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 Trevor Marriott View Post

    Criminals who wear gloves do so to hide their fingerprints, not to carry out the removal of the organs from a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness while holding a long-bladed knife, which along with wearing gloves would hinder greatly that process, but of course, you know as well as I do that the killer didn't remove the organs

    I think there has been a good case presented on this thread to cast doubt about the old accepted theory surrounding the apron piece, again your failure yet again to be able to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence has again clouded your judgement.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    ''You know as well as I do that the killer didn't remove the organs .






    According to your ''Yet proven theory'' . Dont forget to say this bit Trevor after you make these kind of statements that remain just opinions

    We dont want to confuse the Newbies with the thought that this is the ''Truth'' now do we .

    Just about everything youve shown as ''proof'' of this so called theory has been argued and scrutinized over and over again with to many flaws and uncertainty and ifs, buts, and maybies [see 100s of post on the subject ] its an absolute no brainer that the term ''Unsafe'' is never more applicable when dicussing this topic of yours.

    The term ''In my opinion'' is probably a good way to start your sentences from here on in .


    '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


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      Criminals who wear gloves do so to hide their fingerprints, not to carry out the removal of the organs from a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness while holding a long-bladed knife, which along with wearing gloves would hinder greatly that process, but of course, you know as well as I do that the killer didn't remove the organs

      1. It is a proven fact that he did remove organs.
      2. The wearing of gloves would hinder nothing. This is just a convenient invention on your part.
      3. Gloves are worn for numerous reasons including keeping hands clean. So it’s entirely posdible that they could have been used to keep the hands blood free.


      I think there has been a good case presented on this thread to cast doubt about the old accepted theory surrounding the apron piece, again your failure yet again to be able to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence has again clouded your judgement.

      The case is non-existent. No one agrees with you Trevor but you try to kid everyone and in the process yourself that this theory has ‘legs.’ Your ability to assess evidence is laughable and totally biased.

      There is not a shred of doubt that Eddowes was wearing an apron. There is not a shred of doubt that the killer dropped it in Goulston Street. There’s not a shred of doubt that the killer removed organs.


      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      But do keep coming up with the theories Trevor. Sheer volume means that one day you might find one that’s worth pursuing.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post


        I have largely abstained from this debate, but it about time a few home truths got told.

        You continually talk of discredited old theories, of ideas that do not stand up to scrutiny. Unfortunately in general the only place those theories are discredited or fail to stand up to scrutiny is in the world you have constructed for your own theories.


        Trevor, you have not presented any arguments on this thread or any other that challenge the apron, which themselves stand up to even the mildest form of serious scrutiny. That you have convinced yourself that they do, is very endearing.

        Steve

        Well said Steve.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post


          I have largely abstained from this debate, but it about time a few home truths got told.

          You continually talk of discredited old theories, of ideas that do not stand up to scrutiny. Unfortunately in general the only place those theories are discredited or fail to stand up to scrutiny is in the world you have constructed for your own theories.

          Trevor, you have not presented any arguments on this thread or any other that challenge the apron, which themselves stand up to even the mildest form of serious scrutiny. That you have convinced yourself that they do, is very endearing.

          Steve
          You clearly have not been keeping up with the content of this thread, or you are like Herlock and you cannot assess and evaluate the facts and evidence that has been presented.

          I seek to prove or disprove the old accepted theories because the evidence in some of these murders that researchers rely on is clearly flawed, and unreliable and that being the case I have to ask is there another explanation or another alternative in this example on this particular thread there clearly is as has been discussed, there is nothing straightforward about how this apron piece got to GS.

          Your home truths are aimed at the wrong person

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            You clearly have not been keeping up with the content of this thread, or you are like Herlock and you cannot assess and evaluate the facts and evidence that has been presented.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            And that’s the big problem that keeps arising Trevor. You think that you are the only person who can assess and evaluate evidence properly (I assume because of your former job). That isn’t the case though. Other’s on here don’t just randomly arrive at conclusions or simply accept every theory that’s put forward without thinking and they certainly don’t buy into a theory just because it’s been around for years. We read about and discus the case because we want to hear new points being raised. We want knew theories to consider and evaluate but that doesn’t mean that we just accept them either. And we don’t just reject new theories because of a sentimental attachment to old ones.

            If you put forward a theory and absolutely everyone evaluates it and rejects then you shouldn’t just assume that no one has assessed or evaluated the evidence properly. What you should be thinking is “perhaps I’m wide of the mark on this one?”
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              And that’s the big problem that keeps arising Trevor. You think that you are the only person who can assess and evaluate evidence properly (I assume because of your former job). That isn’t the case though. Other’s on here don’t just randomly arrive at conclusions or simply accept every theory that’s put forward without thinking and they certainly don’t buy into a theory just because it’s been around for years. We read about and discus the case because we want to hear new points being raised. We want knew theories to consider and evaluate but that doesn’t mean that we just accept them either. And we don’t just reject new theories because of a sentimental attachment to old ones.

              If you put forward a theory and absolutely everyone evaluates it and rejects then you shouldn’t just assume that no one has assessed or evaluated the evidence properly. What you should be thinking is “perhaps I’m wide of the mark on this one?”
              I follow the facts and the evidence and that tells me that on this thread when discussing the apron piece the killer could not have failed to transfer blood onto both sides whether or not he was wearing gloves or carrying an umbrella, and whether or not he cut the apron piece before the mutilations or after, so I have to ask how come the smears of blood and faecal matter were only on one side of the apron piece.

              So that being said how did the smears/spots of blood and faecal matter appear on the apron piece if not from the killer don't bother to reply because you are going to suggest the same as you have suggested hundreds of times before and that suggestion is flawed for the reasons I have just said

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                You clearly have not been keeping up with the content of this thread, or you are like Herlock and you cannot assess and evaluate the facts and evidence that has been presented.

                I seek to prove or disprove the old accepted theories because the evidence in some of these murders that researchers rely on is clearly flawed, and unreliable and that being the case I have to ask is there another explanation or another alternative in this example on this particular thread there clearly is as has been discussed, there is nothing straightforward about how this apron piece got to GS.

                Your home truths are aimed at the wrong person

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                And here we see the major issue, if people do not agree with your views you consider they are either not up to date or cannot evaluate evidence.

                Sadly the ego at work in THAT conclusion is clear for all who read your posts.

                You again state that old theories are clearly flawed and unreliable. That is simply your opinion, one shared by very few.

                That you seem incapable of considering that it may be your evaluation that is at fault reminds me of the comical debate in 2016, when you claimed a tear on a photo of Eddowes, clearly between he body and arm was in fact a stab wound. Despite the 100% proof of the photograph, you continued to argue for months, not able to accept you might be wrong.
                The same is true here, just repeating something is flawed, does NOT mean it is.

                The ONLY place where how the Apron got to Goulston Street is an issue is your constructed world for YOUR opinions.


                Steve
                Last edited by Elamarna; 12-08-2022, 12:57 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  I follow the facts and the evidence and that tells me that on this thread when discussing the apron piece the killer could not have failed to transfer blood onto both sides whether or not he was wearing gloves or carrying an umbrella, and whether or not he cut the apron piece before the mutilations or after, so I have to ask how come the smears of blood and faecal matter were only on one side of the apron piece.

                  So that being said how did the smears/spots of blood and faecal matter appear on the apron piece if not from the killer don't bother to reply because you are going to suggest the same as you have suggested hundreds of times before and that suggestion is flawed for the reasons I have just said

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  It’s not ‘flawed’ reasoning. It’s childishly obvious reasoning which you refuse to accept because you are so blinkered by the fact that your trying to prop up a theory. Put some ketchup on your hands and pick a cloth from the floor. Unless you deliberately open it out it’s absolutely possible to only get staining on one side.

                  There is no other explanation other than the killer dropped the apron in Goulston Street. Your ‘sanitary towel’ theory has been evaluated by god knows how many people and everyone rejects it and with good reason. It’s a non-starter. That the killer dropped it should be regarded as as close to a 100% fact as is posdible.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                    And here we see the major issue, if people do not agree with your views you consider they are either not up to date or cannot evaluate evidence.

                    Sadly the ego at work in THAT conclusion is clear for all who read your posts.

                    You again state that old theories are clearly flawed and unreliable. That is simply your opinion, one shared by very few.

                    That you seem incapable of considering that it may be your evaluation that is at fault reminds me of the comical debate in 2016, when you claimed a tear on a photo of Eddowes, clearly between he body and arm was in fact a stab wound. Despite the 100% proof of the photograph, you continued to argue for months, not able to accept you might be wrong.
                    The same is true here, just repeating something is flawed, does NOT mean it is.

                    The ONLY place where how the Apron got to Goulston Street is an issue is your constructed world for YOUR opinions.


                    Steve
                    and you, nor any other has been able to give a plausible explanation as to how the killer failed to transfer blood and faecal matter to both sides of the apron piece, and I would say that if that cannot be explained satisfactorily then that shows the old accepted theory is 100% flawed and that there could be an alternative explanation as to how it got to GS

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      It’s not ‘flawed’ reasoning. It’s childishly obvious reasoning which you refuse to accept because you are so blinkered by the fact that your trying to prop up a theory. Put some ketchup on your hands and pick a cloth from the floor. Unless you deliberately open it out it’s absolutely possible to only get staining on one side.

                      There is no other explanation other than the killer dropped the apron in Goulston Street. Your ‘sanitary towel’ theory has been evaluated by god knows how many people and everyone rejects it and with good reason. It’s a non-starter. That the killer dropped it should be regarded as as close to a 100% fact as is posdible.
                      You can't even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was even wearing an apron, go back to the mortuary evidence it is conflicting so how can it be categorically stated and accepted that based on that evidence she was even wearing an apron

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        and you, nor any other has been able to give a plausible explanation as to how the killer failed to transfer blood and faecal matter to both sides of the apron piece, and I would say that if that cannot be explained satisfactorily then that shows the old accepted theory is 100% flawed and that there could be an alternative explanation as to how it got to GS

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        People have offered scenerios to explain what you claim is an issue.
                        That you do not wish to consider them, simply demonstrates the position you have fixed in your mind.

                        If I was still working in medical research, I would film just how such could be easily done

                        You make a set of assumptions in your claims that are themselves very flawed.


                        1. When the apron was cut.
                        You do not know at what stage the apron was cut, no amount of speculation can produce an answer to that.

                        2. The purpose for doing so.
                        We have no idea why it was taken, again any answer is speculation.

                        3. That the Killer had significant blood on both hands.

                        This is far from certain, and does not allow for him wiping them on other items of clothing, if the Apron was cut for a specific purpose.

                        4. The method of handling the cut portion.

                        To suggest that both sides must have blood stains, is a massive assumption, the portion could have been handled with only one hand, it will depend on it purpose.

                        You are presenting a classic example of trying to manipulate evidence to fit a theory, and it must be said failing badly at doing so.

                        Once again I must point out, that YOUR view that the old theories, as you so charmingly call them, are unreliable and fail to stand up to scrutiny is a very, and I mean very Minority view.
                        Repeating it over and over does not take it from being personal opinion to a view agreed by even a sizeable minority.

                        Steve





                        Comment


                        • I am not trying to manipulate evidence to fit a theory I am explaining why the old theory is flawed and I am proposing an alternative to that flawed evidence if anything I could say you and others are over-exaggerating the strength of the evidence to prop up your case and are refusing to even consider facts and evidence which may prove your theory wrong

                          So are you saying that historical facts should be readily accepted without question, then that is naivety on your part and the part of others

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            I am not trying to manipulate evidence to fit a theory I am explaining why the old theory is flawed and I am proposing an alternative to that flawed evidence if anything I could say you and others are over-exaggerating the strength of the evidence to prop up your case and are refusing to even consider facts and evidence which may prove your theory wrong

                            No one is “refusing to even consider facts and evidence,” and this is the whole point. Your suggestions have been considered. They have been evaluated and assessed. And the vast majority (if not everyone) don’t think that they hold up to scrutiny. Or at the very least they are not as likely as the alternatives.

                            So are you saying that historical facts should be readily accepted without question, then that is naivety on your part and the part of others

                            No one is saying that but what we are saying is just because you interpret certain aspects of the case one way it doesn’t mean that others should assume them to be correct.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            It would be good if you could just accept that if someone disagrees with your own assessments it’s not because they’ve ignored evidence or that they have assumed that individual pieces of evidence are set-in-stone or that they are attached to an ‘old established theory’ but that they have assessed and evaluated the evidence and simply come to a different conclusion to yourself.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • The evidence that the apron was dropped in Goulston Street by the killer is not flawed. It’s exceptionally strong. I consider it 99.99% as an undeniable fact.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                I am not trying to manipulate evidence to fit a theory I am explaining why the old theory is flawed and I am proposing an alternative to that flawed evidence if anything I could say you and others are over-exaggerating the strength of the evidence to prop up your case and are refusing to even consider facts and evidence which may prove your theory wrong

                                So are you saying that historical facts should be readily accepted without question, then that is naivety on your part and the part of others

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                The problem is the old theories are NOT flawed, other than in your imagination.

                                We have consider your theories, and have reject them as being unsupported and just a tad unrealistic.

                                However, in your view, everyone else is wrong, and you are the ONLY person who sees the truth.

                                Steve

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X