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

[Elamarna]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It may be a theory according to me?

What else is it?
It's an idea you have put forward, I lacks any supporting evidence.
That you can even say it's a theory according to me, shows just how poorly equipped you are to debate. It also implies you think it's more than theory, the sheer arrogance of that, along with your claim.that historians lack your abilities is truly astounding.

[Elamarna]

But he could not have been shown the whole apron which he stated he would be able to recognise if he were shown it because it could not have been shown to him as a full apron only two pieces, and unless someone physically held it up so as to see it was the full apron which there is no evidence to support this, and besides having been shown the two pieces how was he able to identify it as the one she was wearing the two pieces were from a white apron and there was nothing disclosed which made it different or identifiable from any other white apron. In reality he could have been show two other pieces of whiet apron and he would still have said the same

I am not disputing he was shown two pieces which by the time he gave his evidence he would have already known that two pieces had been found and matched what I am disputing is the positive ID of a full apron and I also note that the testimony you refer to was not in his official testimony but was reported in The Times and may not be as accurate as you profess

On another note Dr Brown describes the Mortuary piece as having a string attached and you can tie an apron with just one string

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801832]

Basically Trevor you are saying that everyone apart from yourself is too stupid to evaluate evidence. We see exactly what you see but we assess the whole in a fair way, or at least we attempt to. If we see half a dozen newspaper reports but in one particular version one of them is worded differently or omits a particular point you focus solely on that one when it suits you to shout ‘unsafe.’ Whereas a more reasoned approach would allow a fairer and far more likely conclusion. Or you focus on a triviality and interpret it in an unreasonable and biased way. A perfect example is Collard’s use of the word ‘apparently.’ You react as if this rings alarm bells when it actually makes perfect sense. The apron piece had been cut so it obviously couldn’t have still been properly attached to her body but the fact that it was found outside of her clothing (as opposed to inside like the rest of the items) leaves no other conclusion but that she was wearing it. Therefore entirely reasonably he uses the word ‘apparently.’ She clearly had been wearing it but she couldn’t have been said to have actually been wearing it after it had been cut by the killer. This is obvious stuff. There is no mystery about it.

It can’t be simply a case of disregarding all newspaper accounts or of accepting them wholesale. We make a judgment but we have to do it without bias and this is something that you repeatedly fail to do. You arrive at a theory and then try to discredit and dismiss anything that doesn’t fit. So it’s actually you that’s propping up a theory. You take a defend-at-all-cost approach. How many times has this been apparent. I’ll use an obvious one that I’ve made before. You aim to discredit and throw doubt on two police officers who spent time with Eddowes (Hutt and Robinson) who both saw her wearing an apron. You say “how could they remember it?” And yet when we discus whether Kelly’s heart was missing or not (it was) you seek to rely on Reid who was remembering back 8 years previously! This is cherry picking.

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?

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Pardon?

He is shown the two portions, are you seriously suggesting he could not tell if they formed a whole apron?

They were produced in paper bags

So it doesn't say the two portions were held up, nor does it say they were not, it says he was shown BOTH portions. That clearly let him make his conclusion.

But we do not know the full circumstances as t what happened and how he came to that conclusion

So now you want to question what he said he believed, despite the fact it's a sworn and signed deposition.

There is nothing in his signed deposition regarding the apron pieces it was reported in the times newspaper

But it's not just this issue.

He along with others claims she was wearing an apron at the police station, this is in the signed depositions, yet you chose not to believe it, not for any sound reason, but because it does not fit your theory.

It's not that I choose to not believe it I have to ask how those officers when asked several days later could remember if she was wearing an apron at the police station when almost every woman was wearing a white apron and what distinguished it so as to make them remember days later and on the subject of police officers, Sgt Byfield who was the station Sgt and was responsible for booking her into custody and releasing her makes no mention of her wearing an apron.

Why do we not just dismiss all the evidence and depositions that don't fit your theory?

The depositions and their content cannot be questioned because the witnesses would have been asked to read them before signing them

Ignore solid historical sources in favour of your opinion. Even if we did the theory that she was using this cloth as a sanitary towels fails to pass even the mildest scrutiny.

How the apron piece is described is consistent with its being used in the way described and not to wipe hands or a knife on

The arguments around the 12 separate pieces of cloth you present are not simply ludicrous but totally unrealistic.

I dont present any arguments for the 12 pieces firstly we do not know the makeup of the material so we can't say for what purpose she had them with her for, bearing in mind she was described as a hawker so depending on the quality of the material she could have had them with her to sell to make money

Please do not attempt to hide behind your unnamed expert, as you did in previous posts. The idea that women do not know if 12 towels is excessive is insulting. And as I said anyone whose lived with a woman, maybe had to purchase said products, knows that 12 is not unrealistic.
Yet you KNOW better.

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

The idea that having used this large cloth , she would simply dispose of it in the street, despite the fact it could be reused is comical.
Theory , with no common sense or even basic knowledge, applied .

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.

Again your post simply shows the bias you employ to push your theory.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801824]

The facts I put forward are based on my assement of the orginal facts and evidence which is cleary riddled with evidential flaws which a historian or an armchair detective might not be able to see and comprehend.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Basically Trevor you are saying that everyone apart from yourself is too stupid to evaluate evidence. We see exactly what you see but we assess the whole in a fair way, or at least we attempt to. If we see half a dozen newspaper reports but in one particular version one of them is worded differently or omits a particular point you focus solely on that one when it suits you to shout ‘unsafe.’ Whereas a more reasoned approach would allow a fairer and far more likely conclusion. Or you focus on a triviality and interpret it in an unreasonable and biased way. A perfect example is Collard’s use of the word ‘apparently.’ You react as if this rings alarm bells when it actually makes perfect sense. The apron piece had been cut so it obviously couldn’t have still been properly attached to her body but the fact that it was found outside of her clothing (as opposed to inside like the rest of the items) leaves no other conclusion but that she was wearing it. Therefore entirely reasonably he uses the word ‘apparently.’ She clearly had been wearing it but she couldn’t have been said to have actually been wearing it after it had been cut by the killer. This is obvious stuff. There is no mystery about it.

It can’t be simply a case of disregarding all newspaper accounts or of accepting them wholesale. We make a judgment but we have to do it without bias and this is something that you repeatedly fail to do. You arrive at a theory and then try to discredit and dismiss anything that doesn’t fit. So it’s actually you that’s propping up a theory. You take a defend-at-all-cost approach. How many times has this been apparent. I’ll use an obvious one that I’ve made before. You aim to discredit and throw doubt on two police officers who spent time with Eddowes (Hutt and Robinson) who both saw her wearing an apron. You say “how could they remember it?” And yet when we discus whether Kelly’s heart was missing or not (it was) you seek to rely on Reid who was remembering back 8 years previously! This is cherry picking.

[Elamarna]

But he could not have been shown the whole apron which he stated he would be able to recognise if he were shown it because it could not have been shown to him as a full apron only two pieces, and unless someone physically held it up so as to see it was the full apron which there is no evidence to support this, and besides having been shown the two pieces how was he able to identify it as the one she was wearing the two pieces were from a white apron and there was nothing disclosed which made it different or identifiable from any other white apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Pardon?

He is shown the two portions, are you seriously suggesting he could not tell if they formed a whole apron?

So it doesn't say the two portions were held up, nor does it say they were not, it says he was shown BOTH portions. That clearly let him make his conclusion.

So now you want to question what he said he believed, despite the fact it's a sworn and signed deposition.
But it's not just this issue.

He along with others claims she was wearing an apron at the police station, this is in the signed depositions, yet you chose not to believe it, not for any sound reason, but because it does not fit your theory.

Why do we not just dismiss all the evidence and depositions that don't fit your theory?
Ignore solid historical sources in favour of your opinion.
Even if we did the theory that she was using this cloth as a sanitary towels fails to pass even the mildest scrutiny.

The arguments around the 12 separate pieces of cloth you present are not simply ludicrous but totally unrealistic.

Please do not attempt to hide behind your unnamed expert, as you did in previous posts. The idea that women do not know if 12 towels is excessive is insulting. And as I said anyone whose lived with a woman, maybe had to purchase said products, knows that 12 is not unrealistic.
Yet you KNOW better.

The idea that having used this large cloth , she would simply dispose of it in the street, despite the fact it could be reused is comical.
Theory , with no common sense or even basic knowledge applied .


Again your post simply shows the bias you employ to push your theory.

[Ally]

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

.... interesting.

[Trevor Marriott]

Seriously?

My interpretation you say, let's look.

He says he cannot say unless he sees the WHOLE apron.

He is then shown both pieces and confirms it is the apron.

That seem pretty clear, it's not about personal interpretation, he says he can only comment if he sees the WHOLE apron, he is shown both pieces and confirms.
Using his own qualifying words, that unless he sees the WHOLE apron He cannot say, for him to then say he must see the WHOLE APRON.

That you insist on stating that the WHOLE was not present is PERSONL INTERPRETATION on your part. Heavily bias, to support you view that the apron was not complete.

That interpretation fails serious scrutiny, it is not just unsafe, it is disingenuous.

But he could not have been shown the whole apron which he stated he would be able to recognise if he were shown it because it could not have been shown to him as a full apron only two pieces, and unless someone physically held it up so as to see it was the full apron which there is no evidence to support this, and besides having been shown the two pieces how was he able to identify it as the one she was wearing the two pieces were from a white apron and there was nothing disclosed which made it different or identifiable from any other white apron. In reality he could have been show two other pieces of whiet apron and he would still have said the same

I am not disputing he was shown two pieces which by the time he gave his evidence he would have already known that two pieces had been found and matched what I am disputing is the positive ID of a full apron and I also note that the testimony you refer to was not in his official testimony but was reported in The Times and may not be as accurate as you profess

On another note Dr Brown describes the Mortuary piece as having a string attached and you can tie an apron with just one string

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I picked out one if I had the time or the inclination there would be many

He says he could not tell unless he saw the whole apron but the whole apron was not there, to be seen there were only two pieces your interpretation is that the two pieces made up a whole apron but there is no evidence to prove that

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Seriously?

My interpretation you say, let's look.

He says he cannot say unless he sees the WHOLE apron.

He is then shown both pieces and confirms it is the apron.

That seem pretty clear, it's not about personal interpretation, he says he can only comment if he sees the WHOLE apron, he is shown both pieces and confirms.
Using his own qualifying words, that unless he sees the WHOLE apron He cannot say, for him to then say he must see the WHOLE APRON.

That you insist on stating that the WHOLE was not present is PERSONL INTERPRETATION on your part. Heavily bias, to support you view that the apron was not complete.

That interpretation fails serious scrutiny, it is not just unsafe, it is disingenuous.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801824]

The facts I put forward are based on my assement of the orginal facts and evidence which is cleary riddled with evidential flaws which a historian or an armchair detective might not be able to see and comprehend.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again armchair detective, is used presumably as an attempted put down. As I previously pointed out, given we are all using the same material and you are now retirrd, you are also an Armchair detective.

To suggest that serious historians, are unable to see or comprehend what you do is not only risible, but the height of ego and arrogance.

I have told you that you could offer so much to this field, and I stand by that, but sadly you are so intent on proving (and failing to do so) that ONLY you have the insight needed , that you waste what you could offer.
It's tragic .

[Trevor Marriott]

No you have shown one report gave a misleading impression, that's why we, serious researchers , read ALL the reports, both the press and the official papers.

The official papers make it very clear that several witnesses, say she was wearing an apron, and that the portions they were shown were that apron.

Indeed one said he could not say UNLESS he saw the WHOLE apron.
Both pieces being produced he confirmed it was the apron.
Having previously said he could not say UNLESS he saw the WHOLE apron, it follows that the two portions made up the WHOLE APRON.

That you believe one line from one report demonstrates that the inquest reports are unsafe, simply shows the bias which you previously confirmed you use, that you follow tgat which supports your theory.

I picked out one if I had the time or the inclination there would be many

He says he could not tell unless he saw the whole apron but the whole apron was not there, to be seen there were only two pieces your interpretation is that the two pieces made up a whole apron but there is no evidence to prove that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I am not talking about historical research I am talking about assessing and evaluating the facts and the evidence in these murders and providing what I believe to be a fair assessment of the accuracy and truthfulness of those facts and evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's historical research, how can it be anything else.
We are looking at historical documents and attempting to reach conclusions.


That you think this is not historical research is very revealing, you cleary either cannot be bothered to apply accepted historical methodology to your comments, or you do not know how to.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;n801820]

A far better historian than you that's clear.
I seriously doubt you have the ability to tell good historical research and methology from bad.

You present personal belief as FACT, you cherry pick and have clearly stated in a previous post that historians follow the evidence tgat suits their theory.
Only bad historians or non historians/authors like yourself do that.

The facts I put forward are based on my assement of the orginal facts and evidence which is cleary riddled with evidential flaws which a historian or an armchair detective might not be able to see and comprehend.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I have proved conclusively that it is unsafe to rely on newspaper reports and for your benefit, I will show the example again I posted this shows how it is unsafe and how a misplaced word can cloud people's perception of the evidence and how they interpret it

Dr Browns signed deposition
“My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached

Telegraph report
Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No you have shown one report gave a misleading impression, that's why we, serious researchers , read ALL the reports, both the press and the official papers.

The official papers make it very clear that several witnesses, say she was wearing an apron, and that the portions they were shown were that apron.

Indeed one said he could not say UNLESS he saw the WHOLE apron.
Both pieces being produced he confirmed it was the apron.
Having previously said he could not say UNLESS he saw the WHOLE apron, it follows that the two portions made up the WHOLE APRON.

That you believe one line from one report demonstrates that the inquest reports are unsafe, simply shows the bias which you previously confirmed you use, that you follow tgat which supports your theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

That you believe this conjecture on your part is anything other than unsupported speculation is again poor methodology and a very poor attempt at presenting a deeply bias, very flawed and unsafe approach to historical research.
I do hope you understand no one is taking you seriously.

I am not talking about historical research I am talking about assessing and evaluating the facts and the evidence in these murders and providing what I believe to be a fair assessment of the accuracy and truthfulness of those facts and evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk