Apron placement as intimidation?

[Joshua Rogan]

What on earth are you rambling on about?

How difficult is it to slip skirts and petticoats off a body when they are affixed around the waist you simply have to raise the body up slightly and pull them down. "CAREFULLY" as Dr Brown tells us !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The bodice was buttoned down the front so no problem there either

Mortuary attendant Robert Mann from the Polly Nichols inquest;

"[Coroner] How did you get the clothes off? - Hatfield had to cut them down the front.

[Pierre]

It's simple, really Trevor, do you agree the "cut" you have circled and I marked with a black arrow is NOT on the body? I never thought you were trying to mislead.

Everyone can see it. Can´t Trevor see it?

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;403013]

Agreed in the greater part.

However when the disproved ideas are still produced, they can be misleading and confusing to those who do not have the knowledge, that’s why I feel such must be challenged.

Steve

Yes, indeed. Richard Dawkins is doing the same with the God hypothesis. The problem he has, according to the believers, is that he can not disprove God.

This is not a problem with Lechmere. It is easy to disprove the hypothesis that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, since it is a well established fact that Lechmere found the victim on his way to work, went to tell a PC about it, told the PC and also went to the inquest.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;403010]

Pierre, i made a big one last week in my project, and it has set me back a week, in my case i was not doing it on purpose to test, but missed one small word.
However I take your point.



Hi Steve,

Well, I see it like this: if hypotheses are disproved then there is no meaning in not accepting it. If an event wasn´t there, it wasn´t there.

What we are looking for is events inside a black box called the past.

Exclusively speculating about the contents is not history.

And if it is not history it has no historical value.

And if it has no historical value it is useless.

Regards, Pierre

Agreed in the greater part.

However when the disproved ideas are still produced, they can be misleading and confusing to those who do not have the knowledge, that’s why I feel such must be challenged.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;403004]Pierre, i made a big one last week in my project, and it has set me back a week, in my case i was not doing it on purpose to test, but missed one small word.
However I take your point.

The point is how one reacts is it not?

Do we admit to it?
Do we just not mention it again?

Or

Do we continue to use it when we know it is wrong?

Hi Steve,

Well, I see it like this: if hypotheses are disproved then there is no meaning in not accepting it. If an event wasn´t there, it wasn´t there.

What we are looking for is events inside a black box called the past.

Exclusively speculating about the contents is not history.

And if it is not history it has no historical value.

And if it has no historical value it is useless.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Well, well.

I make mistakes all the time. I do it on purpose. I ask silly questions to sources and make funny interpretations.

It is called trial and error. It is called hypothesis testing.

Without this approach we will not generate any knew knowledge.

So now the hypothesis must be that Jack the Ripper owned that photograph and made a cut in it. Great.

Pierre

Pierre, i made a big one last week in my project, and it has set me back a week, in my case i was not doing it on purpose to test, but missed one small word.
However I take your point.



The point is how one reacts is it not?

Do we admit to it?
Do we just not mention it again?

Or

Do we continue to use it when we know it is wrong?


That is all I am interested in on this actual issue.


Steve

[Pierre]

Jerry

All I have asked Trevor is the same you have asked him,
I assumed when first pointed out on the 23rd of June this year that Trevor would have simply replied something like: "sorry, my mistake".

Trevor

We all make mistakes, why could you just not agree this nearly 6 months ago and avoided the continuing raising of the question?

Instead you ignored the question when asked and indeed recently in post# 247 of this thread you attempted to defend the claim twice.

Its not personal or childish, its about the integrity we all must keep if any research is to be taken seriously by the outside world.

It seems from your posts that you tacitly agreeing it was a mistake, is that so?

Steve

Well, well.

I make mistakes all the time. I do it on purpose. I ask silly questions to sources and make funny interpretations.

It is called trial and error. It is called hypothesis testing.

Without this approach we will not generate any knew knowledge.

So now the hypothesis must be that Jack the Ripper owned that photograph and made a cut in it. Great.

Pierre

[Wickerman]

Jerry

All I have asked Trevor is the same you have asked him,
I assumed when first pointed out on the 23rd of June this year that Trevor would have simply replied something like: "sorry, my mistake".

It wasn't on the body when the photograph was taken, but, like the lobe of her ear, it must have fallen off at some point.

[Elamarna]

It's simple, really Trevor, do you agree the "cut" you have circled and I marked with a black arrow is NOT on the body? I never thought you were trying to mislead.

Jerry

All I have asked Trevor is the same you have asked him,
I assumed when first pointed out on the 23rd of June this year that Trevor would have simply replied something like: "sorry, my mistake".


Trevor

We all make mistakes, why could you just not agree this nearly 6 months ago and avoided the continuing raising of the question?

Instead you ignored the question when asked and indeed recently in post# 247 of this thread you attempted to defend the claim twice.

Its not personal or childish, its about the integrity we all must keep if any research is to be taken seriously by the outside world.

It seems from your posts that you tacitly agreeing it was a mistake, is that so?



Steve

[Wickerman]

.... Brown mentions the wound going up but either he is mistaken or the killer was at an angle to the body whereby he was able to do that.

No Trevor, Dr. Brown is not wrong, it is Trevor who does not know what 'incision' means.
An incision is the beginning of a cut, where the knife first enters the body.
In laymans terms, the 'stab' (incision) went upwards into the chest directly under the arch of the ribs. The knife was then dragged down......as I've been saying ad-nauseam.

As to the clothes being thrown up and the knife then being used to make the cut then, this is not a plausible explanation. The clothes were affixed around the waist so simply throwing all the clothes up would cover the sternum area and make it almost impossible for the killer to gain free access to that area and to be able to draw a knife up or down through the thrown up clothing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There's nothing implausible about it.
Yes, the upper chest/ribcage was covered - so what?
It didn't take him 2 seconds to address that problem....

[jerryd]

I am fully aware of what they both are referring to, and when I referred to it in the first instance, I did so in good faith, and not with the intention to mislead as is being inferred, and now this has turned into personal childish conflicts.

I have made the valid points I set out to make with regards to the cuts in the clothing in relation to the wounds, and I have nothing more to add. I am more than happy to continue to say that Edowes was stabbed at least twice through her outer clothing, and having been stabbed the knife was drawn down, and across, as the cuts in the clothing depict, before the clothes were thrown up above her abdomen.

If those on here want to belive in their own personal suggestions as to how the various blood stained cuts in the clothing occured then so be it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's simple, really Trevor, do you agree the "cut" you have circled and I marked with a black arrow is NOT on the body? I never thought you were trying to mislead.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Steve and Pierre are both referring to the mark you have circled that I have marked with a black arrow and I agree with them , it is NOT on the body. It is a mark on the backround between the arm and the body.

I am fully aware of what they both are referring to, and when I referred to it in the first instance, I did so in good faith, and not with the intention to mislead as is being inferred, and now this has turned into personal childish conflicts.

I have made the valid points I set out to make with regards to the cuts in the clothing in relation to the wounds, and I have nothing more to add. I am more than happy to continue to say that Edowes was stabbed at least twice through her outer clothing, and having been stabbed the knife was drawn down, and across, as the cuts in the clothing depict, before the clothes were thrown up above her abdomen.

If those on here want to belive in their own personal suggestions as to how the various blood stained cuts in the clothing occured then so be it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

Would anyone be so kind as to post the complete details of Collard's clothing list from the official inquest report please....I want to try and understand the wounds but I'm still saving up for a copy of the ultimate sourcebook.

[Pierre]

Trevor,

Steve and Pierre are both referring to the mark you have circled that I have marked with a black arrow and I agree with them , it is NOT on the body. It is a mark on the backround between the arm and the body.

Indeed.

But time and time again Trevor has proved he does not have the mental capacity to understand the simplest of things.

Pierre

[jerryd]

Pierre
Time and time again you have proved you do not have the mental capacity to understand the simplest of things.

As to your attempt at humour, a piece of advice, dont give up on your school lessons.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

Steve and Pierre are both referring to the mark you have circled that I have marked with a black arrow and I agree with them , it is NOT on the body. It is a mark on the backround between the arm and the body.