The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Elamarna]

The Lists Of clothing and possessions

I have a serious question for those who say the lists provided by Collard are beyond question.

How do you propose these lists were made?

1. A item at a time as removed from the body?

2. After all items had been removed?

3. One list at a time?

4. Both lists simultaneously?


One importan't point to bear in mind is that all the items listed as possessions were on the body of Eddowes, she was not carting a large bag. It therefore follows that as items of obvious clothing were removed so were possessions.

I am not discussing the apron here at all, rather how these lists were compiled.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

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

A doubt is created by other evidence, facts and professional opinions, which offer alternative explanations to the original theories. It doesn't matter how they are derived, what matters is that they are real, and while they are there and they offer alternative plausible explanations then the old facts cannot be total relied on.

It is then for any individual to assess and evaluate both old and new and make their own judgement as to which they believe in the absence of conclusive evidence to prove either.

I am sure that any one with an unbiased investigative brain studying all of the historical facts and the evidence would be able to highlight the same flaws that I have identified and would take the same step to prove or disprove them. By your replies, it seems that you dont appear to have that mental capacity to do this in an unbiased way.

If the results are to be judged by peer they have to be peers of equal standing not those from Numpty Towers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I have a serious question for those who say the lists provided by Collard are beyond question.

How do you propose these lists were made?

1. A item at a time as removed from the body?

2. After all items had been removed?

3. One list at a time?

4. Both lists simultaneously?


One importan't point to bear in mind is that all the items listed as possessions were on the body of Eddowes, she was not carting a large bag. It therefore follows that as items of obvious clothing were removed so were possessions.

I am not discussing the apron here at all, rather how these lists were compiled.


Steve

She was in possession of two small ticking bags, and a ticking pocket which contained the bulk of her possessions.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Rubbish

The clothing would have been listed as it came off the body, the list corroborate that

[Elamarna]

A doubt is created by other evidence, facts and professional opinions, which offer alternative explanations to the original theories. It doesn't matter how they are derived, what matters is that they are real, and while they are there and they offer alternative plausible explanations then the old facts cannot be total relied on.(

Yes it does matter, they are on this issue at least not "real"but the product of imagination, unsupported entirely by an facts.

It is then for any individual to assess and evaluate both old and new and make their own judgement as to which they believe in the absence of conclusive evidence to prove either.

Which is impossible if one proposal is based on nothing by imagination.

I am sure that any one with an unbiased investigative brain studying all of the historical facts and the evidence would be able to highlight the same flaws that I have identified and would take the same step to prove or disprove them. By your replies, it seems that you dont appear to have that mental capacity to do this in an unbiased way.

I see the insults again. That is a personal attack on me. It seems you can make no reasonable argument from that.

If the results are to be judged by peer they have to be peers of equal standing not those from Numpty Towers.

That's not how it works, you do not get to pick your peers.
It seems you have no idea of how real academic research is conducted.
And again the reply is to insult those who do not agree with you.

It's so sad to see this pathetic post, devoid of ideas or any attempt at serious rebuttal.
Debate on facts and maybe, just maybe people will listen.

Until that occurs, and I fear I am more likely to win the lottery than that happening, your ideas will be assed on their merits or lack of.

Keep posting it just exposes the truly incredible weaknesses in the arguments,
No substance, no evidence just suppersition.

Cheers


Steve
www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/QUOTE]

[Sam Flynn]

Rubbish

The clothing would have been listed as it came off the body, the list corroborate that

There was no need to say "rubbish", was there?

How does the list corroborate that?

Polite answer, please.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes it does matter, they are on this issue at least not "real"but the product of imagination, unsupported entirely by an facts.


Which is impossible if one proposal is based on nothing by imagination.



I see the insults again. That is a personal attack on me. It seems you can make no reasonable argument from that.


That's not how it works, you do not get to pick your peers.
It seems you have no idea of how real academic research is conducted.
And again the reply is to insult those who do not agree with you.

It's so sad to see this pathetic post, devoid of ideas or any attempt at serious rebuttal.
Debate on facts and maybe, just maybe people will listen.

Until that occurs, and I fear I am more likely to win the lottery than that happening, your ideas will be assed on their merits or lack of.

Keep posting it just exposes the truly incredible weaknesses in the arguments,
No substance, no evidence just suppersition.

Cheers


Steve
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[/QUOTE]

You keep banging on about academic research. There is only one way to assess and evaluate real evidence and real facts and its not the academic way.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

There was no need to say "rubbish", was there?

How does the list corroborate that?

Polite answer, please.

Because they would start at the top and work their way down the body taking off the clothing as they came to it, and noting it down. The list shows that is what they did.

Its still done the same way 129 years later

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

She was in possession of two small ticking bags, and a ticking pocket which contained the bulk of her possessions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Actually all 3 items are referred to by Collard as "pockets" and appear to have been worn on the body.

Only one is referred to as ticking and this refers to the material used, the other two are called unbleached calico.

I am having difficulty in finding information in the Official Report to support that statement , maybe I am missing it, perhaps you could be so good as to point me in the correct direction I am always happy to ask for assistance If I need it.

However I see no attempt to answer the questions asked?
Go on enlighten me?

Steve

[PaulB]

You keep banging on about academic research. There is only one way to assess and evaluate real evidence and real facts and its not the academic way.

You never cease to surprise. Your ignorance simply plumbs new depths every time you approach a keyboard.

"The Creature"

[Elamarna]

You keep banging on about academic research. There is only one way to assess and evaluate real evidence and real facts and its not the academic way

The arrogance displayed in that post is truly mind blowing.

Carry on, each post exposes the lack of any serious substance.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Because they would start at the top and work their way down the body taking off the clothing as they came to it, and noting it down. The list shows that is what they did.

Its still done the same way 129 years later

Thank you, Trevor. Makes sense.

[Elamarna]

Rubbish

The clothing would have been listed as it came off the body, the list corroborate that

Pray tell me how it does that?
Pure guess work.
You cannot know that, nor can anyone else. We were not there.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Because they would start at the top and work their way down the body taking off the clothing as they came to it, and noting it down. The list shows that is what they did.

Its still done the same way 129 years later

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor

It shows that how the items were recorded, not the process involved.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

No Trevor

It shows that how the items were recorded, not the process involved.

Steve

Well how many ways are there to remove clothes from a body, and list them in order of how they came off the body for future reference?

You never cease to amaze me, you are really doing yourself no favours now

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk