The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[John G]

Hi JOHN
Because Harry and Trevor live in a fantasy world where if anything can't be proven, then it probably didn't happen and some other ridiculous explanation is more likely, and anything anyone says is probably a lie.

It's a very absurd and bizarre world and its a wonder they don't float right away.

Hi Abby,

Ah, I'd obviously not considered that possibility!

"It would be so nice if something made sense for a change." (Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.)

[Fisherman]

(Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.)

Who was ALSO the Ripper.

[John G]

Who was ALSO the Ripper.

Of course, I'd forgotten about him!

"Everything can happen. Everything is possible and probable. Time and place do not exist; on a significant basis of reality, the imagination spins, weaving new patterns; a mixture of memories, experiences, free fancies, incongruities and improvisations." (August Strindberg, A Dream Play.)

[Fisherman]

Of course, I'd forgotten about him!

"Everything can happen. Everything is possible and probable. Time and place do not exist; on a significant basis of reality, the imagination spins, weaving new patterns; a mixture of memories, experiences, free fancies, incongruities and improvisations." (August Strindberg, A Dream Play.)

Don´t think they ever figured old August for the Ripper´s role - which is a shame. He was born in 1849 (which by any standards is a prime birth year for the Ripper) and he did have some issues with women.

It was probably him.

Come to think of it, I stumbled over a diary of his some time back...

[John G]

Don´t think they ever figured old August for the Ripper´s role - which is a shame. He was born in 1849 (which by any standards is a prime birth year for the Ripper) and he did have some issues with women.

It was probably him.

Come to think of it, I stumbled over a diary of his some time back...

Wasn't Ibsen,who was probably the greatest playwright since Shakespeare, regarded as Strindberg's nemesis? At least on women's issues!

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2003/feb/15/theatre.artsfeatures

[Fisherman]

Wasn't Ibsen,who was probably the greatest playwright since Shakespeare, regarded as Strindberg's nemesis? At least on women's issues!

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/20...e.artsfeatures

True - and false; it is the general view, but Strindberg himself would not have recognized anybody as his nemesis, I´d say. "I am a hell of a man, who knows many arts" was how he described himself.

But aside from the fact that both men were famed and prolific writers, I don´t think either of them wrote the GSG.

[John G]

True - and false; it is the general view, but Strindberg himself would not have recognized anybody as his nemesis, I´d say. "I am a hell of a man, who knows many arts" was how he described himself.

But aside from the fact that both men were famed and prolific writers, I don´t think either of them wrote the GSG.

Thanks Fish. To my shame I've never actually seen Miss Julie, although I have seen the TV adaptation of Patrick Marber's play, After Miss Julie, which I thought was brilliant.

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fish. To my shame I've never actually seen Miss Julie, although I have seen the TV adaptation of Patrick Marber's play, After Miss Julie, which I thought was brilliant.

There´s an interesting story relating to Miss Julie. It was once staged in Stockholm by Ingemar Bergman, the famed director. In the margins of the script, Bergman made a remark relating to a scene where Miss Julie stepped into an elevator and shut the door. The light inside of the elevator then went out, and it all went dark inside.
During this period, Bergman had been thrashed by a theatre and literature critic named Bengt Tannefors, and accordingly, the remark in the margin of the manuscript reads: "The elevator goes dark, like the inside of Bengt Tannefors´ head"...

There is a little darkness. There is a lot of darkness. And then there is the total lack of any light.

But back to the GSG now, or we will have Gareth breathing down our backs.

[Wickerman]

.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.

The suggestion that the GS piece of apron was taken to carry away the organs, was also a challenge to long held beliefs. It isn't regarded as a fact, and was never offered as a fact. It is a conclusion I formed which fit with the evidence in so far as that exists.
There is nothing wrong with challenging beliefs, but what you & Trevor do not seem to understand, or if you do, you fail to appreciate, that challenges to prior beliefs must be consistent with the evidence.
A suggestion (speculation) which has no evidence to support it, is a total waste of everybody's time.
Speculation is intended to unearth evidence, speculation should not be used to create a theory, which is what both you & Trevor are doing.

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.

Let me try spell this out.
No-one at the murder scene realised Kate had been wearing an apron - that is a given.
We know several people saw Kate wearing an apron 'before' the murder.
We know the apron had been cut in two pieces.
Therefore, we should also know, the piece of material (part of apron) left on the body did not look like an apron.

So, why would you (or Trevor) expect this piece of material removed from the body should be listed as 'an apron'?
Your logic Harry, and Trevor, is mind boggling.
Of course there will be no 'apron' listed if the misshapen piece of material no longer looked like an apron.
What will be listed is a bloodstained piece of cloth removed from around the neck.
And, that is precisely what is listed.
This is not rocket science Harry.

The remnant of the apron is right there on the list - you both choose not to see it.

[Wickerman]

...

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.

There's two things here:
First, because you have a doubt, does not mean doubt has been created.
Your doubt could be due to lack of accurate information, it could also be due to not understanding the evidence, or testimony as given.
So, the fact you have created a doubt in your mind, does not constitute a general widespread doubt among students of the case.

The second point is this.
'Questions', do not invalidate an accepted theory. Only 'answers' can invalidate an already accepted theory.
Raise all the questions you want, but until you start providing some answers to those questions, then your questions are going nowhere.

Kate 'could' have carried pieces of apron on her.
The apron 'could' have been cut into several pieces.
The organs 'could' have been removed at the mortuary.
All these 'could-have's' are questions, they are not answers. You have provided no answers to those questions.
Until you do, your 'questions' are going nowhere.

[Trevor Marriott]

There's two things here:
First, because you have a doubt, does not mean doubt has been created.
Your doubt could be due to lack of accurate information, it could also be due to not understanding the evidence, or testimony as given.
So, the fact you have created a doubt in your mind, does not constitute a general widespread doubt among students of the case.

Or it could be the fact that having created a doubt by whatever reason. I am able to offer up plausible explanations to support the doubt created

The second point is this.
'Questions', do not invalidate an accepted theory. Only 'answers' can invalidate an already accepted theory.
Raise all the questions you want, but until you start providing some answers to those questions, then your questions are going nowhere.

Kate 'could' have carried pieces of apron on her.
The apron 'could' have been cut into several pieces.
The organs 'could' have been removed at the mortuary.
All these 'could-have's' are questions, they are not answers. You have provided no answers to those questions.
Until you do, your 'questions' are going nowhere.

I am not asking questions, I am stating that a closer examination of the old accepted facts has created a doubt. No matter how big or small a doubt is, if it there as a doubt then questions marks must hang over the original facts.

You cannot acknowledge that there is a doubt or flaws in the evidence, or the old facts as presented, and then in the next breath say, but we will disregard them because there is no evidence to support the doubt that has been created.

If there is enough to create the doubt in the first instance, then that is sufficient to say that the old theories are unsafe to totally rely on. But in Ripperology that is not the norm. You and others wont seem to want to detract in any way from the old facts and that shows a level of naivety.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Wickerman,
What is mind bogling,is to believe that two persons,one a police officer,did not know the difference between a handkerchief/neckerchef and an apron.W hat is more mind bogling is that for years posters have been warning against accepting,as evidence,newspaper articles.Now suddenly that seems to have been reversed.I'm being told otherwise.Accept the newspapers, without question,seems the popular idea.
Lets get this straight.Everything being discussed about the apron piece long produced and the graffito,stem fron the evidence and actions of Long.It is Long's evidence and actions, that has to be proven beyond doubt.Have they?Not by a long mile.Everything he said and did can be challenged as to it's accuracy.
For the poster who challenges my use of the word impossibilities,it is used widely.The defence for Prince Eddy and Sickert is based on the impossibility of them being in two places at once.In Numerous trials the same defence is offered.
So what Trevor and I are doing is expressing doubt.No use saying there can be no doubt.The evidence speaks otherwise.

[Elamarna]

You cannot acknowledge that there is a doubt or flaws in the evidence, or the old facts as presented, and then in the next breath say, but we will disregard them because there is no evidence to support the doubt that has been created.

Actually one can, the flaws that are, exist because the evidence/sources say there is such a flaw. This does not mean the idea may be wrong, only that it needs to be reexamined closely.
That is how all research works if it is to stand up to academic scrutiny.
Such scrutiny is termed Peer review; and that is how your ideas are judged, by your peers, those who also study the subject.
One does not gain meaningful review from a general audience, I mean you don't ask a group of people off of the street to review a paper on say the "Big Bang", you ask others in the same field.

Now having established that lets get back to your statement above, a doubt can only exist if there is evidence to support the doubt. If there is no evidence, there is no reasoned scientific doubt, imagination and a stubborn belief that's ones own ideas are infaliable is not and never will be evidence.

If there is enough to create the doubt in the first instance, then that is sufficient to say that the old theories are unsafe to totally rely on. But in Ripperology that is not the norm. You and others wont seem to want to detract in any way from the old facts and that shows a level of naivety.

Of course this is the issue, if there is no evidence to suggest a doubt, there can be no doubt, the issue that you do not accept this is irrelevant like many of the ideas.
The failure to address this point, raised by many is the response expected.

You often say this is a criminal investigation, ok let's look at it like such for a moment

You are the prosecution saying the "old ideas" are wrong. I and others are the defence.

It appears you are also judge and jury from the posts, and thus the prosecution decides if the case is proven or not!

Two points I wish to make regarding the use of "create the doubt":

1. One does not create a doubt, one raises it based on data.

2. Create to me suggests manufacture, this is the technique used by Erich von Daniken and others of that ilke.


Let's be clear a "doubt" in your view, fueled by a need to promote ones own ideas, is not a "doubt" for the vast majority, no matter what the field.

The posts are pointless and contain no pertinent information, they do however allow one to reasess the issue of the Apron and to peer review your suggestion.
Btw the suggestion that you prove posters on here wrong, is again not backed by the evidence, you see just saying "I am right" does not make one so, it's yet another pipedream!


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

What is mind bogling,is to believe that two persons,one a police officer,did not know the difference between a handkerchief/neckerchef and an apron.

The inventory would doubtless have been written down after Eddowes had been stripped; I sincerely doubt that the police waded through all those layers while the body was still inside them. After having been stripped, the cut piece of apron would of course have been lying in a pile along with miscellaneous other bits of clothing and cloth, of which there were several. Easy to mistake or mis-classify a piece of apron for something else in that context.

Be that as it may, the entry "1 piece of old white apron with repair" definitely does appear in the list of Kate's possessions. This was almost certainly the other part of the Goulston Street apron piece - which also contained a repair - which was found by Dr Brown to precisely match the apron ("with strings attached") at the mortuary.

[PaulB]

What is mind bogling,is to believe that two persons,one a police officer,did not know the difference between a handkerchief/neckerchef and an apron.W hat is more mind bogling is that for years posters have been warning against accepting,as evidence,newspaper articles.Now suddenly that seems to have been reversed.I'm being told otherwise.Accept the newspapers, without question,seems the popular idea.

Newspapers have been and to some extent still are sources to be treated with caution, but as increasing numbers have been digitised and news stories can be compared and analysed and, most importantly, contexualised, their value and importance has become more widely appreciated. In historic crime cases where there is often a puacity of information, they are often our only source. If anybody tells you to accept any source without question then they are wrong.

Lets get this straight.Everything being discussed about the apron piece long produced and the graffito,stem fron the evidence and actions of Long.It is Long's evidence and actions, that has to be proven beyond doubt.

Precisely how do you propose proving PC Long's evidence and actions beyond doubt?

I mean, assuming he's dead and that everyone who knew him is dead and that there is no new information available to us, and that the information we do have doesn't suggest that he was doing anything other than telling the truth, how do suggest that we go about proving beyond doubt that what he did and said is correct?

Have they?Not by a long mile.Everything he said and did can be challenged as to it's accuracy.

Of course everything PC Long said and did can be challenged. And it has been challened. People have looked at the newspaper reports and other evidence and they haven't found anything to suggest that he was lying, have they?

You've pointed out that he could have written the message. But so could Detective Halse. So could a Little Green Man From Mars. The latter might seem silly, and it is, but the point is that the only thing that separates PC Long from the Little Green Man From Mars (apart from the former being known to exist) is that PC Long was there, otherwise there is no more evidence for the one than there is for the other.

For the poster who challenges my use of the word impossibilities, it is used widely.The defence for Prince Eddy and Sickert is based on the impossibility of them being in two places at once.In Numerous trials the same defence is offered.
So what Trevor and I are doing is expressing doubt.No use saying there can be no doubt.The evidence speaks otherwise.

You and Trevor can express doubt until Gabriel blows his horn, but there has to be supporting evidence. We can't doubt what PC Long said and did just because he had the opportunity and means to have done something different. There has to be some reason to suppose that he did do something different. That doesn't just apply to PC Long, of course, but to anything and everything. That's what you and Trevor seem unable to comprehend.