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 Herlock Sholmes View Post
    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
    I just found out that the word s n i g g e r i n g can’t be typed in normally - s******ing.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 12-04-2022, 04:36 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      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!!!!!!
      The idea that there were missing organs comes from the examining doctors, not the police. So that's not a police theory.

      The apron piece found in Goulston Street being dropped by the killer was a police theory. It is still the most credible theory.

      Some police were sure graffito was not written by the killer. Some expressed no opinion. So far, neither you nor anyone else has presented evidence that any of he police were sure that the graffito was written by the killer. So far, nether you nor anyone else has presented any evidence that the police had a prevailing theory about the graffito.

      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      There is no logic in a murder investigation.
      Good to see you admitting that your theory is illogical.

      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      As to the 12 pieces of rag, we do not know the quality of this material.
      Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of the term "rag'?

      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      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
      If the bloodstaining was the result of Eddowes being stabbed, then why were no blood stains noted on the 2 small blue bags made of bed ticking, 1 piece coarse white linen, 1 piece of blue and white shirting, or 1 piece red flannel?

      Why would Eddowes cut a section of apron off to use as a sanitary napkin when she had "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained"?

      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      I never mentioned constables lying, I stated some of their inquest testimony was misleading
      Perhaps you should read post #124, by Trevor Marriott.

      "Did they give false evidence to support a police theory"?

      Giving false evidence, as anyone remotely familiar with the law would know, is not just lying, but lying under oath, which is a crime.
      "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

      "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        I just found out that the word s n i g g e r i n g can’t be typed in normally - s******ing.
        Interesting. Years ago, Washington D.C. had a new mayor who was black. He wanted to make budget cuts and reduce spending. A white staffer responded by saying yeah, we have to be more *****rdly with our spending. The mayor wanted to fire him for making a racist comment until it was explained to him what was actually being said. Even then he was very reluctant to rehire him.

        c.d.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          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
          LOL... a consulting gynecologist, ROFLMAO. I'm going to say this one goes up there with your list of "experts" like the fortune teller writing expert you got to compare the Swanson marginalia and the dimwit who said it would take 45 minutes to remove an organ from a dead body.

          In other words idiots.

          But yeah, keep mansplaining how many rags a woman would need. Because you're an expert on women's menstrual cycles.

          But you still haven't answered the question; What pray tell did your "expert gyno" say was the CORRECT number of rags a woman would have needed. Since you know, all woman flow the same. I still am waiting for the "right number" that you would have allowed her to carry for her cycle. No more no less, that exact number. What is it?

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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
            Even Anderson thought the murderer left the message - and the police's view was that it was intended to create a diversion by blaming the Jews.
            Robert Anderson's view was that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

            I am unaware of him commenting on the Goulston Street graffito.
            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              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
              If, as you suggest, the 12 pieces of rag might have been from an old apron, then surely she would have used one of them as a sanitary towel, not cut her existing apron!

              There are plenty of plausible explanations for JtR to to have cut the apron, and deposited it in GS. For example, he cut himself during the evisceration, cut a piece of apron to staunch the blood, and then abandoned it on the way home when the bleeding had stopped. Another would be to deliberately draw attention to the graffito which he had written.

              Comment


              • Hopefully he used part of the apron without faeces to bandage his purported wound.
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ally View Post

                  LOL... a consulting gynecologist, ROFLMAO. I'm going to say this one goes up there with your list of "experts" like the fortune teller writing expert you got to compare the Swanson marginalia and the dimwit who said it would take 45 minutes to remove an organ from a dead body.

                  In other words idiots.

                  But yeah, keep mansplaining how many rags a woman would need. Because you're an expert on women's menstrual cycles.

                  But you still haven't answered the question; What pray tell did your "expert gyno" say was the CORRECT number of rags a woman would have needed. Since you know, all woman flow the same. I still am waiting for the "right number" that you would have allowed her to carry for her cycle. No more no less, that exact number. What is it?
                  I am not an expert and that's why I consulted an expert I am sure he would object to being called an idiot, as would the rest of the experts who gave their valued opinions which clearly you have a problem accepting

                  Let me ask you a question do you carry around 12 sanitary devices in your bag when you are menstruating?



                  Comment


                  • Oh I adore experts. Proper ones, who ... you know, actually have a clue what they are talking about.

                    From Obstetrics: the Science and the Art, by Charles Meigs, 1852:

                    “For the most part, as soon as the menses are perceived to begin to flow, the woman applies a T-bandage, consisting of a napkin.... (cut out all the intervening discussion of the mechanics of application to focus on the important part)...

                    Many female patients have assured me they never use less than a dozen napkins upon each catamenial occasion— and
                    fifteen, and even twenty such changes are not very rare in the history of healthy menstruations. An ounce to a napkin is, perhaps, not an excessive computation.”



                    And as for whether I carry around 12 sanitary devices in my bag when I am menstruating, if I were homeless, I probably would. Where do you think Catherine Eddowes would be keeping hers? In her spare closet?

                    Do give my very best to your gyno pal, who clearly doesn't know their facts from their vaginal canal.

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                      If, as you suggest, the 12 pieces of rag might have been from an old apron, then surely she would have used one of them as a sanitary towel, not cut her existing apron!

                      There are plenty of plausible explanations for JtR to to have cut the apron, and deposited it in GS. For example, he cut himself during the evisceration, cut a piece of apron to staunch the blood, and then abandoned it on the way home when the bleeding had stopped. Another would be to deliberately draw attention to the graffito which he had written.
                      I don't know where the pieces of rag came from or what material they were made from and I don't subscribe to the idea that she cut her own apron because I don't believe she was wearing an apron and she was simply in possession of two old pieces of apron which had come from a full apron in the past because she had one piece of apron listed in her possessions and the other piece found in GS there is no evidence to show that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron.

                      If he didn't remove the organs at the crime scene then how could he have cut himself removing them

                      The description of the apron piece is not consistent with the scenario you cite, surely if he had done that he would have waited until he got home to dispose of the apron piece and besides the apron piece by how it was matched would have been too big to use as a bandage.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ally View Post
                        Oh I adore experts. Proper ones, who ... you know, actually have a clue what they are talking about.

                        From Obstetrics: the Science and the Art, by Charles Meigs, 1852:

                        “For the most part, as soon as the menses are perceived to begin to flow, the woman applies a T-bandage, consisting of a napkin.... (cut out all the intervening discussion of the mechanics of application to focus on the important part)...

                        Many female patients have assured me they never use less than a dozen napkins upon each catamenial occasion— and
                        fifteen, and even twenty such changes are not very rare in the history of healthy menstruations. An ounce to a napkin is, perhaps, not an excessive computation.”



                        And as for whether I carry around 12 sanitary devices in my bag when I am menstruating, if I were homeless, I probably would. Where do you think Catherine Eddowes would be keeping hers? In her spare closet?

                        Do give my very best to your gyno pal, who clearly doesn't know their historical facts from their vaginal canal.
                        Eddowes was not homeless she had lodgings

                        So you are now a self-proclaimed expert on Victorian women and their menstrual cycles and you know more than a consultant gynaecologist



                        Comment


                        • You still hold onto the nonsense that the 2 pieces of apron didn’t make up a whole apron and that she wasn’t wearing one that night? It’s hard to credit that you haven’t let this go and it just goes to illustrate what I said in an earlier post. Any ‘new’ theory will do. It can be total hogwash but it doesn’t matter as long as it’s a ‘new’ theory. A theory just for the sake of it. The evidence that she was wearing an apron that night and that the 2 pieces made up a whole apron is beyond doubt.

                          There’s far too much out and out silliness talked about on this case. New thinking is good but we really need to weed out the nonsense. Too much time is wasted refuting plain daftness.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Eddowes was not homeless she had lodgings

                            So you are now a self-proclaimed expert on Victorian women and their menstrual cycles and you know more than a consultant gynaecologist

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Your inability to just ever admit you are wrong, even when you are confronted by direct fact is .... truly evidence of quite the pathology. One, Catherine did not have a steady lodging. She moved. From lodging house to lodging house, like she had in the days preceding her death which was preceded by a lengthy travel from a hops picking expedition out of the city.

                            And two, I'll put my expert, named and published in the Victorian era about how many sanitary napkins a Victorian era woman would have used against your "nameless" pulled straight from your ass and having absolutely no credentials gyno "consultant". But go ahead and provide a name. I'd love to check credentials. And extensively quiz them on their comprehension of Victorian era sanitary devices, the use thereof, and their familiarity with the wide variety of uterine sloughings.

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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ally View Post

                              Your inability to just ever admit you are wrong, even when you are confronted by direct fact is .... truly evidence of quite the pathology. One, Catherine did not have a steady lodging. She moved. From lodging house to lodging house, like she had in the days preceding her death which was preceded by a lengthy travel from a hops picking expedition out of the city.

                              And two, I'll put my expert, named and published in the Victorian era about how many sanitary napkins a Victorian era woman would have used against your "nameless" pulled straight from your ass and having absolutely no credentials gyno "consultant". But go ahead and provide a name. I'd love to check credentials. And extensively quiz them on their comprehension of Victorian era sanitary devices, the use thereof, and their familiarity with the wide variety of uterine sloughings.
                              What am I wrong about? I am simply providing alternatives to the old accepted theories which do not stand up to close scrutiny

                              You are the one who should be producing direct facts, you are the one challenging the expert's credibility please feel free to publish those facts, either put up or shut up

                              If you want to know the details of all of my expert's credentials they can be found in my book "Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth" which you might like to read and appraise yourself of the results of my long cold case review after all you might learn something

                              Comment


                              • "Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth about my as yet to be proven new theory '' that seems to have a better ring to it going by the post of late.
                                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X