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

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Elamarna]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Elamarna]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?”