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

[Trevor Marriott]

"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.

The old accepted theories have yet to be proven safe to rely on so there is a place for alternatives

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

What am I wrong about?

So much it would be impossible to list it all. In this specific circumstance your completely inane and incorrect, based on nothing, statement that a woman wouldn't need 12 rags for menstrual purposes.

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

I literally posted an excerpt from a Victorian obstetrics doctor, claiming how many sanitary rags a woman would use in a given month. If you don't accept direct from the era, from a medical professional in a medically published book of the time, what possible facts would you accept?

I mean it's obviously clear whatever nonsense you pay someone to tell you in support of your ludicrous theories, has more value to you than actual fact.

[Parisi North Humber]

I'm 100% behind Ally on this one. 12 menstrual sanitary pads/rags to last the month does not seem to be excessive in the least. It would mean her using less than three a day for an average 5 day cycle and a lot of women have 7 day cycles.

Helen x

[FISHY1118]

The old accepted theories have yet to be proven safe to rely on so there is a place for alternatives

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which, as ive said any ''New Theory'' that has yet to be proven is just as unsafe as an ''Alternative''. I think that is important for clarification .

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We've been here before so many times .....

[Trevor Marriott]

So much it would be impossible to list it all. In this specific circumstance your completely inane and incorrect, based on nothing, statement that a woman wouldn't need 12 rags for menstrual purposes.

I literally posted an excerpt from a Victorian obstetrics doctor, claiming how many sanitary rags a woman would use in a given month. If you don't accept direct from the era, from a medical professional in a medically published book of the time, what possible facts would you accept?

I mean it's obviously clear whatever nonsense you pay someone to tell you in support of your ludicrous theories, has more value to you than actual fact.

I do not pay and have never paid experts to opine on any of these matters

The amount of rags used would depend on the individual and the individual's lifestyle which is a fact! as stated by a modern-day gynaecologist and I am sure he knows more 130 years on from your Victorian expert

I am told by the expert that blood spotting is an integral part of the menstruation process, especially in women who are malnourished and emaciated. The apron piece from GS was described by some as being spotted with blood.

and supposing as you suggest that the 12 pieces of rag were to be used as sanitary devices how do we know that those pieces of rag were not the remains of an old apron, and that she was using one of the pieces at the time of her arrest, and after her release from custody she made her way back in the direction of Flower and Dean Street where she discarded the soiled and wet sanitary device under the archway before turning around and going back to to the city

As I stated previously the old accepted theories surrounding this murder do not stand up to close scrutiny and therefore other alternative explanations
should be explored but it seems you and others are reluctant to do so

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

We've been here before so many times .....

Yes I know and it's becoming tiresome

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Which, as ive said any ''New Theory'' that has yet to be proven is just as unsafe as an ''Alternative''. I think that is important for clarification .

A new theory is an alternative

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

and supposing as you suggest that the 12 pieces of rag were to be used as sanitary devices how do we know that those pieces of rag were not the remains of an old apron, and that she was using one of the pieces at the time of her arrest, and after her release from custody she made her way back in the direction of Flower and Dean Street where she discarded the soiled and wet sanitary device under the archway before turning around and going back to to the city

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because we know that the piece found in Goulston Street came from the apron that she was wearing at the time because Dr. Brown matched the 2 pieces up:

“Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion..”

Also, as you know, there is no record of her going back to Flower and Dean Street so she would have had to have entered the lodging house and exited it without anyone seeing her. We also have to ask (if PC. Long hadn’t missed the apron at 2.20) why she returned to the lodging house only to head straight back in the direction of Mitre Square? So Eddowes would have had to have cut a chunk out of the apron that she was wearing despite having numerous rags in her possession. After her arrest she left an area that she had no known connection to and returned to her lodging house (without any money for a room) and then immediately returned to that same area that she had no connection too (without a single person seeing her) And during this time she doesn’t use the loo at the police station or at the lodging house to deal with her period. I have to ask…were bloodied rags a common sight in the streets of Whitechapel? Or did women usually dispose of them in a less public place?

[Trevor Marriott]

Because we know that the piece found in Goulston Street came from the apron that she was wearing at the time because Dr. Brown matched the 2 pieces up:

“Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion..”

Also, as you know, there is no record of her going back to Flower and Dean Street so she would have had to have entered the lodging house and exited it without anyone seeing her. We also have to ask (if PC. Long hadn’t missed the apron at 2.20) why she returned to the lodging house only to head straight back in the direction of Mitre Square? So Eddowes would have had to have cut a chunk out of the apron that she was wearing despite having numerous rags in her possession. After her arrest she left an area that she had no known connection to and returned to her lodging house (without any money for a room) and then immediately returned to that same area that she had no connection too (without a single person seeing her) And during this time she doesn’t use the loo at the police station or at the lodging house to deal with her period. I have to ask…were bloodied rags a common sight in the streets of Whitechapel? Or did women usually dispose of them in a less public place?

I am not suggesting as a fact that she cut or tore a piece from the apron she was wearing, as stated previously the evidence to show she was wearing an apron is unsafe but even if it is accepted that she was wearing an apron when arrested she could have torn a piece from her apron while she was in custody to use as a sanitary device. She could not have used any of the 12 pieces of rag in her possession because the police would have taken all her property off her before putting her in the cell.

She could have gone to the lodging house and not been able to get in and not able to wake the lodging housekeeper she had the time to make her way to that location if she had gone straight to the Mitre Square location she might have been seen hanging around Mitre Square or Duke Street, after all, there were police in and around that location

many other alternatives to the old accepted theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

A new theory is an alternative

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, anyone can come up with a ''New'' theory as an alternative to an older theory, but unless its proven to be 100%correct its just another theory. Which is what you have with your ''Theory'' . But lets not keep going around in circles i think we both know thats the real truth of the matter where JtR is concerned.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not suggesting as a fact that she cut or tore a piece from the apron she was wearing, as stated previously the evidence to show she was wearing an apron is unsafe

It’s not unsafe. She was wearing an apron. It’s a fact.

but even if it is accepted that she was wearing an apron when arrested she could have torn a piece from her apron while she was in custody to use as a sanitary device. She could not have used any of the 12 pieces of rag in her possession because the police would have taken all her property off her before putting her in the cell.

So you’re suggesting that this dirt poor woman, wearing every item that she owned, with no money for lodgings or food, would have destroyed a valuable (to her at least) item of clothing? Is it so impossible that the officer would have allowed her a piece of rag had she asked for it. Can we imagine that Kate was so delicate that she wouldn’t have explained to the officer why she’d needed it?

She could have gone to the lodging house and not been able to get in and not able to wake the lodging housekeeper she had the time to make her way to that location if she had gone straight to the Mitre Square location she might have been seen hanging around Mitre Square or Duke Street, after all, there were police in and around that location

many other alternatives to the old accepted theory

Yes but they should stay within the realms of reason.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We know very little in this case that approaches a certainty and the fact that the killer dropped the apron in Goulston Street is one of them.

[FISHY1118]

I am not suggesting as a fact that she cut or tore a piece from the apron she was wearing, as stated previously the evidence to show she was wearing an apron is unsafe but even if it is accepted that she was wearing an apron when arrested she could have torn a piece from her apron while she was in custody to use as a sanitary device. She could not have used any of the 12 pieces of rag in her possession because the police would have taken all her property off her before putting her in the cell.

She could have gone to the lodging house and not been able to get in and not able to wake the lodging housekeeper she had the time to make her way to that location if she had gone straight to the Mitre Square location she might have been seen hanging around Mitre Square or Duke Street, after all, there were police in and around that location

many other alternatives to the old accepted theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is just a fantasy , what utter nonsense. How many different senarios are you going to invent for Eddowes to fit your theory . ?

[Trevor Marriott]

This is just a fantasy , what utter nonsense. How many different senarios are you going to invent for Eddowes to fit your theory . ?

Well, the old accepted scenario does not stand up to close scrutiny so on that basis I have explored other likely scenarios which may explain some of the ambiguities in the accepted theory. One of the basic principles in criminal investigations in law is to prove or disprove the evidence as presented. The evidence you and others want to readily accept has been proven to be unsafe. I can't see why you and others won't accept that as fact and be prepared to take the blinkers off and look at other alternative scenarios which are just as plausible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

We know very little in this case that approaches a certainty and the fact that the killer dropped the apron in Goulston Street is one of them.

But there is no plausible explanation as to why he would cut a piece of the apron in the first place, take it away with him and then deposit it at an off-road location some distance away from the crime scene. All the explanations put forward to date do not stand up to close scrutiny.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk