The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wickerman]

You dont know that, and if you are going to side with Wickermans suggestion then it make even more of a mockery to suggest that she was wearing an apron, because as stated an apron that size would surely have been visible to those at the mortuary when the body was being stripped even with a piece missing.

The piece of apron found on the body was a "piece", so it was small, likely black with dirt and ruffled up, unrecognizable as a piece of apron.
Which is why Collard listed it as a "large handkerchief, blood stained".

Even the official police description of Eddowes included this item:
"large white handkerchief round neck,"

It was published as such by all the press except the Times, who described this as:
"a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

It's the same piece, it's the remnant of the apron you are ignoring.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would you think that?
There is every indication that these unsupported ideas will continue to be posted and while that is the case the rebuttal with continue.




"Create a doubt," as in manufacture.
There either is doubt or there is not. Doubt is not created or manufactured, it comes from fresh evidence.
Just saying there is a doubt does not make one.

The Flat and Hollow Earthers say there is doubt that the Earth is either a sphere or solid, they claim there is doubt about the scientific evidence, that does not mean there is.

The same applies to the "unsafe" term YOU apply to evidence and sources, just because you think it is does not make it so. To do that you need to counter what exists with actual evidence that it is unsafe, this you have singularly failed to do; instead quoting generalisations about some sources and semantics in a futile attempt to support the claim.



Nothing shows that arrogance more than that statement.
You continual demonstrate a failure of how to asses sources.

The examples I gave of statements are truly "classic" of self deception.



I certainly do not know it all and make mistakes, and when I do I put my hand up and admit it.
I will consider and accept ideas when they are backed by Evidence, but not when there is NONE.



Let's look are they possible?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definiti...
Definition of possible - able to be done or achieved, that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable.

So yes they are not impossible .

Are they plausible ?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/.../...
Definition of plausible - (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.


Not really given that there is no evidence given which firstly counters the standing arguments and none is given to support the new ideas. They are not probable for those reasons and are not at the stage of plausible.

It seems clear that you have neither the desire to produce Evidence or the Evidence itself to support the ideas.

Steve

But you cant seem to comprehend that if something is challenged and there is evidence to prove that challenge, then there is no dispute thereafter is there, because the new evidence negates the old, if it is conclusive?

But if a doubt is created and the grounds and reasons or opinions that create that doubt are plausible for whatever reason, then they cannot be totally disregarded, as you seem to want to do by using the same old chestnut asking where is the evidence to back up the doubt, there doesn't have to be specific, or direct evidence to back up a doubt which has been created. I f the doubt is there then it is for people to consider all options and make up their own minds, as you appear to have made up your own mind that all the old historical facts are correct, and unless there is specific and direct evidence to negate them then they will stand for ever never to be challenged.

As it stands nothing is going to change if we continue to argue these issues for the next 20 years, unless of course new evidence does come to light which will put another dent in the old accepted theories

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The piece of apron found on the body was a "piece", so it was small, likely black with dirt and ruffled up, unrecognizable as a piece of apron.
Which is why Collard listed it as a "large handkerchief, blood stained".

Even the official police description of Eddowes included this item:
"large white handkerchief round neck,"

It was published as such by all the press except the Times, who described this as:
"a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

It's the same piece, it's the remnant of the apron you are ignoring.

You change with the wind. One minute you are telling us that she was wearing an apron which went from the neck to the ground almost. Then you are saying that the part apron left with the body was wrongly identified as being a handkerchief. That would mean based on the size of the apron you first suggested the Gs piece was as big as a sack.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But you cant seem to comprehend that if something is challenged and there is evidence to prove that challenge, then there is no dispute thereafter is there, because the new evidence negates the old, if it is conclusive?

Yes Trevor, only one issue there, you never provide any evidence, personal opinion is not evidence.
It like opinion in the papers, it's not actually NEWS, it is not fact.

But if a doubt is created and the grounds and reasons or opinions that create that doubt are plausible for whatever reason, then they cannot be totally disregarded, as you seem to want to do by using the same old chestnut asking where is the evidence to back up the doubt, there doesn't have to be specific, or direct evidence to back up a doubt which has been created.

It's not an old chestnut, it's how investigation and research work if you wish to be taken seriously.

Yes there does need to be supportive evidence, if there is no evidence to support a doubt, there is no doubt, only personal bias.

And I say again doubt is not created it either exists or it does not.
The area where doubt is "created" is in the legal world, where truth often comes second to winning.

I f the doubt is there then it is for people to consider all options and make up their own minds, as you appear to have made up your own mind that all the old historical facts are correct, and unless there is specific and direct evidence to negate them then they will stand for ever never to be challenged.

Again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge and true understanding.
If something is a fact, then it simply is. You are alluding to hypothesis which have been submitted over the years.

For a hypothesis to stand it needs to be tested, and IF it fails it is unlikely to be used or accepted by many, for example the Royal conspiracy.
One is always able to challenge hypothesis, however one needs to provide specific areas to retest it on, if one is actually offering a new hypothesis to replace the old, one needs to provide evidence to support the idea and to allow it to be tested.
That's how it works Trevor, if you don't accept such then any work will be judged along with that of von Daniken and flat and hollow Earthers.

Again to be a doubt over something there needs to be evidence, if not it is possible to say "I doubt everything" do you truly not see that?

As it stands nothing is going to change if we continue to argue these issues for the next 20 years, unless of course new evidence does come to light which will put another dent in the old accepted theories

Make your mind up either they are either "theories" or "historic facts".

It will take as long as it takes to reach the truth, maybe tomorrow, maybe never.
The timescale is not to your liking? That is tough. There is nothing you can do about it, unless you go and do some real research which give some tangible results.


Steve

[Wickerman]

You change with the wind. One minute you are telling us that she was wearing an apron which went from the neck to the ground almost. Then you are saying that the part apron left with the body was wrongly identified as being a handkerchief. That would mean based on the size of the apron you first suggested the Gs piece was as big as a sack.

You are well aware that this remnant was described in one source as a "bib".

As you can see from the photo's a 'bib' section resembles a "large handkerchief" and, this is how Collard identified it.
Yet, both Halse and the Times reporter recognised it as a piece of apron.

Collard did note that she carried a regular handkerchief, white with red border, and he identified it as a "pocket handkerchief" to distinguish that from the previous piece around her neck.

This suggests the missing piece, the one found by Long, was quite large.
It's your objections that are not making sense.

[Elamarna]

You change with the wind. One minute you are telling us that she was wearing an apron which went from the neck to the ground almost. Then you are saying that the part apron left with the body was wrongly identified as being a handkerchief. That would mean based on the size of the apron you first suggested the Gs piece was as big as a sack.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And if it was large, it suggests another good possible reason for Long investigating it.
Personally I am undecided on the possible size of the GSG portion, and I suggest it is impossible to give an firm opinion. However i see no reason to see it as being particularly small.

Steve

[Wickerman]

The Flat and Hollow Earthers say there is doubt that the Earth is either a sphere or solid, they claim there is doubt about the scientific evidence, that does not mean there is.

But if a doubt is created and the grounds and reasons or opinions that create that doubt are plausible....

Trevor.
You really need to distinguish between your own personal doubt, and legitimate scientific/academic doubt.

The former can be due to personal ignorance, the latter due to widespread consensus.

They are not the same.

Personal ignorance is behind such theories as held by Velikovsky, von Daniken, the Flat-earthers, and "we never went to the moon" bull$hit.

There is no consensus behind these alternative interpretations you are promoting. So it is easy for others to determine the cause as 'consensus' is readily ruled out.

[Trevor Marriott]

And if it was large, it suggests another good possible reason for Long investigating it.
Personally I am undecided on the possible size of the GSG portion, and I suggest it is impossible to give an firm opinion. However i see no reason to see it as being particularly small.

Steve

You are two faced. In one breath you castigate me for what you term personal opinion and in the next breath you are giving an opinion yourself albeit in your inimitable way of manipulating words to suit your own purpose.

I am not going to argue with you anymore. I dont have the time or the inclination. You see things one way, I see them another, at the end of the day perhaps neither of us are right. But will we ever know. I have a feeling we might in the not to distant future.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor.
You really need to distinguish between your own personal doubt, and legitimate scientific/academic doubt.

The former can be due to personal ignorance, the latter due to widespread consensus.

They are not the same.

Personal ignorance is behind such theories as held by Velikovsky, von Daniken, the Flat-earthers, and "we never went to the moon" bull$hit.

There is no consensus behind these alternative interpretations you are promoting. So it is easy for others to determine the cause as 'consensus' is readily ruled out.

You do not know what you are talking about.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

You are two faced. In one breath you castigate me for what you term personal opinion and in the next breath you are giving an opinion yourself albeit in your inimitable way of manipulating words to suit your own purpose.

Steve said this: "Personally I am undecided on the possible size of the GSG portion, and I suggest it is impossible to give an firm opinion. However i see no reason to see it as being particularly small."

...which seems to be a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic way of putting across one's view. How that could be construed as "two faced" or "manipulating words" is baffling.

[PaulB]

You do not know what you are talking about.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think he knows perfectly well what he's talking about, but if you don't then the obligation is on you to clearly say why.

[Elamarna]

You are two faced. In one breath you castigate me for what you term personal opinion and in the next breath you are giving an opinion yourself albeit in your inimitable way of manipulating words to suit your own purpose.

Pardon?

Let's look at what I said.

"If it was large" so qualifying what is too follow.

" it suggests another good possible reason for Long investigating it."

So not the reason, just another possible reason.


So far I see no theory proposed, just a possible suggestion.

As purely a suggestion, it needs no support, if however I wish to turn it into a theory or hypothesis I would need to provide evidence.

While it may be possible to hypothesis on the possability of a large portion being enough to take the attention of Long, we will not be able to prove it and it will remain an unproven and unsupported idea. That's fine so long as we don't try and use this as the main thrust of any argument.

With regards to the size, that is impossible to hypothesis, which i said in the post.

My opinion that I did not see it as being particularly small, is just that An Opinion its not factual, its not evidence, its not supported by an source; in fact it's exactly the same as you present as evidence and of course IT IS NOT!.

This is what you do not seem to understand, make as many suggestions as you like, but to turn them into theory you actually need evidence.


That is not being two faced, I am consistent in that opinions are not evidence unless supported.

I require an apology for that personal attack,.

I am not going to argue with you anymore. I dont have the time or the inclination. You see things one way, I see them another, at the end of the day perhaps neither of us are right. But will we ever know. I have a feeling we might in the not to distant future.

You have some actually evidence do you Trevor or is it just another upcoming publication?
I see no response to post 2614, along with several others, too difficult?




Steve

[etenguy]

My opinion that I did not see it as being particularly small, is just that An Opinion its not factual, its not evidence, its not supported by an source; in fact it's exactly the same as you present as evidence and of course IT IS NOT!.

This is what you do not seem to understand, make as many suggestions as you like, but to turn them into theory you actually need evidence.

'Don't let facts get in the way of a good story' a slight variation of the Mark Twain quote. Just came to mind as I was reading the last few posts.

[harry]

Wickerman,
My point is that if you carried out the test as I described,you are left with the blood and excrement so mixed it w ould be well nigh impossible to tell what the mixture contained.Except for the smell,but smell is not mentioned.So If the killer used the cloth to wipe himself what tests defined what was on the piece of cloth.
Or was it all conjecture? Or did Long have experience of starting out in the butcher business.

When the commissioner is called to a scene that itself has no evidence of being the scene of a crime,and remember neither the cloth or the writing had been connected to Eddowes murder when Warren arrived at Wentworth Building,it might be of value to know what evidence brought him there,and what proceedures had been put in place.
Did others,like Long,ignore procedure?
I know, where is my evidence of what I write.W here is the evidence that disproves it?

[harry]

Something I forgot.Maybe the apron was homemade.What did a homemade apron look like.Well my grandmothers looked like a half apron.