.He did not mention the excrement.Was that animal or human?Who knows.

He does mention the excrement, and at the time there would have been no forensic way of telling whether it was animal or human blood, but it's 99% certain that it was human, and that it was Eddowes' blood. How can we say that? Because the apron piece corresponded exactly with the rest of Eddowes' apron and Eddowes was found lying in a pool of her own blood, with her own excrement smeared over her extruded bowels.

[Trevor Marriott]

Eddowes was found lying in a pool of her own blood, with her own excrement smeared over her extruded bowels.

Are we really expected to believe that this killer has ripped open an abdomen causing all sorts of damage to the internal organs including the colon, and then takes time in the heat of all that is going on to smear feculant matter over the organs he has just ripped open.

In my opinion, another flaw in the evidence, and another example of an opinion given by a doctor back then which was nothing more than guesswork, and in this case not even a very good guess.!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Are we really expected to believe that this killer has ripped open an abdomen causing all sorts of damage to the internal organs including the colon, and then takes time in the heat of all that is going on to smear feculant matter over the organs he has just ripped open.

That's what happened. "The intestines drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder. They were smeared over with feculent matter" - Dr Brown's testimony.

Unless you're proposing that Person A ripped open the body and extruded the intestines; Person B smeared the faeces over the intestines; Person C later removed the organs; and Person or Persons Unknown were responsible for cutting the apron and depositing part of it in the Goulston Street doorway at some undetermined time, independent of the murder.

Don't you realise how ridiculous your objections to the "old theories" are?

[John G]

Are we really expected to believe that this killer has ripped open an abdomen causing all sorts of damage to the internal organs including the colon, and then takes time in the heat of all that is going on to smear feculant matter over the organs he has just ripped open.

In my opinion, another flaw in the evidence, and another example of an opinion given by a doctor back then which was nothing more than guesswork, and in this case not even a very good guess.!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Do you think that little damage was done to the colon and surrounding tissues, as one of your experts seemed to believe?

[Sam Flynn]

In my opinion, another flaw in the evidence, and another example of an opinion given by a doctor back then which was nothing more than guesswork, and in this case not even a very good guess.!

This is not "opinion" or "guesswork" - he was reporting what he SAW. This first class eyewitness testimony by an expert... not that one needs to be a doctor to perceive something as obvious as extruded intestines smeared over with poo.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's what happened. "The intestines drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder. They were smeared over with feculent matter" - Dr Brown's testimony.

Unless you're proposing that Person A ripped open the body and extruded the intestines; Person B smeared the faeces over the intestines; Person C later removed the organs; and Person or Persons Unknown were responsible for cutting the apron and depositing part of it in the Goulston Street doorway at some undetermined time, independent of the murder.

Don't you realise how ridiculous your objections to the "old theories" are?

Things are not always what they seem.How do you know the intestines did not get covered with feculent matter before they were "drawn" out

It is a question of how he interpreted what he saw, and the opinion he gave from those observations being brought into question

What would be the motive for doing a crap thing like that in the heat of all that he was doing, and what was going on around him. He didnt have the time to play with the body, and even less time with the body, if he was disturbed by Pc Harvey

I quote Dr Biggs "In 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said."
and it seem that is still the case today

I think you and others are still missing the point of the whole excercise not just with regards to Eddowes murder. If a doubt can be created about the old original historical facts which you and others seem to totally rely on and accept without question, Then it is safe right and proper to sugest that those old facts are unsafe and not to be totally relied upon.

But for some reason you wont even accept that there are any doubts raised about the old facts which is disturbing and nieve

You can go through the whole ripper mystery from start to finish and there are flaws in all of the old facts. Starting with the number of ripper victims as an example there were her 5 and 5 only or were there more? If there were more then those old documents which you and other rely on to prop up 5 and 5 only are unsafe to rely on because a doubt has been created.

But you and a handful of others cant, and wont accept that there are flaws, and those flaws create a doubt, and with a doubt being created it leaves the door open for other plausible explanation to be considered and not reject outright as is the case now.

And you, nor anyone one else cannot prove 100% and beyond a reasonable doubt that all the old historical facts being flaunted on here are totally correct, and everything else put forward is nothing more than wild fantasy, or speculation.

https://www.trevormarriott

[Michael W Richards]

You can go through the whole ripper mystery from start to finish and there are flaws in all of the old facts. Starting with the number of ripper victims as an example there were her 5 and 5 only or were there more? If there were more then those old documents which you and other rely on to prop up 5 and 5 only are unsafe to rely on because a doubt has been created.

www.trevormarriott

The argument also applies to a total that is less, and then the key premise that many have been adhering to for all these years, that this is a series of murders connected by a single killer, would be flawed.

We have sources and statements, in the absence of any documentation that directly refutes these opinions...like Bonds opinion of Phillips's conclusions as an example, then they stand until challenged. Your opinion is that they should be challenged...ok...based on what exactly? Other opinions? No new facts, no real argument.

[Elamarna]

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.

I assume you mean me.
I did not reject your challenge, I simply said the choice of audience could not be solely yours and that I charge for my time.


And learning a trick from Paul?
Given my experience of handling public meetings I respectfully say Paul may learn from me, and you certainly would.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

The argument also applies to a total that is less, and then the key premise that many have been adhering to for all these years, that this is a series of murders connected by a single killer, would be flawed.

We have sources and statements, in the absence of any documentation that directly refutes these opinions...like Bonds opinion of Phillips's conclusions as an example, then they stand until challenged. Your opinion is that they should be challenged...ok...based on what exactly? Other opinions? No new facts, no real argument.

The fact that there is other evidence which negates the 5 and 5 only theory.

and the fact that all the 5 were not killed by the same hand, is even more interesting. all the way through this ripper mystery we have nothing but doubts, doubts and more doubts about the old accepted facts being safe to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I assume you mean me.
I did not reject your challenge, I simply said the choice of audience could not be solely yours and that I charge for my time.


And learning a trick from Paul?
Given my experience of handling public meetings I respectfully say Paul may learn from me, and you certainly would.

Steve

Do you think I would pay you, to prove you wrong when it is something I can do for free on here?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

The fact that there is other evidence which negates the 5 and 5 only theory.

and the fact that all the 5 were not killed by the same hand, is even more interesting. all the way through this ripper mystery we have nothing but doubts, doubts and more doubts about the old accepted facts being safe to rely on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Indeed Trevor and many agree with you on that.
The number of 5 comes from a single policeman, few I think put much stock in it.
Some like Michael and Simon Wood beleive it was far less than 5.

Others include a wide selection of others in addition to the 5.

Many discard Stride.

You are not dealing with an historical fact here, but the opinion of one man.
His memoranda is flawed in that it makes serious mistakes, to present that as an example of an old theory we are propping up is in itself a seriously flawed argument.


Steve

[Harry D]

Trev, I think there's something up with the link to your site.

Has anyone else tried this?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

Trev, I think there's something up with the link to your site.

Has anyone else tried this?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's uncalled for - how can someone make that happen.