Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[Trevor Marriott]

No one has dismissed your theory outright. They have dismissed your theory because it makes no sense, requires ignoring actual evidence, and you are unable to defend it.

Your repeated inability to answer basic questions about your theory shows how weak your theory is.

I always answer the questions see below

* Why would Eddowes cut up an apron to use as a sanitary napkin when she already had 12 rags?

Because she may have had the rags to sell as we do not know what material they were made out of and she is described as a hawker and that is someone who offers goods for sale besides according to the evidence she was in possession of 2 old pieces of white apron which at some point in the past had been cut from a full apron and not the one she was supposedly wearing

* Why would Eddowes try to use non-absorbent cloth like an apron as a sanitary napkin?

We do not know what material the apron pieces were made out of it is possible that it was of the type which was absorbent

* Why would Eddowes discard the apron piece instead of washing and reusing it?

Rags were easy to come by which Victorian street women used for sanitary devices I am not aware of Victorian street women washing and re using sanitary rags

* Why would Eddowes choose so public a place - the entryway of a tenement - to remove and discard the apron piece?

She could have gone under the archway to go to the toilet and discarded it at that point as she was passing

* Why are you assuming the killer would have blood on both hands?

I think it is right to assume the killer would have blood on both his hands having allegedly put his hands inside a blood-filled abdomen to remove organs if that is what in fact did happen

* Why are you assuming there was blood on only one side of the apron piece?

I am not assuming that, Dr Brown gives evidence that blood and faecal matter was on one side of the apron piece

* Why are you assuming a theory where PC Long misses spotting the apron piece twice is more credible than a theory where PC Long only missed seeing it once or never missed seeing it?

Pc Long's testimony has to be taken at face value, was he where he says he was? did he pass by at the time he said he did? or was the apron piece there and he missed it after all we do not know the size of the piece

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jmenges]

LoL, to be truthful not really. 'Taken a decision to retire early for reasons entirely unconnected with...' definitely is though.

So to be clear, "exercising (ones) right to resign and the (employer) has accepted (ones) resignation" wouldn't be considered "retirement"?

Interesting.................

JM

[Fiver]

It may be a theory according to you but it cannot be dismissed outright

No one has dismissed your theory outright. They have dismissed your theory because it makes no sense, requires ignoring actual evidence, and you are unable to defend it.

Your repeated inability to answer basic questions about your theory shows how weak your theory is.

* Why would Eddowes cut up an apron to use as a sanitary napkin when she already had 12 rags?

* Why would Eddowes try to use non-absorbent cloth like an apron as a sanitary napkin?

* Why would Eddowes discard the apron piece instead of washing and reusing it?

* Why would Eddowes choose so public a place - the entryway of a tenement - to remove and discard the apron piece?

* Why are you assuming the killer would have blood on both hands?

* Why are you assuming there was blood on only one side of the apron piece?

* Why are you assuming a theory where PC Long misses spotting the apron piece twice is more credible than a theory where PC Long only missed seeing it once or never missed seeing it?

[Dickere]

Out of curiosity, can someone British tell me if over yonder, "Retired" is used synonymously with "resigned in disgrace"?


Purely idle curiosity. Words have such different meanings across the pond.

LoL, to be truthful not really. 'Taken a decision to retire early for reasons entirely unconnected with...' definitely is though.

[Ally]

We have a saying over here "little things please little minds" but it only has one meaning

and your inbox must be overloaded with infractions and I am surprised you are still here given all the defamatory comments you have posted and continue to post about me, but hey ho you carry on water off a ducks back to me, that's another saying we have over here which means you carry on with the abuse I don't give a flying f..k

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why Trevor what makes you think that comment is about you? You haven't ever resigned in disgrace now have you?

[Trevor Marriott]

Out of curiosity, can someone British tell me if over yonder, "Retired" is used synonymously with "resigned in disgrace"?


Purely idle curiosity. Words have such different meanings across the pond.

We have a saying over here "little things please little minds" but it only has one meaning

and your inbox must be overloaded with infractions and I am surprised you are still here given all the defamatory comments you have posted and continue to post about me, but hey ho you carry on water off a ducks back to me, that's another saying we have over here which means you carry on with the abuse I don't give a flying f..k

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

Out of curiosity, can someone British tell me if over yonder, "Retired" is used synonymously with "resigned in disgrace"?


Purely idle curiosity. Words have such different meanings across the pond.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801900]

I really wish that you would give this one up Trevor. Looking at new angles is commendable and we should all do it but when you get to a complete dead end it serves no purpose if you can’t admit it and move on. Eddowes was wearing the apron. It has been proven by so many points beyond all reasonable doubt.

I think it is you that should be giving it up and I have not got to a dead end

You and others vehemently continue to prop up the old theory and in doing so constantly keep asking me to provide proof of my theory having done so what do I see you and others continually adjusting the old accepted theory in an attempt to prop it up.

As I have said before if this evidence you seek to rely on had to form part of a prosecution case the evidence and some of the witness testimony would be torn to shreds because it is unsafe.

It's Sunday and I have better things to do than sit here all day your attempt at humour by setting up the poll just goes to show your mentality. As the saying goes "little things please little minds"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dickere]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801900]

I really wish that you would give this one up Trevor. Looking at new angles is commendable and we should all do it but when you get to a complete dead end it serves no purpose if you can’t admit it and move on. Eddowes was wearing the apron. It has been proven by so many points beyond all reasonable doubt.

I can see Eddowes the Aardvark as the new Peppa Pig.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801877]

With a sharp knife, anything is possible, and your explanation is reliant on your suggestion that the killer cut the apron before carrying out the mutilations but have you forgotten she was wearing a jacket which would have obscured the waistband of the apron?

More evidence of the bizarre lengths that you’ll go to. We can’t know that a jacket would have ‘obscured’ anything. A jacket can ride up; a jacket could have been open; the killer could have lifted it to get to the waistband. For Christ’s sake Trevor this is embarrassing.

And with a sharp knife anything isn’t possible. Go to the kitchen and get a sharp knife, go over to your curtains, hold the bottom with one hand and try and cut upwards with the knife…..you won’t be able to do it. It’s impossible. Your suggestion would have been impossible for a solitary man with only two arms!

He could not have cut it after the mutilations because he lifted the clothes up above her waist and he would have a great deal of blood on his hands which as has been said before would have transferred to both sides of the apron piece, and furthermore by lifting the clothes up the apron would be buried under the rest of her clothes

So he cut before the mutilations…..as I said. Your attempt to try and claim that he couldn’t have cut before the mutilations is genuinely one of the most desperate things that I’ve ever heard.

But no one has put forward any plausible explanation for him to have cut a piece from the apron in the first place

Yes we have but you keep ignoring them because your so desperate to bolster your silly theory.

If he wanted the apron piece to wipe his hands or knife on he could have done that on her clothes before leaving the crime scene

Yes ‘Detective’ but in the dark of Mitre Square and under time pressure the killer found himself in, and who we can assume wasn’t an utter cretin, couldn’t have known if he’d got blood on his trousers or shoes or jacket or shirt or knife or even if he’d removed all of the blood from his hands so it makes absolute sense that he might have wanted to check himself over somewhere the light was better and away from the crime scene because the body might have been discovered at any time. So he gives himself the ‘once over’ underneath a lamp in Goulston Street then ducks into the doorway for a quick clean out of sight.

The diagonal cut to the apron through the waistband isn't plausible in my opinion as that would leave two pieces both with strings attached and the evidence doesn't show that, realistically if the killer cut the apron through the waistband down the middle and then took half away with him which is another suggestion made by another, firstly that would not leave a corner piece and secondly, both pieces would have a string attached. Even a diagonal cut would still result in the same and that would not result in a corner piece being left behind.

Its difficult to see how you can consistently keep getting this so wrong.

Corner - no matter where he cut through the waistband it would have left a corner piece. It would have been physically impossible not to have left a corner piece. At the waistband there were 2 corner areas. Cutting away a chunk that included one of those corners would have left the other.

String - when he cut through the the waistband the string was still partially within the waistband and the rest of it underneath Eddowes body where she tied it around here self. The killer cuts down from the waistband and pulls the loose piece away; the string naturally slides through the waistband (due to the weight of her body being on it) and remains in situ. Piece taken away to Goulston Street with no string attached…..piece left in Mitre Square with the string still attached.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I really wish that you would give this one up Trevor. Looking at new angles is commendable and we should all do it but when you get to a complete dead end it serves no purpose if you can’t admit it and move on. Eddowes was wearing the apron. It has been proven by so many points beyond all reasonable doubt.

[jmenges]

prove it. where ? when? for how long? how many murders did you solve? what was your solve rate?
i want documented evidence. name one person/ victim whos murder you personally have solved.


And just what the hell is a "murder squad detective"??

I dont have to prove anything to you, or anybody else on here

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Male Strippers, eh?

JM

[DJA]

I was going to post a reply on this thread,but I have been given an infraction notice.Why?.Because of my reply to Abby.Someone appears to believe I actually meant it.They kidding?It was odds on either Trevor or I would be blamed for th recent unpleasantness,but I leave posters to consider who started it.
So it's farewell from me.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801865]

No, your being accused suggesting the impossible. It is a physical impossibility to hold a piece of cloth, suspended from a waistband, in one hand and cut it with the other. It can’t be done but you ‘seek to rely’ on this.

With a sharp knife, anything is possible, and your explanation is reliant on your suggestion that the killer cut the apron before carrying out the mutilations but have you forgotten she was wearing a jacket which would have obscured the waistband of the apron? He could not have cut it after the mutilations because he lifted the clothes up above her waist and he would have a great deal of blood on his hands which as has been said before would have transferred to both sides of the apron piece, and furthermore by lifting the clothes up the apron would be buried under the rest of her clothes

But no one has put forward any plausible explanation for him to have cut a piece from the apron in the first place

If he wanted the apron piece to wipe his hands or knife on he could have done that on her clothes before leaving the crime scene

The diagonal cut to the apron through the waistband isn't plausible in my opinion as that would leave two pieces both with strings attached and the evidence doesn't show that, realistically if the killer cut the apron through the waistband down the middle and then took half away with him which is another suggestion made by another, firstly that would not leave a corner piece and secondly, both pieces would have a string attached. Even a diagonal cut would still result in the same and that would not result in a corner piece being left behind

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

I was going to post a reply on this thread,but I have been given an infraction notice.Why?.Because of my reply to Abby.Someone appears to believe I actually meant it.They kidding?It was odds on either Trevor or I would be blamed for th recent unpleasantness,but I leave posters to consider who started it.
So it's farewell from me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801863]

And I am being accused of using my imagination to prove a point

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, your being accused suggesting the impossible. It is a physical impossibility to hold a piece of cloth, suspended from a waistband, in one hand and cut it with the other. It can’t be done but you ‘seek to rely’ on this.