Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    The police case/theory in the case of Eddowes was based on how they interpreted the evidence that they had to work with, and how they rightly or wrongly assessed that evidence and built their case on that assessment which we now know as the old accepted theory which 130 years later may prove to have been wrong.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    But they wouldn’t have falsified evidence or lied to pointlessly back up a theory that they knew had no basis in fact.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      There was a police theory in the Eddowes murder that being that the killer after murdering Eddowes removed the organs and then cut a piece of her apron taking it away with him and then deposited it in Goulston Street after writing the graffiti.
      1) The idea that there were missing organs comes from the examining doctors, not the police. Dr Phillips first stated it at the Chapman Inquest.

      Dr Brown stated it as well, in the Eddowes Inquest.

      "[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.​"

      2) The most logical explanation for Eddowes apron being cut is that the killer did it. The idea that Eddowes did to to use as a sanitary napkin collapses once you look at the inventory of items found on her body, which includes "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained".

      3) Some police thought the Goulston Street Graffito was written by the Ripper. Others did not. I have seen no signs that there was an official theory, let alone signs of beat constables lying to support the theory.

      In his 6 November, 1888 report, Warren clearly believed the graffito was written to attack the Jews, but expressed no opinion about whether or not it was written by the killer.

      In his memoirs, Dew made it clear that he did not think the graffito was written by the murderer. "There was no reason, so far as I can see, why this particular message should have proved more useful than many others which Jack the Ripper was supposed to have written. As I have said before, it is questionable whether these messages were the work of the murderer at all. Why should he fool around chalking things on walls when his life was imperilled by every minute he loitered? Murderers do foolish things, I know, but such an action does not fit into the mental picture I have formed of the character of Jack the Ripper."​

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        But they wouldn’t have falsified evidence or lied to pointlessly back up a theory that they knew had no basis in fact.
        Exactly. Some police have lied, but they have so done so when they believed it would profit them. There was no profit in lying about missing organs or the apron or the graffito. And the idea that two different police departments would collude on a pointless lie makes no sense at all.

        Comment


        • It’s speculation of course but Long might have lied about how diligently he was doing his job when he passed along Goulston Street at 2.20 and Harvey might have lied about going to the Mitre Square end of Church Passage, but we certainly can’t assume that this was the case. The only reason that I have slightly more suspicion against Harvey is that he was dismissed 6 months later. We don’t know what it was for of course but he might not have been the most diligent of officers.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            1) The idea that there were missing organs comes from the examining doctors, not the police. Dr Phillips first stated it at the Chapman Inquest.

            Dr Brown stated it as well, in the Eddowes Inquest.

            So taking that all into account the police investigation into the murders of Chapman and Eddowes was based on the facts that they were both killed by the same hand, and the killer removed their organs at the crime scene. Additionally, in the case of Eddowes a piece of apron matching a piece of apron found in Eddowes possessions was believed to have been taken away and dropped by the killer in GS. That is the police theory!!!!!!

            2) The most logical explanation for Eddowes apron being cut is that the killer did it. The idea that Eddowes did to to use as a sanitary napkin collapses once you look at the inventory of items found on her body, which includes "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained".

            There is no logic in a murder investigation.

            As to the 12 pieces of rag, we do not know the quality of this material. Eddowes was described as being a hawker so she may have had them in her possession to sell 12 pieces of the same material is suggestive of that. The bloodstaining was clearly a result of her being stabbed in and around the abdominal area

            3) Some police thought the Goulston Street Graffito was written by the Ripper. Others did not. I have seen no signs that there was an official theory, let alone signs of beat constables lying to support the theory.

            I never mentioned constables lying, I stated some of their inquest testimony was misleading
            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              I find it very difficult to believe that the impoverished Victorian Eastenders would actually pay money to buy rags.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                I find it very difficult to believe that the impoverished Victorian Eastenders would actually pay money to buy rags.
                Well she clearly had that number of "rags" for a specific reason, far too many for her to carry and use as her own sanitary napkins as some have suggested but we do not know the specific material or the quality of them so again you cannot dismiss alternative explanations.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  It’s speculation of course but Long might have lied about how diligently he was doing his job when he passed along Goulston Street at 2.20 and Harvey might have lied about going to the Mitre Square end of Church Passage, but we certainly can’t assume that this was the case. The only reason that I have slightly more suspicion against Harvey is that he was dismissed 6 months later. We don’t know what it was for of course but he might not have been the most diligent of officers.
                  And PC Long was dismissed the following year for drunkenness. Unlikely it was the one and only time he drank on duty. Two PC's in the Mitre Square case both dismissed soon after.
                  Thems the Vagaries.....

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                    And PC Long was dismissed the following year for drunkenness. Unlikely it was the one and only time he drank on duty. Two PC's in the Mitre Square case both dismissed soon after.
                    Thanks for reminding me of that Al. I remembered that Harvey had been dismissed but I’d completely forgotten about Long. So we have PC’s Long and Harvey both dismissed from the force in July 1889. (I’d previously mistakenly said that Harvey was sacked 6 months later for some reason) I wonder if their dismissals were connected?

                    Insert conspiracy theory here.


                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Well she clearly had that number of "rags" for a specific reason, far too many for her to carry and use as her own sanitary napkins as some have suggested but we do not know the specific material or the quality of them so again you cannot dismiss alternative explanations.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Oh? Do tell me, what precisely is the amount of rags a woman would require in order to use as sanitary napkins in a given month? I cannot wait to hear this no doubt fascinating insight into the woman's womb from someone whose only intimate knowledge of same, was falling out of one.

                      Let all Oz be agreed;
                      I need a better class of flying monkeys.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Well she clearly had that number of "rags" for a specific reason, far too many for her to carry and use as her own sanitary napkins as some have suggested but we do not know the specific material or the quality of them so again you cannot dismiss alternative explanations.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        But we can state with confidence that Catherine, like many women in that area at that time, lived hand-to-mouth. She was more than likely wearing every item of clothing that she owned so why would she cut a chunk out of a perfectly good apron rather than use the pieces of cloth that she was carrying? Clearly these women coped in dealing with their menstrual cycles without resorting to chopping up their own clothing; let’s face it, they had no choice but to be resourceful and we have no reports of these women walking around half naked because they’d shredding their own clothing. The suggestion that she cut up an item of clothing that she wore for that reason makes no sense.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Well she clearly had that number of "rags" for a specific reason, far too many for her to carry and use as her own sanitary napkins as some have suggested but we do not know the specific material or the quality of them so again you cannot dismiss alternative explanations.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          So, a hawker could sell rags to impoverished Victorian Eastenders, provided they were high quality rags!

                          If Eddowes cut up her apron that day in order to use it as a sanitary towel, I wonder what other items of her clothing she cut up every other day when she needed to cope with her menstrual cycle, if she couldn't use her high quality rags!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ally View Post

                            Oh? Do tell me, what precisely is the amount of rags a woman would require in order to use as sanitary napkins in a given month? I cannot wait to hear this no doubt fascinating insight into the woman's womb from someone whose only intimate knowledge of same, was falling out of one.
                            12 would be excessive for anyone even back then in the Victorian days, especially a female who was malnourished and may not have had a full menstrual cycle, and in case you are inquisitive as to how I know this it has come from a consultant gynaecologist so your sarcastic comment and the attempt at humour has fallen on Stoney ground

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                              So, a hawker could sell rags to impoverished Victorian Eastenders, provided they were high quality rags!

                              If Eddowes cut up her apron that day in order to use it as a sanitary towel, I wonder what other items of her clothing she cut up every other day when she needed to cope with her menstrual cycle, if she couldn't use her high quality rags!
                              So who is to say that the 12 pieces of rag had not been cut from an old apron? we do not know what material they were made from

                              Researchers need to take the blinkers off and think outside the box

                              But I do not intend to debate this issue yet again it has been debated more times than I care to mention

                              Researchers can believe what they want to believe in fact no one has been able to come up with a plausible and believable explanation for the killer to cut a piece of apron and deposit it in GS

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 12-04-2022, 04:40 PM.

                              Comment


                              • There’s no need to debate anything on this particular issue. The cloth came from Eddowes apron and it was put there by the killer. The chances of any other explanations being correct are so vanishingly remote that they can’t be discussed seriously. There’s nothing wrong with taking a fresh look or of looking at something from a different perspective but it doesn’t mean that we should feel obliged to ‘insert’ a new theory just for the sake of it. Some theories have become ‘established’ for a very good reason
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X