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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Of course, they are flawed it has been proved that the evidence to support the old accepted theories is unsafe its just that people like you and several others on here who hold court here, can't and won't accept anything that goes against the old accepted theories.

I am sure I am not the only person as you suggest who questions the accuracy of evidence used to prop up the old accepted theories if there were no others then there would be no point in having this website or debating the facts and evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Of course, they are flawed it has been proved that the evidence to support the old accepted theories is unsafe its just that people like you and several others on here who hold court here, can't and won't accept anything that goes against the old accepted theories.

I am sure I am not the only person as you suggest who questions the accuracy of evidence used to prop up the old accepted theories if there were no others then there would be no point in having this website or debating the facts and evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's Not been proven at all that theories which you claim are flawed have been proven as such.

You claiming that they have does not mean they have. Likewise you saying you believe they are flawed does NOT mean they are.

Given that I have a history of not accepting old arguments without questioning such as:

Stride was killed with a different knife( not what Blackwell and Phillips said, but often repeated).

The kidney had blood vessels attached( it didn't ) that it was of a woman of the same age( the first based purely on size, the 2nd impossible to determine).

Accepting the times given as being set in stone( they are not)

To name but a few, it's odd to suggest I defend old theories for some unfathomable reason.

In short you are entitled to you somewhat idiosyncratic views. You are entitled to post them repeatedly, as you do.

What you are NOT entitled to do is to claim issues have been proven to be flawed, when they have not. Your opinion is just that, YOUR opinion.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

It's Not been proven at all that theories which you claim are flawed have been proven as such.

You claiming that they have does not mean they have. Likewise you saying you believe they are flawed does NOT mean they are.

Given that I have a history of not accepting old arguments without questioning such as:

Stride was killed with a different knife( not what Blackwell and Phillips said, but often repeated).

The kidney had blood vessels attached( it didn't ) that it was of a woman of the same age( the first based purely on size, the 2nd impossible to determine).

Accepting the times given as being set in stone( they are not)

To name but a few, it's odd to suggest I defend old theories for some unfathomable reason.

In short you are entitled to you somewhat idiosyncratic views. You are entitled to post them repeatedly, as you do.

What you are NOT entitled to do is to claim issues have been proven to be flawed, when they have not. Your opinion is just that, YOUR opinion.


Steve

And I am entitled to voice my opinion and to defend that opinion just the same as others do theirs having regard to the fact that I have decades of reviewing statements in criminal cases and I still do on a daily basis I think I am more than capable of identifying flaws in witnesses' statements.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m sorry but to me your decades of reviewing statements counts for little when we consider some of your suggestions on here. I think that you just go out of your way to invent new theories and then defend them at the cost of all sense of judgment and just for the sake of it.

A part of a murder victims apron is cut away then discovered a few streets away. How did it get there to be discovered around an hour after her body was found? Two police officers said that she was wearing an apron before her arrest.

Any suggestion, other than the killer dropped it, is not worthy of consideration unless you can produce positive evidence that someone else dropped it there. And you can’t.

Therefore……the killer dropped it…….only conclusion…….end of debate.

But you will still defend the indefensible at all costs which is worse than the alleged offence of defending the old established theories imo.

[Elamarna]

And I am entitled to voice my opinion and to defend that opinion just the same as others do theirs having regard to the fact that I have decades of reviewing statements in criminal cases and I still do on a daily basis I think I am more than capable of identifying flaws in witnesses' statements.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As I said you are fully entitled to view YOUR opinions, but those opinions are yours.

So when you say something is proven to be flawed, often that is simply your opinion Trevor, yet you present it as hard, solid fact, when it's no such thing.

Why you insist now on arguing that your opinion is paramount I fail to understand , but then recalling the photo incident, maybe it's not that hard at all.

Steve

[FISHY1118]

As I said you are fully entitled to view YOUR opinions, but those opinions are yours.

So when you say something is proven to be flawed, often that is simply your opinion Trevor, yet you present it as hard, solid fact, when it's no such thing.

Why you insist now on arguing that your opinion is paramount I fail to understand , but then recalling the photo incident, maybe it's not that hard at all.

Steve

I missed that photo incident debate , a bit befor my time here ,but if it was anything like the "Eddowes face mutilation before her death debate " it must have been a ripper . Pun intended.

[Elamarna]

I missed that photo incident debate , a bit befor my time here ,but if it was anything like the "Eddowes face mutilation before her death debate " it must have been a ripper . Pun intended.

It's 2016, lasted at least 6 months on and off. I actually spent 3 months of it in Barbados.
Have a search for it, it's amazing.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m sorry but to me your decades of reviewing statements counts for little when we consider some of your suggestions on here. I think that you just go out of your way to invent new theories and then defend them at the cost of all sense of judgment and just for the sake of it.

A part of a murder victims apron is cut away then discovered a few streets away. How did it get there to be discovered around an hour after her body was found? Two police officers said that she was wearing an apron before her arrest.

Any suggestion, other than the killer dropped it, is not worthy of consideration unless you can produce positive evidence that someone else dropped it there. And you can’t.

Therefore……the killer dropped it…….only conclusion…….end of debate.

But you will still defend the indefensible at all costs which is worse than the alleged offence of defending the old established theories imo.

So you might explain why the killer is alleged to have cut the apron piece in the first instance because so far all the suggestions you personally have come up with have not come up to proof. i.e folding the apron piece, wearing gloves, taking off gloves, taking off coat, putting the coat back on, removing organs while wearing gloves, and then handling the apron piece with bloody hands/gloves, putting gloves back in coat pocket, all this with your belief that the killer by reason of his actions and what was done to the victim only managed to get small traces of faecal matter and smears /spot of blood on one side of the apron piece, and you have the audacity to challenge my opinion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It's 2016, lasted at least 6 months on and off. I actually spent 3 months of it in Barbados.
Have a search for it, it's amazing.


Steve

The saying people in glass houses springs to mind!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

The saying people in glass houses springs to mind!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh dear, when I make a mistake, I put my hands up and say so.
If shown to be incorrect, I amend.
And of course I present speculation as just that, my ideas, my opinions.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you might explain why the killer is alleged to have cut the apron piece in the first instance because so far all the suggestions you personally have come up with have not come up to proof. i.e folding the apron piece, wearing gloves, taking off gloves, taking off coat, putting the coat back on, removing organs while wearing gloves, and then handling the apron piece with bloody hands/gloves, putting gloves back in coat pocket, all this with your belief that the killer by reason of his actions and what was done to the victim only managed to get small traces of faecal matter and smears /spot of blood on one side of the apron piece, and you have the audacity to challenge my opinion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We don’t know why he cut the apron piece but we know that the apron piece ended up in Goulston Street and the only way that it could have gotten there is because the killer dropped it there. Just because we can’t give a reason doesn’t change the fact.

The suggestion that the killer could get staining on one side of a cloth is absolutely possible. It’s only your refusal to accept the obvious that keeps you going on about it. Put a cloth down, grab it with one hand so it bunches up, then wipe the other hand on it too and there’s every chance that you will only stain one side. It’s just a fact. And as there was only staining on one side, and we know that the killer took the apron and dropped it in Goulston Street then staining on one side has to be possible. It happened….so it’s possible. Your ‘sanitary’ explanation just doesn’t work whichever way we look at it. So if we eliminate that…..we are left with the obvious. Which you appear to be allergic too.

Why do you have to resort to exaggerations to dismiss any mention of gloves or a jacket/coat? As if it would have been some huge, time-consuming operation when it would have been a matter of 5 seconds. I haven’t claimed the suggestion as a fact but it’s immeasurably more grounded in reason than your ‘sanitary’ theory. Why is it so far fetched that a man killing women outdoors, with all of the risks involved, might have considered ways of reducing the risk of capture? Can that really be a foreign concept to an ex-police officer? Is it so ‘far out’ for the killer to have thought ‘what would I do if someone saw blood on my hands or my clothing? What if I had to pass a Constable in the street and I have blood on my shirt?” How could he prevent this? By putting a pair of gloves in his jacket/coat pocket. It hardly requires a Professor Moriarty to come up with it does it? So he strangles his victim….takes off his jacket (2 seconds)…. takes the gloves from his pocket and puts them on (3 seconds)…..mutilates the victim……..puts the gloves in his jacket pocket and puts the jacket on (5 seconds) Result….no blood on hands and any staining to the upper part of his body covered. It’s not even close to far fetched.

[Elamarna]

all this with your belief that the killer by reason of his actions and what was done to the victim only managed to get small traces of faecal matter and smears /spot of blood on one side of the apron piece, and you have the audacity to challenge my opinion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can you prove, I mean actually prove that such is NOT possible?

Steve

[DJA]

Everybody knows there's no Sanitary Clause

[harry]

What are the real truths that one poster claims?To me a real truth is established fact Something that cannot be denied.As I have pointed out in regard to the apron piece,almost everything about it,as Trevor states,is belief,and it is belief stemming from the statements of just two persons,Dr Brown and P.C.Long.Brown claims the apron piece was part of an apron in possession of Eddowes,and long claims he found the piece in a building in Goulston Street.Those two pieces of evidence still needs to be proven.Both maybe correct,but maybe isn't enough,it doesn't amount to proven.

[Fiver]

What are the real truths that one poster claims?To me a real truth is established fact Something that cannot be denied.As I have pointed out in regard to the apron piece,almost everything about it,as Trevor states,is belief,and it is belief stemming from the statements of just two persons,Dr Brown and P.C.Long.Brown claims the apron piece was part of an apron in possession of Eddowes,and long claims he found the piece in a building in Goulston Street.Those two pieces of evidence still needs to be proven.Both maybe correct,but maybe isn't enough,it doesn't amount to proven.

PC Long of the Metropolitan police testified under oath that he found the apron part in Goulston Street. Before he left the site, he called over another officer to watch the site. If Long was lying about having the apron piece at that time, the other constable probably would have noticed.

Inspector Collard of the City Police and Dr Brown both testified that Eddowes had been wearing an apron that was missing a piece and that the Goulston Street piece fit with the piece still attached to the body.

PC Watkin of the City Police, watchman Morris, PC Holland of the City Police, PC Harvey of the City Police, Sgt Jones of the City Police, and Dr Sequiera saw Eddowes' body before it was moved from the murder site. Davis, the mortuary keeper saw the body when it arrived. If Colland and Brown were lying about Eddowes wearing an apron, the other seven men would have known they were lying.