Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I have returned as you asked.I didn't intend to.It is only because posters keep addressing posts to me,that I stay.
There is no factual evidence for anything.For the apron piece being there or not being there at 2.20.Glad you mentioned factual evidence.That appears to be one thing we do agree on.No factual evidence for a bolt hole then.No factual evidence the killer hid or was delayed leaving Mitre Square.No factual evidence Long told the truth.The killer could have been in Goulston Street before 2.20.

Now to my example,and I will answer briefly.I could have been lying about it not being there a half hour previous.Didn't take a long,hard afterthought.

We are not compelled to accept anything,any statement from whoever.Long was alone,unsupervised.He is the one that needs corrorboration.It isn't there.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
I have returned as you asked.I didn't intend to.It is only because posters keep addressing posts to me,that I stay.
There is no factual evidence for anything.For the apron piece being there or not being there at 2.20.Glad you mentioned factual evidence.That appears to be one thing we do agree on.No factual evidence for a bolt hole then.No factual evidence the killer hid or was delayed leaving Mitre Square.No factual evidence Long told the truth.The killer could have been in Goulston Street before 2.20.

The only factual evidence there is, is that Long stated as a fact that the rag was not there at 2.20. There is no factul evidence at all gainsaying him. That is that evidence there is. That was, is and remains the evidence connected to the rag.

Now to my example,and I will answer briefly.I could have been lying about it not being there a half hour previous.Didn't take a long,hard afterthought.

Anybody can lie about anything. But is it to be expected that people do so on a general basis? Do you normally lie in situations like this, Harry? When you say something about something - is it just as likely to be a lie as a truth? THAT is the pertinent question!

You see, this kind of puts you on the spot. Either you admit that I am correct when saying that people normally tell the truth when saying something, or you claim that as far as you can tell, you lie all the time. It is a position from which you are going to loose the debate no matter how you choose to answer, as you may realize.

We are not compelled to accept anything,any statement from whoever.Long was alone,unsupervised.He is the one that needs corrorboration.It isn't there.

No, Harry, Long needs no corroboration. If this was true, then we would never send PC:s on beats in the first place, since whatever they said, we would need to ask "who is corroborating this?". It would be ludicruous.
We send PC:s on beats and we expect them to give us correct information, and they will do so to a very high degree. That does not mean that they will ALWAYS do so - some will lie, some will get it wrong - but it DOES mean that generally speaking, we can safely rely on the beat PC:s to do their job.

No matter how you wring this, you will always - and I mean always - end up with the short end of the stick. You will be told that the idea that Long was not correct is an inferior suggestion, and you know what? Thatīs beacuse it IS.

You have now managed to manouvre yourself into a corner where you are making the point that you may very well be a liar whenever you state something, and that it therefore applies that Long TOO could have been a habitual liar.

Somehow, I dont think that was your intention when you joined the debate.

[Trevor Marriott]

harry: Fisherman,
I have returned as you asked.I didn't intend to.It is only because posters keep addressing posts to me,that I stay.
There is no factual evidence for anything.For the apron piece being there or not being there at 2.20.Glad you mentioned factual evidence.That appears to be one thing we do agree on.No factual evidence for a bolt hole then.No factual evidence the killer hid or was delayed leaving Mitre Square.No factual evidence Long told the truth.The killer could have been in Goulston Street before 2.20.

The only factual evidence there is, is that Long stated as a fact that the rag was not there at 2.20. There is no factul evidence at all gainsaying him. That is that evidence there is. That was, is and remains the evidence connected to the rag.

Now to my example,and I will answer briefly.I could have been lying about it not being there a half hour previous.Didn't take a long,hard afterthought.

Anybody can lie about anything. But is it to be expected that people do so on a general basis? Do you normally lie in situations like this, Harry? When you say something about something - is it just as likely to be a lie as a truth? THAT is the pertinent question!

You see, this kind of puts you on the spot. Either you admit that I am correct when saying that people normally tell the truth when saying something, or you claim that as far as you can tell, you lie all the time. It is a position from which you are going to loose the debate no matter how you choose to answer, as you may realize.

We are not compelled to accept anything,any statement from whoever.Long was alone,unsupervised.He is the one that needs corrorboration.It isn't there.

No, Harry, Long needs no corroboration. If this was true, then we would never send PC:s on beats in the first place, since whatever they said, we would need to ask "who is corroborating this?". It would be ludicruous.
We send PC:s on beats and we expect them to give us correct information, and they will do so to a very high degree. That does not mean that they will ALWAYS do so - some will lie, some will get it wrong - but it DOES mean that generally speaking, we can safely rely on the beat PC:s to do their job.

No matter how you wring this, you will always - and I mean always - end up with the short end of the stick. You will be told that the idea that Long was not correct is an inferior suggestion, and you know what? Thatīs beacuse it IS.

You have now managed to manouvre yourself into a corner where you are making the point that you may very well be a liar whenever you state something, and that it therefore applies that Long TOO could have been a habitual liar.

Somehow, I dont think that was your intention when you joined the debate.

You keep going on about evidence, but there is evidence which does point to the fact that she wasn't wearing an apron at the time of her murder, and if that be so, then the killer could not have cut or torn a piece, and could not have been responsible for it being discarded in Goulston Street and therefore it could have been there at 2.20 and Long missed it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: You keep going on about evidence...

I do, yes. Do you think that is in any way incorrect or useless to do so? To use the evidence, I mean?

...but there is evidence which does point to the fact that she wasn't wearing an apron at the time of her murder, and if that be so, then the killer could not have cut or torn a piece, and could not have been responsible for it being discarded in Goulston Street and therefore it could have been there at 2.20 and Long missed it.

There is much more valid evidence pointing to her wearing the apron as it was cut. Out here, 99 per cent of the posters agree on that point, so if you want to sell your own suggestion, I suggest you take it somewhere else.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: You keep going on about evidence...

I do, yes. Do you think that is in any way incorrect or useless to do so? To use the evidence, I mean?

...but there is evidence which does point to the fact that she wasn't wearing an apron at the time of her murder, and if that be so, then the killer could not have cut or torn a piece, and could not have been responsible for it being discarded in Goulston Street and therefore it could have been there at 2.20 and Long missed it.

There is much more valid evidence pointing to her wearing the apron as it was cut. Out here, 99 per cent of the posters agree on that point, so if you want to sell your own suggestion, I suggest you take it somewhere else.

99% of 5 posters, wow those are real overwhelming statistics

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

The question of whether there is evidence that Eddowes wasn't wearing an apron was discussed at considerable length here

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=21296&highlight=apron

and nobody agreed with Trevor's arguments there.

Nor did Trevor explain why nobody ever contradicted the idea that she was.

[Fisherman]

99% of 5 posters, wow those are real overwhelming statistics

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

99 per cent of those who have expressed an opinion about the matter over the years on these boards. They all seem to be very old school and reluctant to go along with your fresh new take on Ripperology...

[Trevor Marriott]

The question of whether there is evidence that Eddowes wasn't wearing an apron was discussed at considerable length here

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=21296&highlight=apron

and nobody agreed with Trevor's arguments there.

Nor did Trevor explain why nobody ever contradicted the idea that she was.

Maybe because the handful of old regulars on here dont, or wont accept changes to the old accepted theories, come what may. Something we have seen on more than one occasion on here.

It is a fact that there is evidence, and you being an old regular I can see why you would say there is not. Time and time again you have proved that you do not know the meaning of evidence, and I refer yet again to newspaper articles, an issue which is clear to see for everyone,that is those who want to see.

Specsavers are doing a 2 for one this week !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Maybe because the handful of old regulars on here dont, or wont accept changes to the old accepted theories, come what may. Something we have seen on more than one occasion on here.

Nope, Trevor, thatīs not it - ALL people I myself discuss the case with, old regulars as well as novices, all reason that it is evident that the killer cut a piece of the apron that Eddowes was wearing. Just like Paul pointed out, it is a universal belief amongst those who come in contact with the case, and you seem to be totally alone not to accept it.


Specsavers are doing a 2 for one this week !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go for it, Trevor! Youīre not likely to get a better offer anytime soon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Christer,

Universal belief, my foot!

Trevor is far from alone on the matter of Eddowes' mythical apron.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

I'll bet there are more people who believe the earth is flat...

[David Orsam]

Hi Christer,

Universal belief, my foot!

Trevor is far from alone on the matter of Eddowes' mythical apron.

Curiously, Simon, when I consult the 2016 book 'Deconstructing Jack' at pages 440-441, I seem to find the author confirming, with supporting evidence, that the piece of cloth found in Goulston street was a portion of an apron which had been worn by Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'll bet there are more people who believe the earth is flat...

I bet your are one of them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Curiously, Simon, when I consult the 2016 book 'Deconstructing Jack' at pages 440-441, I seem to find the author confirming, with supporting evidence, that the piece of cloth found in Goulston street was a portion of an apron which had been worn by Eddowes.

In all honesty, Simon never said that HE was one of the flat earth society himself - so it may be (working from the suggestion that Simon is correct) that there is a third party, so far unidentified, who celebrates Trevors take on things.

[David Orsam]

In all honesty, Simon never said that HE was one of the flat earth society himself - so it may be (working from the suggestion that Simon is correct) that there is a third party, so far unidentified, who celebrates Trevors take on things.

No, I'm aware of that, and I didn't say he was, but, at the same time, he must believe that Trevor is wrong. Strange he doesn't say so.