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

[Trevor Marriott]

Caution is a good thing to apply Harry but sometimes, like in this case, it spills out into conspiracy theory thinking. There comes a time when we have to consider how likely or unlikely it is that a witness lied or was mistaken. We also have to consider what reasons they might have had for lying.

No one can, as far as I can recall, come up with a remotely believable reason why Long might have lied or planted evidence and there’s certainly not a shred of evidence that Brown would have lied or that he could have been so incompetent that he could match up two pieces of cloth (with a cut which wouldn’t have been perfectly straight and so easier to match up, plus a patch which he matched to the two pieces)

So we have to assess fairly and without bias. Could Long have been mistaken about where he found the cloth……no. Could he have lied…..it’s not actually physically impossible but it’s just so unlikely as to be close to impossible. If he had planted evidence it would have had to have been in collusion with officers at the crime scene and the police had absolutely no reason for doing so. The suggestion that Long might have been mistaken or lied can be dismissed with safety.

Could Brown have been mistaken about matching the two halves? With the evidence that he had to work with Id say that this was pretty much impossible. We also don’t know how jagged the cut was but the more jagged the easier to match up and of course he had the patch to go on. So yes, we can say with a confidence close to 100% (I’d say 100%) that he couldn’t have been mistaken. Could he have lied? That’s not even worthy of consideration.

So taking a reasoned view, the chances of Long or Brown being mistaken or lying are about as close to non-existent as possible. So we are on safe ground to consider them as safe.

It's nice to see that another poster Harry who has obviously a wealth of experience in law enforcement like myself, also questions the validity and accuracy of the evidence, perhaps certain parties will now sit up and take note, and not be so quick to dismiss what those with a wealth of experience in criminal investigations have to say

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am well aware of what was reported.My point is,that the P.C' called to assist Long,would have had no knowledge of how Long obtained the apron piece.Therefor Long's testimony is uncororborated.
Same with Brown.He stated he matched two pieces of apron.There is no testimony of how this was done,when it was done,or if there were witnesses present.His evidence is uncororberated.
Now both Long and Brown may be telling the truth,but please do not try to force it down my throat that because they gave evidence under oath they must be telling the truth.I spent too long in law enforcement to fall for that explanation.
If posters are willing to believe or theorise that there is supporting evidence that puts Long's and Brown's testimony beyond doubt,they are welcome to it,but at this time I side with Trevor.There isreason to be cautious as to the truth being known.

Caution is a good thing to apply Harry but sometimes, like in this case, it spills out into conspiracy theory thinking. There comes a time when we have to consider how likely or unlikely it is that a witness lied or was mistaken. We also have to consider what reasons they might have had for lying.

No one can, as far as I can recall, come up with a remotely believable reason why Long might have lied or planted evidence and there’s certainly not a shred of evidence that Brown would have lied or that he could have been so incompetent that he could match up two pieces of cloth (with a cut which wouldn’t have been perfectly straight and so easier to match up, plus a patch which he matched to the two pieces)

So we have to assess fairly and without bias. Could Long have been mistaken about where he found the cloth……no. Could he have lied…..it’s not actually physically impossible but it’s just so unlikely as to be close to impossible. If he had planted evidence it would have had to have been in collusion with officers at the crime scene and the police had absolutely no reason for doing so. The suggestion that Long might have been mistaken or lied can be dismissed with safety.

Could Brown have been mistaken about matching the two halves? With the evidence that he had to work with Id say that this was pretty much impossible. We also don’t know how jagged the cut was but the more jagged the easier to match up and of course he had the patch to go on. So yes, we can say with a confidence close to 100% (I’d say 100%) that he couldn’t have been mistaken. Could he have lied? That’s not even worthy of consideration.

So taking a reasoned view, the chances of Long or Brown being mistaken or lying are about as close to non-existent as possible. So we are on safe ground to consider them as safe.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well maybe you should retreat back down it and take a break because your posts are becoming more and more delusional

I see you have found the emoji button, the idea is you pick one add it and then take your finger off the button

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And perhaps you should examine your own posts and consider why people almost never agree with you Trevor? Although you try and console yourself by saying that people disagree with you because they haven’t understood or that they’ve ignored what you’ve said or that they’re just ‘attached’ to an older theory it’s well overdue that you realised that you aren’t the only person on here who can assess evidence. And perhaps you should desist from going to such bizarre lengths In trying to discredit other suggestions? I don’t think that I’ve ever heard anyone try to claim that mere suggestion that a killer could have worn gloves is far-fetched. Or that the action of taking off a coat is somehow a long drawn out process.

You put far more energy into, and take far more liberties in defending your theories than others do in defending older ones.

[harry]

I am well aware of what was reported.My point is,that the P.C' called to assist Long,would have had no knowledge of how Long obtained the apron piece.Therefor Long's testimony is uncororborated.
Same with Brown.He stated he matched two pieces of apron.There is no testimony of how this was done,when it was done,or if there were witnesses present.His evidence is uncororberated.
Now both Long and Brown may be telling the truth,but please do not try to force it down my throat that because they gave evidence under oath they must be telling the truth.I spent too long in law enforcement to fall for that explanation.
If posters are willing to believe or theorise that there is supporting evidence that puts Long's and Brown's testimony beyond doubt,they are welcome to it,but at this time I side with Trevor.There isreason to be cautious as to the truth being known.

[Trevor Marriott]

From the man who invented the ‘sanitary towel’ theory. I give up Trevor. You are impervious to reason and obsessed with propping up your own theories (which no one ever agrees with) That a man could wear gloves is science fiction according to you. That a man could take off a coat then put it back on is the equivalent juggling fire. Every witness that doesn’t support your theory automatically get labelled ‘unsafe.’ Police officers prop up theories which don’t help them one bit for absolutely no reason. In your world it’s a fantasy that two police officers could recall that a woman that they spent time with at close quarters was wearing an apron. It’s unbelievable that a doctor could correctly match up two pieces of cloth. But it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that a woman who lived hand-to-mouth, and who was carrying 15 or 16 pieces of material on her person, would resort to cutting up her own clothing (and without a knife.)

Im tired of the rabbit hole.

Well maybe you should retreat back down it and take a break because your posts are becoming more and more delusional

I see you have found the emoji button, the idea is you pick one add it and then take your finger off the button

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

There you go again, of course it's possible to handle the cloth without transferring biological material to both sides.
That you cannot see that is a very serious flaw in your reasoning.

Not if both your hands are bloodstained doesn't matter how you hold it or what you have done with it before

I see you give this response before the parts of my post which give a clear explanation for this. By doing so you are avoided having to acknowledge that explanation.

Already answered as above

But firstly let's address your point.
You are assuming he takes the Apron to wipe his hands. He may well not have done, that's just one option.

Either his knife or his hands and I am glad you agree that he might not have done if that is the case it casts a doubt about Dr Browns comment that the residue on one side of the apron piece could have been made by a hand or the wiping of a knife which is why

Of course, there are plausible explanations for how stains only got on one side, one explanation is the apron was cut first and put aside, then came into contact with the material as the killer picked it up, either having wiped his hands first, or the contact was partly, if not wholly from his hands as he picked it up by the edge.

But you dont seem to be able to grasp the fact that it is academic as to when he cut the apron piece the point is that with blood on his hands he could not have failed to transfer blood to both sides no matter when or how he handled the apron piece

Or it was cut later, and it avoided the majority of the spill, only one section being affected or the same applied as above.

already replied

You may consider these implausible, I am sure you do, but that does not mean they are. They are certainly possible.

If any of those are true neither you or I know, to argue that such is in your opinion unlikely is fine.
However, to present such as fact, when its just one of several suggestions, is poor methodlogy for serious reserch.
It may be acceptable for documentaries and books aimed at general readship, but its not what is expected in real research

I have considered the facts surrounding the old accepted theory and taking into "account" all of the facts surrounding the murder I see flaws in the evidence and facts you and others seek to rely on, and so my suspicious mind which has been with me for decades tells me to dig deeper into the facts and evidence and try to prove the old accepted theory but I come to the conclusion that it is unprovable in my opinion, the old accepted theory is unsafe to rely on

I again refer to Dr Browns comment that the smears/spot of the apron piece which had the appearance of a hand or knife being wiped on it and this is what I am challenging by what I suggest and the photos produced add corroboration

Then we move on to the issue you avoided, the theory it was taken to link the GSG to the murder.
While I don't subscribe to it myself, we can't just dismiss it, for the fact remains, without the apron, no one would have even looked at the GSG.

I have already given my reasons as to why the killer did not drop it we are getting to the state where this thread has gone on for so long I am having to keep repeating myself and to be honest, it is becoming repetitive and tiresome simply because posters keep posting the same old same in feeble attempts to prop up the old theory in reply to my posts, all we are doing is going around in circles.

To be honest I don't care one way or the other if researchers want to accept without question the old accepted theory that's fine but I am happy with the results from my investigation into this murder

That is very clear, but that's not actually addressing the issue Trefor.

You clearly feel that everyone who does not agree with you is not only wrong, but is attempting to stop you from telling the world the truth. That somehow, for some strange reason they want to hide behind theories you dismiss.

Theories that are put forward in a desperate attempt to prop up the old theory

The real issue is that your theories, do not actually meet the standard required to be accepted as FACT.
Neither do they reach the level required to challenge many of the "old theories ".

We will agree to disagree on that point and my theories in my opinion are far more plausible than most of that have been put forward on this thread to prop up the old theory

You are welcome, I give great praise to your use of the experts in my own work.
Praise where it's due.

Steve

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

They don't need to show different methods of handling the cloth with bloody hands the killer could not have failed to transfer traces of blood and faecal matter to both sides of the apron piece

There you go again, of course it's possible to handle the cloth without transferring biological material to both sides.
That you cannot see that is a very serious flaw in your reasoning.

But he could have done both and still left traces on both sides of the apron piece, and based on what has been presented there still, in my opinion, no plausible explanation as to how blood and faecal matter were only on one side of the apron piece. If he had wiped his hands on the clothing what would be the need to cut a piece of the apron and do the wiping again, and why wait till he got to GS before depositing it he would have finished wiping his hands and knife long before he ot to GS

I see you give this response before the parts of my post which give a clear explanation for this. By doing so you are avoided having to acknowledge that explanation.

But firstly let's address your point.
You are assuming he takes the Apron to wipe his hands. He may well not have done, that's just one option.

Of course there are plausible explanations for how stains only got on one side, one explanation is the apron was cut first and put aside, then came into contact with the material as the killer picked it up, either having wiped his hands first, or the contact was partly, if not wholly from his hands as he picked it up by the edge.

Or it was cut later, and it avoided the majority of the spill, only one section being affected or the same applied as above.

You may consider these implausible, I am sure you do, but that does not mean they are. They are certainly possible.

If any of those are true neither you or I know, to argue that such is in your opinion unlikely is fine.
However, to present such as fact, when its just one of several suggestions, is poor methodlogy for serious reserch.
It may be acceptable for documentaries and books aimed at general readship, but its not what is expected in real research

Then we move on to the issue you avoided, the theory it was taken to link the GSG to the murder.
While I don't subscribe to it myself, we can't just dismiss it, for the fact remains, without the apron, no one would have even looked at the GSG.

I am more than happy to defend my position on these issues

That is very clear, but that's not actually addressing the issue Trefor.

You clearly feel that everyone who does not agree with you is not only wrong, but is attempting to stop you from telling the world the truth. That somehow, for some strange reason they want to hide behind theories you dismiss.
The real issue is that your theories, do not actually meet the standard required to be accepted as FACT.
Neither do they reach the level required to challenge many of the "old theories ".

And I thank you for that compliment

You are welcome, I give great praise to your use of the experts in my own work.
Praise where it's due.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

That was a throw-away comment based on your previous theory that the killer would have taken his coat off

I am more than happy to listen to plausible explanations and comment on them but some of yours are off the wall now

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From the man who invented the ‘sanitary towel’ theory. I give up Trevor. You are impervious to reason and obsessed with propping up your own theories (which no one ever agrees with) That a man could wear gloves is science fiction according to you. That a man could take off a coat then put it back on is the equivalent juggling fire. Every witness that doesn’t support your theory automatically get labelled ‘unsafe.’ Police officers prop up theories which don’t help them one bit for absolutely no reason. In your world it’s a fantasy that two police officers could recall that a woman that they spent time with at close quarters was wearing an apron. It’s unbelievable that a doctor could correctly match up two pieces of cloth. But it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that a woman who lived hand-to-mouth, and who was carrying 15 or 16 pieces of material on her person, would resort to cutting up her own clothing (and without a knife.)

Im tired of the rabbit hole.

[Trevor Marriott]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

How would the apron have been the hardest to get at? It was worn on the outside and so, if he cut it before proceeding to mutilate, it would have been the easiest.

Why would he do that there is no logical explanation for him to do that,

Exactly

[COLOR=#2980b9]You conveniently ignore the obvious point that has been made previously numerous times. In the poorly lit Mitre Square it would have been very easy for the killer to not have noticed some blood on his clothing or shoes. So it would have made absolute sense to have checked himself over away from the crime scene where he could see better and he would have been some distance from arriving police officers.

Why take so long before depositing it in GS?

He couldn't have put the piece in his pocket as you suggest because according to another one of your made-up theories he had taken his coat off

That was made up by you

Firstly, all theories are made up.

and you certainly know how to make them up at least I stick to the same ones

Secondly, I didn’t suggest him removing the coat as a fact; only a possibility.

Thirdly, according to you then the killer would be saying “Oh damn! I can’t put my gloves in my coat pocket because my coat is lying on the floor 10 inches away. Oh what shall I do?” Be serious Trevor when you undertaking those contortions.

That was a throw-away comment based on your previous theory that the killer would have taken his coat off

I am more than happy to listen to plausible explanations and comment on them but some of yours are off the wall now

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

However, those photos, do not and cannot do anything other the illustrate the point you wish to make.
They do not show alternative methods for wiping hands, or for wiping a knife( wiping the knife, always seems a weak option to me anyway).
More importantly they do not show all the methods of handling the cloth, do they?

They don't need to show different methods of handling the cloth with bloody hands the killer could not have failed to transfer traces of blood and faecal matter to both sides of the apron piece

To a great degree you undermine your own argument by accepting that the killer could have wiped his hands and knife, on other parts of her clothing. If he had done such, then the idea that he would then have to mark the apron on both sides fails rather spectacularly.

But he could have done both and still left traces on both sides of the apron piece, and based on what has been presented there still, in my opinion, no plausible explanation as to how blood and faecal matter were only on one side of the apron piece. If he had wiped his hands on the clothing what would be the need to cut a piece of the apron and do the wiping again, and why wait till he got to GS before depositing it he would have finished wiping his hands and knife long before he ot to GS

The problem is we do not know the purpose for taking the apron, and I suspect never will; which means trying to judge how it would be marked is a fruitless exercise.

If as some have suggested it was taken to demonstrate to the police, that the message was from the killer( one I do not agree with, as I remain unconvinced the killer wrote the GSG, but one I do not complete dismiss as being improbable.) then all of the arguments you make are rendered irrelevant.

My dear Trevor, and I do actually like you , you have allowed your belief in your own ideas to override the level that is required to achieve proof.
Present your ideas as that, your theories, but it's your insistence that you are correct that and everyone else is wrong, that you have proved issues, when you simply have not, that explains the response you get.

I am more than happy to defend my position on these issues

I loved your use of 5 experts to discuss the medical issues, I believe that is by far the best thing you have every done in.this field, and it needs to be applauded far more than it as been. Steve

And I thank you for that compliment

[Herlock Sholmes]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

How would the apron have been the hardest to get at? It was worn on the outside and so, if he cut it before proceeding to mutilate, it would have been the easiest.

Why would he do that there is no logical explanation for him to do that, if he was conscious of the fact that he might end up with blood on his hands or knife then he could have decided in advance to wipe his hands and knife on her outer clothing without the need to go to all the trouble of cutting a piece "just in case" and we see no evidence of aprons or clothing being cut in any of the other murders.

You conveniently ignore the obvious point that has been made previously numerous times. In the poorly lit Mitre Square it would have been very easy for the killer to not have noticed some blood on his clothing or shoes. So it would have made absolute sense to have checked himself over away from the crime scene where he could see better and he would have been some distance from arriving police officers.

Why didn’t he do this at previous sites? I don’t know. Maybe he took a piece of cloth on those occasions but this time he forgot? Maybe Mitre Square was darker than other sites so he realised that it wasn’t the ideal place to check himself over? Simple, obvious stuff.

Killer strangles victim…….cuts a piece of cloth and puts it in his pocket blood free….wipes his hands on her clothing removing most of it…….goes to Goulston Street…….spots a bit of blood/faeces somewhere on his person…….wipes it off leaving the traces found on the cloth, by which time the remaining blood on his hands had dried.
Nice try, now who is fitting the facts to suit a theory this reeks of desperation to prop up the old theory

You claim that we should look at alternative explanations. Does that only apply to you?

He couldn't have put the piece in his pocket as you suggest because according to another one of your made-up theories he had taken his coat off

Firstly, all theories are made up.

Secondly, I didn’t suggest him removing the coat as a fact; only a possibility.

Thirdly, according to you then the killer would be saying “Oh damn! I can’t put my gloves in my coat pocket because my coat is lying on the floor 10 inches away. Oh what shall I do?” Be serious Trevor when you undertaking those contortions.

[Trevor Marriott]

Everything I said comes from the Inquest testimony as presented here on this site.

and the inquest testimony as reported in the various newspapers reports is conflicting

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The theory was factored on the misguided belief that the killer dropped the apron piece and an indication as to which direction of travel he took after the murder

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not misguided. He did drop it.

[Fiver]

Even if the P.C. Long called to assist, saw the apron piece in Long's possession,he could not swear as to how P.C.Long came to have it.Long was reportedly alone until joined by that P.C.

We also have testimony under oath by two men that the the Goulston Street piece matched the apron that Eddowes was wearing

As to those viewing the body in Mitre Square,the significant point to me, is none testified to Eddowes wearing an apron at that time.

Read the Inquest report.

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.

Collards evidence,as Trevor has said,is ambiguous,and does not clearly show an apron being worn.

Read the Inquest report. Collard's evidence is clear. Brown's evidence is clear.

The body,when Brown supposedly made his discovery,was nude,having been stripped beforehand,so Brown could not match with an apron,or piece of apron being worn.

Read the Inquest Report. Dr Brown first saw the body at the crime scene, fully clothed.

The clothes were removed from the body at the post-mortem. Dr Brown was in charge of the ppst-mortem. Dr Brown was assisted by Dr Sequiera and Dr Phillips and a Dr Sauders was also present.

Trevor's theory requires Long, Collard, Brown, Watkin, Morris, Holland, Harvey, Jones, Sequeira, and Davis to be lying.

[Fiver]

If you think that you have been misinformed

Everything I said comes from the Inquest testimony as presented here on this site.