Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

But you can do me a favour and tell me why discussions with you always end up in this kind of a smelly bog.

Maybe because your nonsensical replies to not only me, but others who challenge you with sensible posts make it so.

Just so we know we know where you do stand with Ripperology please be so kind as to answer the following questions with a straight yes or no if you can?

Do you subscribe to 5 and 5 only victims?
Do you believe the killer wrote the graffiti?
Do you believe the killer cut or tore the piece of apron from Eddowes.
Do you believe the killer deposited the piece in Goulston Street
Do you believe the killer removed the organs from Eddowes and Chapman
Do you belived the killer of Kelly took away her heart
Do you believe the killer wrote the Dear boss letter
Do you believe the contents of the MM to be the truth
Do you believe Swanson was the sole author of the marginalia
Do you belive that an identification ever took place as decsribed in the SM
Do you believe Anderson when he talks about the killer being identified

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Not the ones I looked at !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

you could be one of the stupidest mother ****ers I have ever had the pleasure of not
meeting.
If I didnt know better, your total lack of intelligence would make me question the entire british police force.
but I know better.

Thankfully you are an anomaly.

[harry]

Fisherman,
In answer to your post 310.

I agree that people generally tell the truth.How does that statement prove Long could not lie on occasions.

My claim the killer had no need to hide.That is not mind reading.It is a conclusion based on stated information.It would take time to organise a search.The killer was not seen.I have said he would have been cautious,probably stopped for short periods of time to access the situation.That doesn't equate to the need of a bolt hole,or long term hide.

It is generally agreed the victims did go willingly.How far is a matter of conjecture,but the promise of a place indoors (it wasn't a pleasant night weather wise)and monetary compensation,and I think Eddowes would have gone quite some way.How far was this bolt hole?

If by chance they were seen,or recognised,and the killer became alarmed,he had the option of letting he go.Of not killing.

There was no sw arming of police on the streets.At around 2.20,only Long and Halse can be placed in Goulston Street.Why do you exaggerate,Fisherman?

Why do you reply with sarcasm and ridicule?.It doesn't help your claims,it certainly has no effect on me.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
In answer to your post 310.

I agree that people generally tell the truth.How does that statement prove Long could not lie on occasions.

It does not. And I never said it did. As I have been saying over and over again, Long MAY have lied.

But the important thing to keep in mind is that we must judge Long on a general basis, as we have no reason to do anything else. And it therefore applies that Long must be regarded as generally having told the truth. Consequentially, we must accept that he probably told the truth about the rag too. And that lands us exactly where I have said we should land all the time: Alfred Long probably told the truth about the rag.

My claim the killer had no need to hide.That is not mind reading.It is a conclusion based on stated information.It would take time to organise a search.The killer was not seen.I have said he would have been cautious,probably stopped for short periods of time to access the situation.That doesn't equate to the need of a bolt hole,or long term hide.

To begin with, the search was already on when Eddowes died. The search for Strides killer, that is. It is normally agreed that this killer was the same man who killed Eddowes. If so, he headed straight east, towards the area where Stride was killed, with the knowledge that every PC on their beats would be likely to be on the alert. So we have a very different picture from the one you suggest.
I also think it is hazardous to say that the killer was not seen, and use that as an argument. We know with hindsight that this was so - but how can we tell that the killer knew this? Not that it must matter -if he felt he was seen, the reasonable thing to do would be to flee, and he would be as likely to head for home as he would be to head for a bolthole. Unless, of course, he chose a bolthole he knew would not take him into Stride country...

Anyway, there is also the question of the innards to consider. He may well have stowed them away at the same place on every occasion he was in possesion of any organ/s, and that place may well not have been his home.

There are numerous factors that may have played a role, and there may have been just as many other factors that are unknown to us. All we know is that what Long said opens up the field for him having used a bolthole.

It is generally agreed the victims did go willingly.How far is a matter of conjecture,but the promise of a place indoors (it wasn't a pleasant night weather wise)and monetary compensation,and I think Eddowes would have gone quite some way.How far was this bolt hole?

It is also generally agreed that the victims would not have accompanied any man, that they would have been wary of the risks and that they would have wanted to make their own choices of venues, Harry. Allowing themselves to get spirited away would not have been a sought for opportunity.
How far away was the bolthole? That is hard to say - there is ample time left before 2.55, so it could have been a fair distance from the murder site. As you are aware, my suggestion is the Broad Street depot, which would sit very well with using the Goulston Street doorway.


If by chance they were seen,or recognised,and the killer became alarmed,he had the option of letting he go.Of not killing.

They would pass a fair number of windows from whence the couple could be seen without the killer being aware of it. They could be seen by people they did not see themselves, Harry. So I don´t think your reasoning holds up very well.

There was no sw arming of police on the streets.At around 2.20,only Long and Halse can be placed in Goulston Street.Why do you exaggerate,Fisherman?

As you may have noted, I am mainly speaking about the Met, who will have been on the streets in numbers after the Stride murder.

Why do you reply with sarcasm and ridicule?.It doesn't help your claims,it certainly has no effect on me.

That will be because you do the exact same thing, Harry. Not in this post though, and lo and behold - nor do I. That´s how it works.

[Fisherman]

Maybe because your nonsensical replies to not only me, but others who challenge you with sensible posts make it so.

Just so we know we know where you do stand with Ripperology please be so kind as to answer the following questions with a straight yes or no if you can?

Do you subscribe to 5 and 5 only victims?
Do you believe the killer wrote the graffiti?
Do you believe the killer cut or tore the piece of apron from Eddowes.
Do you believe the killer deposited the piece in Goulston Street
Do you believe the killer removed the organs from Eddowes and Chapman
Do you belived the killer of Kelly took away her heart
Do you believe the killer wrote the Dear boss letter
Do you believe the contents of the MM to be the truth
Do you believe Swanson was the sole author of the marginalia
Do you belive that an identification ever took place as decsribed in the SM
Do you believe Anderson when he talks about the killer being identified

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, no, yes, yes, yes, yes, no, no, yes, no, no.

There are qualifiers, mainly due to how you ask your questions, like "Do you believe the killer of Kelly took away her heart?", leaving the field open for two interpretations:
1. took away from the body
2, took away from the premises
There are other matters too that are quite dubious in your questions. Take, for example, "Do you believe Anderson when he talks about the killer being identified?".
Do I believe that Anderson thought that the killer had been identified? He may well have believed so. So that will be a yes. But do I believe that Andersons identification of Kosminski was correct? No, I do not.

There are also questions where I consider it wise to get up on the fence, like the GSG question. I do not personally think that it was the killers work, but I would never rule out that it could have been. So I am trying to keep an open mind on it, although if I was pressed, as I said, a "no" must be my answer. Today, that is.

In light of this, I would ask you to check with me before you go trumpeting out any "Fisherman thinks" or "Fisherman denies". Before you can do that, you must learn how to ask questions in a correct manner. In many a respect, you failed to do so above. But since you wanted yes or no answers only, I tried to oblige as best as I could.

I will remind you of this in our future conversations, and I will ask you things where I demand a clear and concise yes or no. I expect you to deliver when it happens. Are we clear on that point?

[Kattrup]

Maybe because your nonsensical replies to not only me, but others who challenge you with sensible posts make it so.

Just so we know we know where you do stand with Ripperology please be so kind as to answer the following questions with a straight yes or no if you can?

Do you subscribe to 5 and 5 only victims?
Do you believe the killer wrote the graffiti?
Do you believe the killer cut or tore the piece of apron from Eddowes.
Do you believe the killer deposited the piece in Goulston Street
Do you believe the killer removed the organs from Eddowes and Chapman
Do you belived the killer of Kelly took away her heart
Do you believe the killer wrote the Dear boss letter
Do you believe the contents of the MM to be the truth
Do you believe Swanson was the sole author of the marginalia
Do you belive that an identification ever took place as decsribed in the SM
Do you believe Anderson when he talks about the killer being identified

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Though not adressed to me, I would have to say "No" to all of them, since our knowledge of the events is not a belief or a religion - though it seems to be so for you.

Our interest in the case should be a mode of scientific inquiry, developing better and insights on empirical basis (the sources). Therefore, explanations and theories are not to be "believed" but either accepted or rejected.

Changing your wording of "Do you believe" to "Do you accept", my answers would be:
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Unclear what is meant by "the truth"
Yes
Yes
No

[Michael W Richards]

Maybe because your nonsensical replies to not only me, but others who challenge you with sensible posts make it so.

Just so we know we know where you do stand with Ripperology please be so kind as to answer the following questions with a straight yes or no if you can?

1.Do you subscribe to 5 and 5 only victims?
2.Do you believe the killer wrote the graffiti?
3.Do you believe the killer cut or tore the piece of apron from Eddowes.
4.Do you believe the killer deposited the piece in Goulston Street
5.Do you believe the killer removed the organs from Eddowes and Chapman
6.Do you belived the killer of Kelly took away her heart
7.Do you believe the killer wrote the Dear boss letter
8.Do you believe the contents of the MM to be the truth
9.Do you believe Swanson was the sole author of the marginalia
10. Do you belive that an identification ever took place as decsribed in the SM
11.Do you believe Anderson when he talks about the killer being identified

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

OK, Id like to Play Reveal your Position too....

1. Only 2 or 3 by one man
2. Eddowes killer, yes
3. Yes
4. After 2:20, yes.
5. Yes, although they may have been 2 separate killers
6. Yes
7. No
8. No
9. No
10. Unsure
11. I believe it was just his opinion, not that it was official.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;394328]

Hi Trevor,

If you do not mind, I would like to answer your questions too, just for fun!

Do you subscribe to 5 and 5 only victims?

No. I subscribe to 8.

Do you believe the killer wrote the graffiti?

I am convinced that he did. There are external sources convincing me of it. There was a motive. It was clear and it was connected to his signature and MO in many ways. It was directed towards a specific recipient.

Do you believe the killer cut or tore the piece of apron from Eddowes.

Cut. Definitely. There is a reason for me thinking so. An external source.

Do you believe the killer deposited the piece in Goulston Street.

Absolutely. He expected the police to find it and the press to write about it. Not only was in an expectation but a prediction. He knew exactly how the police worked. He knew it in every detail. It was a shame that the writing was blurred and became misinterpreted. But the recipient to whom it was directed had no problem with understanding the GSG as it was described at the inquest and in the papers.

Do you believe the killer removed the organs from Eddowes and Chapman

Yes, and the reason I think so is that he had a motive for doing it.

Do you belived the killer of Kelly took away her heart

Yes, and the reason I think so is that he had a motive for doing so.

Do you believe the killer wrote the Dear boss letter

Absolutely not.

Do you believe the contents of the MM to be the truth

Not all of it, no. But "truth" is a problematic concept.

Do you believe Swanson was the sole author of the marginalia

I don´t know.

Do you belive that an identification ever took place as decsribed in the SM

There is an external source about a place such as the Seaside home, it may be connected to the SM. I do not know.

Do you believe Anderson when he talks about the killer being identified

I think the killer was ID:d in 1888 by a small group of police officials. The source for the Seaside home may be connected to a later identification by others who did not know about the first identification.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Amazing - the thread turned into a Marriott poll...

Got better things to do.

[Pierre]

Amazing - the thread turned into a Marriott poll...

Got better things to do.

And your answers are very hard to understand.

Why would Lechmere have been a serial killer?

There is no source which can answer this question.

[Abby Normal]

Amazing - the thread turned into a Marriott poll...

Got better things to do.

LOL. and pierre to boot! what a goat rope.

[John G]

Maybe because your nonsensical replies to not only me, but others who challenge you with sensible posts make it so.

Just so we know we know where you do stand with Ripperology please be so kind as to answer the following questions with a straight yes or no if you can?

Do you subscribe to 5 and 5 only victims?
Do you believe the killer wrote the graffiti?
Do you believe the killer cut or tore the piece of apron from Eddowes.
Do you believe the killer deposited the piece in Goulston Street
Do you believe the killer removed the organs from Eddowes and Chapman
Do you belived the killer of Kelly took away her heart
Do you believe the killer wrote the Dear boss letter
Do you believe the contents of the MM to be the truth
Do you believe Swanson was the sole author of the marginalia
Do you belive that an identification ever took place as decsribed in the SM
Do you believe Anderson when he talks about the killer being identified

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

1) No, there may have been more or less than 5 victims.
2) Not likely.
3) Yes, definitely.
4) Yes.
5) Yes, definitely.
6) Yes.
7) No.
8) Not entirely.
9) Yes.
10) Yes.
11) Yes, but not "unhesitatingly"

[c.d.]

"The message is consistant with the rippers activity that night being seen/interrupted by several Jewish men that night."

Hello Abby,

You seem to be assuming that the B.S. man was the Ripper. And what do you mean by several?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

"The message is consistant with the rippers activity that night being seen/interrupted by several Jewish men that night."

Hello Abby,

You seem to be assuming that the B.S. man was the Ripper. And what do you mean by several?

c.d.

Yes. Schwartz, diemshitz, Lawendes and company

[c.d.]

Yes. Schwartz, diemshitz, Lawendes and company

Well I don't think the B.S. man was the Ripper but if we assume for the sake of argument that he was then yes to Schwartz. I guess the Ripper would have had to have been interrupted by Diemschutz and since it was dark assumed that he was somehow associated with the club and was therefore Jewish. As for Lawende and company, the Ripper would have had to have been aware that he was being observed by them and would have had to have been able to determine that they were Jewish. So I suppose that it is possible that the GSG reflects that but you would think that if he took the risk of writing it to vent his anger it could have been just a bit more pithy and more directly on point.

c.d.