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

[Trevor Marriott]

Some people think there's reasonable doubt that the Earth is round. That doesn't mean rational people should consider their "doubt" seriously. Especially if their "doubt" is based on an absurd and dirt stupid premise that doesn't withstand the most basic whiff of plausibility.

Catherine Eddowes did not use the discarded apron piece as a sanitary napkin. To consider this, one would have to give equal likelihood to a woman in modern times with 12 tampons in her purse deciding to rip up her one shirt and destroy it and use that instead. The idea is just dumb. It's stupid. It's idiotic. It's moronic. No woman, not even a drunk, impoverished Victorian woman, is that flipping stupid. The idea that Catherine Eddowes would have destroyed a valuable (to her) garment to shove up her crotch, when she had the equivalent of 12 tampons in her pockets... is DUMB.

Unless you think Catherine Eddowes was a gibbering moron? Is that what y'all are claiming? She's too stupid to use what she already has on hand so she's going to destroy a valuable garment instead of using what she's already got?

No one is specifically suggesting that she destroyed her apron, the issues are firstly was she wearing an apron in the first instance? and if she wasn't could she have simply been in possession prior to her arrest of two old pieces of an old white apron one of which she had been using as a sanitary device.

There is no evidence to show that when Dr Brown matched the two pieces they made up a full apron, so the evidence suggesting she was wearing an apron and that the killer cut a piece and took it away depositing it is unsafe to totally rely on. The witnesses' testimony used to support the killer taking the apron piece is also unsafe and conflicting which regrettably I keep having to keep repeating

Insp Collard-"Apparently wearing"
Brown "A corner piece with a string attached" You can't tie an apron with one string
Collards list "One old piece of old white apron in possessions" so that tends to prove that she had in her possession at some point in time 2 old pieces of white apron

The crime scene sketch of the body shows no apron

Furthermore, she had the time and the opportunity to make her way in the direction of Flower and Dean Street after she left the police station that journey would have taken her right past GS giving her the opportunity to discard the soiled sanitary device under the archway, why she didn't manage to secure entry to her lodgings is unknown and on that, we can only speculate but it should not be dismissed.

and it is significant that there was only blood and faecal matter on one side and which is consistent with it being used as a sanitary device, as has been discussed despite the killer cutting her throat ripping open her abdomen and allegedly putting his hand's into a blood-filled abdomen he avoided transferring any blood onto both sides of the apron piece

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Why address your post to me Ally.Have I claimed the apron piece supposedly found by Long was used as a sanitary napkin?
I am certainly of the opinion that it didn't need 12 pieces,or 12 different sanitary pads,and my reasons for believing that have alreadybeen posted.
I have been asked to provide reasons why Brown or Long need to have lied.I do not know.I also do not know why the Ripper killed victims,but does that mean there were no murders?

[FISHY1118]

Ally, probably the best response on the topic yet . How on earth do some people try to convince others of such idiotic behavior just to support their theory to the death is beyond any rational understanding . For God sake let it go guys ,this is the kind of garbage that causes so much heated insulting back and forth on this forum . Its not healthy.

Have a theory by all means, but ffs make it a worthwhile one worthy of some intelligent debating . I'd take the royal conspiracy theory over Eddowes sanitary pad usage and the bloody initials on Mary Kellys wall and forearm shite anyday..

[Ally]

For a very long time there has been a measure of proof in murder,that is,'Beyond a reasonable doubt'.That shouldn'tbe a problem with most persons,as the final decision is left with Judges and juries.Is there reasonable doubt in regard to the apron piece,and the claims of Brown and long?Trevor and I think there is.

Some people think there's reasonable doubt that the Earth is round. That doesn't mean rational people should consider their "doubt" seriously. Especially if their "doubt" is based on an absurd and dirt stupid premise that doesn't withstand the most basic whiff of plausibility.

Catherine Eddowes did not use the discarded apron piece as a sanitary napkin. To consider this, one would have to give equal likelihood to a woman in modern times with 12 tampons in her purse deciding to rip up her one shirt and destroy it and use that instead. The idea is just dumb. It's stupid. It's idiotic. It's moronic. No woman, not even a drunk, impoverished Victorian woman, is that flipping stupid. The idea that Catherine Eddowes would have destroyed a valuable (to her) garment to shove up her crotch, when she had the equivalent of 12 tampons in her pockets... is DUMB.

Unless you think Catherine Eddowes was a gibbering moron? Is that what y'all are claiming? She's too stupid to use what she already has on hand so she's going to destroy a valuable garment instead of using what she's already got?

[harry]

For a very long time there has been a measure of proof in murder,that is,'Beyond a reasonable doubt'.That shouldn'tbe a problem with most persons,as the final decision is left with Judges and juries.Is there reasonable doubt in regard to the apron piece,and the claims of Brown and long?Trevor and I think there is.

[harry]

If Herlock,there was a witness who saw the man enter the room,there would be an eyewitnes.If a body was later found in the room shot to death,the body would show evidence of a crime.The bullet wound and the bullet if in the body would be real evidence.How does your example compare with that of Brown and Long,where there were no eyewitnesses to what they claim?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Just so you know, the use of probabilities/percentages as a representation of the strength of belief is is very common, and useful. Sometimes we might want to describe things in odds ratios, like I think it's 4 to 1 that X is the case, and you can switch between the two easily (i.e. 4:1 -> 4/(4+1) = 0.8, so 80%, and 80% can get converted to an odds ratio by 80/(100-80) so 80/20 = 4, so 4:1.

These values then represent the strength of belief in something (note, not the truth of it, truth is binary, something either is or is not true; for example, B.S. either killed or did not kill Stride in truth; but we don't know, so we gather evidence which shifts our beliefs from 1:1 (50% either way) ether towards or away from one of those options. Depending upon how well the two options can account for the evidence results in our beliefs shifting a little or a lot. Again, belief isn't truth, and we could believe something very strongly and still be wrong, but the short story is that there are ways that these probabilities as a measure of belief can be used to determine how a rational use of evidence should change belief.

In the end, one has a set of options, weighted in terms of how strongly one believes things, even if none of them are 100%. Hence I tend to phrase things as a list of theories, with the one I think the evidence most strongly suggests (which translates to a stronger belief score), as the preferred idea, while accepting that other ideas will also have reasonable levels of "belief" as well (meaning, the evidence can fit them too). At some point, as you mention, the belief (percentage, odds ratio, whatever), swings so strongly in favour of one option that it becomes irrational to prefer the other (technically, even if the values were something like 51 and 49, it is irrational to prefer the 49, but one could argue that the difference is so small it is also irrational to prefer the 51 to the point of exclusion of the 49 theory). While the other does have some small possibility, it would require new evidence that it can explain that cannot be explained by the other (in which case, the calculation could quickly reverse those belief values! Belief is not truth, it is simply what emerges based upon evidence; and most evidence is not conclusive and able to definitively rule out one or the other option. As such, some will cling to that idea, that there's still a possibility that theory B is correct and so it somehow needs to be viewed as on equal footing with theory A. It doesn't, though, and when the odds are so far against it, theory B can be considered a well and truly distant 2nd.

- Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Thanks for that. There’s so much to be uncertain about in the case that I’m wary when confronted with what appears to me to be over-confidence. Then I sometimes find myself dropping in my own percentage ‘levels of confidence’ which I later consider too high or which I begin to lose confidence in when someone else suggests I’ve quoted too high a number. In the current discussion though it seems that a high percentage has to be called for when considering how the apron piece got to Goulston Street. It’s not physically impossible that someone other than the killer dropped it there but then again it’s not physically impossible that Liz Stride cut her own throat then someone stole the knife but we wouldn’t get many takers on that particular theory (I’d hope) Likewise any suggestion that Brown mistakenly matched up the two pieces. So I’d say that those two percentages have to be not just high but close to the limit. Whereas others are more debatable - did the killer write the GSG - could Long have missing it at 2.20?

[JeffHamm]

I’ve never understood this ‘defend at all costs’ or ‘discredit at all costs’ approach which almost always comes from people seeking to defend a particular theory. Perhaps it is a mistake to apply percentages as I’ve done but I was only using them as an illustration when discussing reasonable doubt and I certainly don’t ‘know best’ as Harry said. So overall I’d say (and I’ll still use 99% to indicate ‘beyond reasonable doubt’:

Was Catherine Eddowes wearing an apron - Yes 99%
Was the GS piece a part of the mortuary piece - Yes 99%
Did the killer discard the apron piece - Yes 99%
Did the killer write the graffito - unsure 50%
Do we know why the killer took the apron piece - no, we can only speculate
Was the apron piece in GS at 2.20 when Long passed - unsure but we should perhaps give Long the benefit of the doubt, although I don’t think it impossible that he could have missed it.
Did the killer remove organs at the scene - yes 99%
Did Lawende and co see the killer - probably 80%

Hi Herlock,

Just so you know, the use of probabilities/percentages as a representation of the strength of belief is is very common, and useful. Sometimes we might want to describe things in odds ratios, like I think it's 4 to 1 that X is the case, and you can switch between the two easily (i.e. 4:1 -> 4/(4+1) = 0.8, so 80%, and 80% can get converted to an odds ratio by 80/(100-80) so 80/20 = 4, so 4:1.

These values then represent the strength of belief in something (note, not the truth of it, truth is binary, something either is or is not true; for example, B.S. either killed or did not kill Stride in truth; but we don't know, so we gather evidence which shifts our beliefs from 1:1 (50% either way) ether towards or away from one of those options. Depending upon how well the two options can account for the evidence results in our beliefs shifting a little or a lot. Again, belief isn't truth, and we could believe something very strongly and still be wrong, but the short story is that there are ways that these probabilities as a measure of belief can be used to determine how a rational use of evidence should change belief.

In the end, one has a set of options, weighted in terms of how strongly one believes things, even if none of them are 100%. Hence I tend to phrase things as a list of theories, with the one I think the evidence most strongly suggests (which translates to a stronger belief score), as the preferred idea, while accepting that other ideas will also have reasonable levels of "belief" as well (meaning, the evidence can fit them too). At some point, as you mention, the belief (percentage, odds ratio, whatever), swings so strongly in favour of one option that it becomes irrational to prefer the other (technically, even if the values were something like 51 and 49, it is irrational to prefer the 49, but one could argue that the difference is so small it is also irrational to prefer the 51 to the point of exclusion of the 49 theory). While the other does have some small possibility, it would require new evidence that it can explain that cannot be explained by the other (in which case, the calculation could quickly reverse those belief values! Belief is not truth, it is simply what emerges based upon evidence; and most evidence is not conclusive and able to definitively rule out one or the other option. As such, some will cling to that idea, that there's still a possibility that theory B is correct and so it somehow needs to be viewed as on equal footing with theory A. It doesn't, though, and when the odds are so far against it, theory B can be considered a well and truly distant 2nd.

- Jeff

[DJA]

100%

Zilch.

[FISHY1118]

Id go along with these percentages except for 1. Did the killer write the graffito - unsure 50% , id say 95%

2.Did Lawende and co see the killer - probably 80%.. that ones more like 50% imo

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve never understood this ‘defend at all costs’ or ‘discredit at all costs’ approach which almost always comes from people seeking to defend a particular theory. Perhaps it is a mistake to apply percentages as I’ve done but I was only using them as an illustration when discussing reasonable doubt and I certainly don’t ‘know best’ as Harry said. So overall I’d say (and I’ll still use 99% to indicate ‘beyond reasonable doubt’:

Was Catherine Eddowes wearing an apron - Yes 99%
Was the GS piece a part of the mortuary piece - Yes 99%
Did the killer discard the apron piece - Yes 99%
Did the killer write the graffito - unsure 50%
Do we know why the killer took the apron piece - no, we can only speculate
Was the apron piece in GS at 2.20 when Long passed - unsure but we should perhaps give Long the benefit of the doubt, although I don’t think it impossible that he could have missed it.
Did the killer remove organs at the scene - yes 99%
Did Lawende and co see the killer - probably 80%

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would be happy Herlock,for any eyewitness to either Brown's or Long's claims.To both would be a bonus.Now it migt be claimed that there is circumstantial evidence that shows both could have been correct,but then there is the same kind of evidence that could be used to negate what they claim,and to maintain a ninety nine and a half per cent in either case,iwould I believe ,be more than a trifle excessive.But,Herlock knows best.

It’s not a case of Herlock knows best Harry. It’s a case of reading the evidence and assessing the likelihood of Dr. Brown incorrectly matching up 2 pieces of cloth which had been cut apart with a knife and which had a patch as guidance. If we set a requirement that 100% proof was required then no police case would ever be solved and there would be no point in discussing this particular case. That the GS piece matched up with the mortuary piece can’t be doubted.

If someone saw a man entering a room that had no second exit and he then heard 2 gunshots. He then saw the same man exiting with the gun in his hand and there was a man inside who had been shot twice with the same gun, would we doubt who had killed him even though no one actually saw anyone pull the trigger? Or would we assume that there could be no reasonable doubt as to who killed the man?

[harry]

I would be happy Herlock,for any eyewitness to either Brown's or Long's claims.To both would be a bonus.Now it migt be claimed that there is circumstantial evidence that shows both could have been correct,but then there is the same kind of evidence that could be used to negate what they claim,and to maintain a ninety nine and a half per cent in either case,iwould I believe ,be more than a trifle excessive.But,Herlock knows best.

[Ally]

Your comments have been duly noted and totally disregarded on the grounds that you are talking out of your backside so if I were you I would zip it while you still have a modicum of credibility on here

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Actually it's been proven repeatedly that you wouldn't zip it even when everyone knows you're talking out your backside and you've long since lost credibility. So .... one of those instances of inability to recognize your own glaring fallacies?

But it is to giggle. Trevor speaks of credibility. Let's look at the evolution of his "argument" on this thread. Just one little piece.

On The Subject of the 12 rags in Catherine's possession here's what he's argued:

Well she clearly had that number of "rags" for a specific reason, far too many for her to carry and use as her own sanitary napkins as some have suggested

Evidence refuting this (other than every woman telling him 12 was not "far too many for her to use"):

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

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.

His response to being proven straight up completely full of **** and wrong??

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

To sum up: He makes a claim, he's proven wrong, he responds "I don't care this doesn't matter, there's no definitive answer." Except there is. But at least he's right about something. He's not interested in finding out the answer. Because the answer was provided to him and he refuses to accept he's wrong.

Yes, Trevor, let's talk about credibility. And how you have none.


Because you're wrong. All the way wrong. But yeah, just keep saying how you'd zip it before being proven a fool. Even though history shows that's a lie.

[FISHY1118]

Credibility !!!!