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

  • Click image for larger version  Name:	a79a4401-a53b-409a-9937-8e240decd2b9.webp Views:	0 Size:	20.5 KB ID:	801325 There were no gloves!The apron piece was used to transport the kidney.
    Last edited by DJA; 12-07-2022, 10:59 AM.
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      I wonder what the police would have said if Kate had asked to borrow a knife to cut a piece of cloth from her apron? So how could she have cut a piece?
      Why would she have needed to cut a piece according to some she had 12 pieces in her possession. but it is more likely that she was wearing the GS piece as a sanitary device and she then discarded it in GS after her release

      www,trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DJA View Post
        Click image for larger version Name:	a79a4401-a53b-409a-9937-8e240decd2b9.webp Views:	0 Size:	20.5 KB ID:	801325 There were no gloves!The apron piece was used to transport the kidney.
        No it wasn't !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          No it wasn't !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Yer it probably was , i likely senario and a simple uncomplicated one at that, which btw cant be proven that it wasnt .
          '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


          • Things Trevor has been proven wrong about just on this thread-

            How many sanitary napkins a woman would use in a month ( bogglingly he’d even argue that to begin with).

            Catherine Eddowes wasn’t homeless.

            Where the GSG apron piece was cut from.

            This is the guy who “claims” he was once a “murder squad” detective (which honestly sounds like a made up position from a guy who was a rent a cop at the mall dreaming of glory.)

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DJA View Post
              Click image for larger version Name:	a79a4401-a53b-409a-9937-8e240decd2b9.webp Views:	0 Size:	20.5 KB ID:	801325 There were no gloves!The apron piece was used to transport the kidney.
              I didn’t realise that you were there.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Why would she have needed to cut a piece according to some she had 12 pieces in her possession. but it is more likely that she was wearing the GS piece as a sanitary device and she then discarded it in GS after her release

                www,trevormarriott.co.uk
                She was wearing an apron. We know this for a fact because two non-partially sighted police officers saw her at the time and spent time in her company; seeing her at close quarters. Both confirmed that she was wearing an apron. I realise that you’ve obsessively tried to discredit there evidence on the grounds that it’s inconvenient to your theory but there is not a shred of evidence for doubt.

                The chances of her cutting up her apron (especially given the proven fact that she was carrying more cloth than a dressmaker’s bench) is non-existent. And to add to the ludicrousness she would have needed possession of a knife between leaving the police station and her death. So unless she accosted some passerby for a lend of a blade this silly theory falls even flatter. It’s a non-starter and we’re long past the time when it should have been put to bed permanently.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  I didn’t realise that you were there.
                  was holding HGS's zimmerframe

                  Comment


                  • I just don’t understand how some of these definite statements are constantly being made about events that occurred 134 years ago in a case where there are so many things that we are in the dark about. If the police looked at the same circumstances today they would undoubtedly conclude that the killer took away a piece of apron (for whatever reason) and dropped it in Goulston Street. Why is this very obvious conclusion, which is supported by the evidence, so unacceptable? It can only be because we’re yet again seeing a ‘defend a theory at all costs’ situation.

                    All the evidence points away from the ‘sanitary towel’ theory. She had other cloths available. She had no knife to cut her apron. We have no one seeing her arrive back at her lodging house. We have no reason for her to return to the area around Mitre Square had she first returned to the lodging house (which, considering the time that she was released combined with the time that Lawende and co saw her, it would have meant pretty much entering then almost immediately leaving)

                    Against that we have 2 police officers who saw her wearing an apron and a Doctor who matched up the two halves.

                    We can discount the suggestion that it was carried there by a dog. Likewise the suggestion that it was moved by a police officer. The wind couldn’t have blown it there.

                    Obvious, unavoidable conclusion…….the killer dropped it there.

                    We needn’t call in at 221b to solve this particular question.
                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 12-07-2022, 02:13 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ally View Post
                      Things Trevor has been proven wrong about just on this thread-

                      How many sanitary napkins a woman would use in a month ( bogglingly he’d even argue that to begin with).

                      There is no definitive answer to this and to be fair I am not interested in finding out the answer

                      Catherine Eddowes wasn’t homeless.

                      That is not correct she and her partner had access to lodgings in Flower and Dean Street

                      Where the GSG apron piece was cut from.

                      The answer to that is quite simple it was cut from the piece of apron found in her possessions at the mortuary

                      This is the guy who “claims” he was once a “murder squad” detective (which honestly sounds like a made up position from a guy who was a rent a cop at the mall dreaming of glory.)
                      I would appreciate less of the character assassination it is uncalled for especially from you who is supposed to be a moderator who quickly condemns others who act in the same way you are acting



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        She was wearing an apron. We know this for a fact because two non-partially sighted police officers saw her at the time and spent time in her company; seeing her at close quarters. Both confirmed that she was wearing an apron. I realise that you’ve obsessively tried to discredit there evidence on the grounds that it’s inconvenient to your theory but there is not a shred of evidence for doubt.

                        The chances of her cutting up her apron (especially given the proven fact that she was carrying more cloth than a dressmaker’s bench) is non-existent. And to add to the ludicrousness she would have needed possession of a knife between leaving the police station and her death. So unless she accosted some passerby for a lend of a blade this silly theory falls even flatter. It’s a non-starter and we’re long past the time when it should have been put to bed permanently.
                        I have gone over this before and stated in a previous post that some of the police officer's evidence throughout these murders is unsafe and may be misleading I am not going to go through those reasons again why the officer's evidence you refer to is unsafe and misleading yet again.

                        Maybe you should check out exactly what I do suggest because it bears no resemblance to the scenario you present above

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          I have gone over this before and stated in a previous post that some of the police officer's evidence throughout these murders is unsafe and may be misleading I am not going to go through those reasons again why the officer's evidence you refer to is unsafe and misleading yet again.

                          Maybe you should check out exactly what I do suggest because it bears no resemblance to the scenario you present above

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          We have all gone over this before Trevor. The evidence presented by Hutt and Robinson isn’t ‘unsafe.’ There’s nothing remotely ‘unsafe’ about it. It’s purely because you need them to be discredited to prop up your theory.

                          Ive checked your scenario numerous times. It’s a non-starter. It’s why only you support it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            We have all gone over this before Trevor. The evidence presented by Hutt and Robinson isn’t ‘unsafe.’ There’s nothing remotely ‘unsafe’ about it. It’s purely because you need them to be discredited to prop up your theory.

                            Ive checked your scenario numerous times. It’s a non-starter. It’s why only you support it.
                            Yes, you have checked it and you disregard it that's fine, but you won't even consider or accept the additional evidence that I seek to rely on which creates doubt about the old accepted theory that the killer cut a piece of her apron and deposited it in GS. Police officers' evidence should not be readily accepted as gospel just because they are police officers, especially from what we know about some of their antics.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ally View Post
                              Things Trevor has been proven wrong about just on this thread-

                              How many sanitary napkins a woman would use in a month ( bogglingly he’d even argue that to begin with).

                              Catherine Eddowes wasn’t homeless.

                              Where the GSG apron piece was cut from.

                              This is the guy who “claims” he was once a “murder squad” detective (which honestly sounds like a made up position from a guy who was a rent a cop at the mall dreaming of glory.)
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	60016551.webp
Views:	202
Size:	31.7 KB
ID:	801344 Was he pushed,or did he jump?
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	60016551.webp
Views:	202
Size:	31.7 KB
ID:	801344 Was he pushed,or did he jump?
                                Little things please little minds

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X