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

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801860]

This is a perfect example of you believing that your reasoning is sound even though you’ve made the least sound of points.

The killer would have had to have cut from the bottom of the apron because that would have been impossible. If he’d have grabbed the apron with one hand with the knife in the other he’d have just had a large piece of cloth hanging down loose making it impossible to even begin cutting. To cut cloth with a knife the cloth need to be held firm on both sides of the blade. So unless the killer had an assistant or three arms then he couldn’t have done it.

What he glaringly obviously could have done though was to have held the waistband with one hand, put the knife under the waistband and cut downwards (and probably diagonally as Wick suggested in his diagram. The killer pulls away the GS piece and the string, held in place by the weight of Kate’s body, slides through the waistband and stays with the piece with the body.

Simple.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801834]

And not forgetting that her killer pulled her clothes up around her waist so that any apron she had been wearing would have been furthest away from him and less accessible, and before you come back and say he could have cut the apron before the mutilations if that had been the case he would have cut a piece from the bottom and we would then see evidence of the remaining part of the apron still around her waist and visual evidence of the apron strings being cut, but both pieces of the apron strings would still be joined at some point.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is a perfect example of you believing that your reasoning is sound even though you’ve made the least sound of points.

The killer would have had to have cut from the bottom of the apron because that would have been impossible. If he’d have grabbed the apron with one hand with the knife in the other he’d have just had a large piece of cloth hanging down loose making it impossible to even begin cutting. To cut cloth with a knife the cloth need to be held firm on both sides of the blade. So unless the killer had an assistant or three arms then he couldn’t have done it.

What he glaringly obviously could have done though was to have held the waistband with one hand, put the knife under the waistband and cut downwards (and probably diagonally as Wick suggested in his diagram. The killer pulls away the GS piece and the string, held in place by the weight of Kate’s body, slides through the waistband and stays with the piece with the body.

Simple.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The sanitary towel ‘theory’ is laughable nonsense which has been shown to be a desperate attempt at originality. That Trevor peddles such stuff on here shows that his reason is to persuade everyone on here of its validity. He’s failed time and time again to do this but his ego won’t allow him to even consider that he might be wrong.

[Elamarna]

Again why can you NOT use the quote facility correctly, it makes replying so time consuming the way you posts

Because they wont accept that the evidence they seek to rely on is unsafe

Translation , because most won't accept you are right.
They have looked at the evidence for the current theory and found it to be sound.
They have looked at the evidence you give to support your idea, and find it wanting.

Thats not going to happen

Should we take that to mean you believe there is a conspiracy to stop you telling the "Truth".

Equally, it is for you to prove the old accepted theory correct The original evidence does not stand up to serious scrutiny

You clearly do not understand how this works.
The current theory as been scrutinised and studied for man years, it is general accepted as being both plausible and probable. It as not failed to stand up to scrutiny as you clam, that is simply your own individual view.
Therefore if you wish to challenge that view, then YOU must provide evidence to dismiss it. Others need only counter your claims.

That's how it works in the real world.

Me: Despite you continuing to repeat a few points over and over, you have not convinced the vast majority of people that the current theory is flaw, unreliable or unsafe.
In those circumstances it is for you to convince the majority, that's how theories work.

Trevor : And those seeking to protect the old theory keep doing the same

Such a reply is completely irrelevant to the comment it claims to be replying to.

If taken as a reply to the comment, not only is it irrelevant but it makes no sense.

It's not arrogance it is attempting to show you and others that there could be a more plausible explanation than the old one

Suggestions of alternatives are one thing. Insistinting that only you know the truth, that your opinion is supreme, and you know better than historians who do not understand as you do, is I am afraid arrogant.

That's not true I highlight the flaws in the evidence in all of the murders, and No I don't claim that at all but I do claim that much of this evidence is unsafe to totally rely on

Sorry but it is true, all evidence that does not agree with your view is deemed to be unsafe.
Trevor, it's time to take a long look in the mirror.

There is no imagination on my part and it might be advisable for there to be on your part so you can see exactly what I am suggesting

Clear as you have not one shread of evidence, physical, written or implied, that the apron was used as a sanitary towel , you do rely greatly on imagination.

I clearly see what you are suggesting , and I am not convinced by your claims

[c.d.]

Hey guys, this topic was already a dead horse a few hundred posts ago. It might be time for everyone connected to it to move on. It has deteriorated into nothing but a pissing match at this point. Let it go.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Full circle, why do you think people support the current theory over your suggestion?
I asked before, you did not answer then.

Because they wont accept that the evidence they seek to rely on is unsafe

So again what do people gain from this, or are you suggesting some grandiose conspiracy to keep you quiet?

Thats not going to happen

That's not the way it works, the old theory as you so disparaging call it is based on evidence, that you don't accept that evidence is your opinion.
Such means the onus is on you to provide compelling evidence that the theory is clearly wrong, evidence which stands up to serious scrutiny.

Equally, it is for you to prove the old accepted theory correct The original evidence does not stand up to serious scrutiny

Despite you continuing to repeat a few points over and over, you have not convinced the vast majority of people that the current theory is flaw, unreliable or unsafe.
In those circumstances it is for you to convince the majority, that's how theories work.

And those seeking to protect the old theory keep doing the same

In your opinion that is, again the arrogance you demonstrate is astounding.

It's not arrogance it is attempting to show you and others that there could be a more plausible explanation than the old one

As you say in YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

That you claim everything which does not support your theory is flawed , unsafe or questionable is the classic closed mind.

That's not true I highlight the flaws in the evidence in all of the murders, and No I don't claim that at all but I do claim that much of this evidence is unsafe to totally rely on




I see, your comments simply demonstrate to me how you have allowed imagination to rule your views.

There is no imagination on my part and it might be advisable for there to be on your part so you can see exactly what I am suggesting

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

There is no ignorance on my part but the same cannot be said for you and others who cannot or will not consider anything that goes against the old theory

Full circle, why do you think people support the current theory over your suggestion?
I asked before, you did not answer then.

So again what do people gain from this, or are you suggesting some grandiose conspiracy to keep you quiet?

I would suggest the burden of proof lies with you and all the others to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts and evidence regarding the old accepted theories surrounding this specific murder can be totally relied on.

That's not the way it works, the old theory as you so disparaging call it is based on evidence, that you don't accept that evidence is your opinion.
Such means the onus is on you to provide compelling evidence that the theory is clearly wrong, evidence which stands up to serious scrutiny.
Despite you continuing to repeat a few points over and over, you have not convinced the vast majority of people that the current theory is flaw, unreliable or unsafe.
In those circumstances it is for you to convince the majority, that's how theories work.

Look at it another way if you had a suspect on trial for this murder how do you think your evidence as it stands would stand up in court, I can tell you it wouldn't last 5 mins

In your opinion that is, again the arrogance you demonstrate is astounding.

In concluding

From my perspective the official inquest depositions are incomplete, and newspaper reports, if we are to believe what is set out in those reports clearly conflict with each other and are unsafe, The evidence given by Police officers is questionable

As you say in YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

That you claim everything which does not support your theory is flawed , unsafe or questionable is the classic closed mind.

So I fail to see how you can safely rely on all those facts surrounding the murder of Eddowes, and not just in relation to the apron issue

I see, your comments simply demonstrates to me how you have allowed imagination to rule your views.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801843]

I think given the same situation for cutting a piece of apron from someone wearing it would be as I stated from the bottom these other suggestions have been put forward to prop up the killer taking it.

Cutting a piece from the bottom is the most logical and the most practical and besides Eddowes was wearing a top coat which she probaly had done up making it difficult for the killer to make a cut from the waistband diagonally across

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No it’s not. The most logical is for the killer to have grabbed the waistband and cut down. How could he have cut from the bottom? Holding the bottom in one had would have left the apron flopping around. I’d go so far as to say that cutting from the bottom would have impossible. The suggestion can safely be eliminated. Along with your theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no ignorance on my part but the same cannot be said for you and others who cannot or will not consider anything that goes against the old theory


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because you’re infallible of course.

Id say that it’s you that will only consider your own theories. You simply can’t accept that what you describe as ‘old established theories’ just might be right or that the reason that they have become ‘established’ is that hundreds of intelligent people have examined the evidence over and over again and have come to the unavoidable conclusion that the available evidence points conclusively in one direction.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801841]

Only you claim to know exactly how the apron was cut which is something that you can’t possibly know but you write as if you do know and present a diagram misleadingly as if it’s the only possible option. And you use this invention to prove a non-existent point.

Eddowes was wearing an apron. Three witnesses who saw her prove it. The fact that it was outside of her clothing proves it. The fact that she wouldn’t have destroyed clothing (especially carrying so many cloths) proves it. The fact that there’s no mention of a missing pieces proves that there wasn’t one. Your theory is a piece of utterly baseless speculation based on inventions and the poor interpretation of evidence. The fact that no one agrees with you should tell you this but your huge ego won’t allow you to consider the possibility that you might be wrong and that everyone else is right.

You really don’t do yourself any favours on this forum Trevor. There can be no single poster who is so universally disagreed with.

I think given the same situation for cutting a piece of apron from someone wearing it would be as I stated from the bottom these other suggestions have been put forward to prop up the killer taking it.

Cutting a piece from the bottom is the most logical and the most practical and besides Eddowes was wearing a top coat which she probaly had done up making it difficult for the killer to make a cut from the waistband diagonally across

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Your claim he could not be shown the WHOLE apron is I am afraid yet another examexample of your flawed ability to analyse evidence.

Of course he could have been shown the WHOLE apron, and apparently he was.
That you believe he could not be shown the WHOLE apron is NOTHING more than you theory driven arguments, it portrays a completely closed mind, and a degree of ignorance, which surprises me.

As I said before, let's reject everything that does not fit your theory. Evidence is only safe if it agrees with you.

There is no ignorance on my part but the same cannot be said for you and others who cannot or will not consider anything that goes against the old theory

I would suggest the burden of proof lies with you and all the others to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts and evidence regarding the old accepted theories surrounding this specific murder can be totally relied on. Look at it another way if you had a suspect on trial for this murder how do you think your evidence as it stands would stand up in court, I can tell you it wouldn't last 5 mins

In concluding

From my perspective the official inquest depositions are incomplete, and newspaper reports, if we are to believe what is set out in those reports clearly conflict with each other and are unsafe, The evidence given by Police officers is questionable

So I fail to see how you can safely rely on all those facts surrounding the murder of Eddowes, and not just in relation to the apron issue

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801834]

I am not cherry picking and there is a big difference between a police officer being actively engaged in the investigation of Kelly's murder who had a hands-on approach who would have certainly known at the time of her murder whether anyone took her heart as something like that he would have remembered till his dying day more than a couple of officers who were asked to remember if a victim was wearing an item of clothing days later.

Put on the spot if you are honest could you remember what colour shirt you were wearing on Monday?

If Brown's testimony is to be accepted then the mortuary piece had a string attached and was a corner of the apron but the GS piece did not have a string attached
So how do we explain this, If the killer had wanted to cut a piece of an apron from an apron she was wearing, where is the most obvious place to cut a piece it has to be from the bottom of the apron. So that being said please explain how the only part of the apron found on her or in her possessions was a corner piece with only one string attached. what happened to the remaining 75% of the apron how did the killer manage to cut 75% of the apron and if he had cut and taken away the rest of the apron why is there no string on the GS piece?

Brown said:

“My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin”

This didn’t mean that his attention was drawn to the apron as if he’d never seen it before, it means that his attention was drawn to the blood spots which were located at the corner of the apron where the string was attached.

And not forgetting that her killer pulled her clothes up around her waist so that any apron she had been wearing would have been furthest away from him and less accessible, and before you come back and say he could have cut the apron before the mutilations if that had been the case he would have cut a piece from the bottom and we would then see evidence of the remaining part of the apron still around her waist and visual evidence of the apron strings being cut, but both pieces of the apron strings would still be joined at some point.

You’re just making things up to suit….again. It’s entirely possible that in cutting the apron before the mutilations he simply put the knife under the waistband and cut either down and across (through the patch which you studiously avoid all mention of) or probably more likely as Wickerman suggested diagonally from waistband to the side (through the patch which you studiously avoid all mention of)

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Only you claim to know exactly how the apron was cut which is something that you can’t possibly know but you write as if you do know and present a diagram misleadingly as if it’s the only possible option. And you use this invention to prove a non-existent point.

Eddowes was wearing an apron. Three witnesses who saw her prove it. The fact that it was outside of her clothing proves it. The fact that she wouldn’t have destroyed clothing (especially carrying so many cloths) proves it. The fact that there’s no mention of a missing pieces proves that there wasn’t one. Your theory is a piece of utterly baseless speculation based on inventions and the poor interpretation of evidence. The fact that no one agrees with you should tell you this but your huge ego won’t allow you to consider the possibility that you might be wrong and that everyone else is right.

You really don’t do yourself any favours on this forum Trevor. There can be no single poster who is so universally disagreed with.

[Elamarna]

I am not hiding behind any of my experts a consultant gynaecologist stated that blood spotting in some women is a part of the menstrual process and furthermore that expert also stated that women of the class of Eddowes who were malnourished and living the lifestyle she did may not have had a full-on period. if you don't accept that as fact then you are not considering other alternatives as you keep telling me a Historian is supposed to do

I see, originally you said 12 was excessive according to the informatiin you had from.your expert.
Now I see you.provide qualifiers such as "some" and " may, not have" ; that is very different.

Sadly, but not surprisingly that is not how you originally presented the argument.

Most who challenged your claim, pointed out that all women are individual, that is taking all alternatives into account.

Now, who's making things up to suit, there is no evidence to show the size of either piece of the apron and it wasn't discarded in the street. She had the time and the opportunity to make her way back in the direction of her lodgings in Flower and Dean Street passing through GS on her way and as she was not seen by anyone after leaving the police station my explanation cannot be dismissed outright

No.one quoted a specific size, just large, which is subjective.
Are you seriously suggesting it was a small napkin like piece?

You appear to boast that your theory cannot be dismissed outright, almost like it's a game.
If the best I could do was say you can't dismiss my theory , without presenting even half convincing evidence to support it, rather than simply trying to rubbish other theories, again with no convincing evidence I would be ashamed.

[Fiver]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So that would be zero, then.

[Fiver]

Being experienced does not make you good.

"A mule that has been on 100 campaigns with Frederick the Great is still a mule "