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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[FISHY1118]

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 .

[Elamarna]

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

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

[harry]

The biggest problem,as I see it,is that almost every piece of so called evidence.is little more than belief.In the matter of the apron piece,it is pure belief that p.c.Long and dr Brown are giving honest and unquestionable reporting.Verylittle of what they say can be corrorborated by another source.
In addition to what I have already written,here is anotherof Long's statement that stands alone.That is, only Long states that tha chalk writing appeared fresh.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet there was no fingerprint technology in 1888.

I didn't say there was

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

What if the gloves were employed after the crime to cover blood stained hands and possibly cuffs.

Helen x

Hi Helen
But with gloves on or without the killer could not have failed to leave traces of blood on both sides of the apron piece because he would have to have first taken hold of the apron to cut a piece and before he put the gloves on he would have had his hands in the blood-filled abdomen and supposedly taking organs so the blood from the gloves/hands would still be transferred to the apron piece

And on the subject of the apron as another poster has correctly pointed out if she had been wearing an apron when the killer lifted her clothes up above her waist the apron would have been the furthest away from him making it the least item of clothing accessible to him. So with that in mind if the killer had wanted to wipe his hands or his knife he could have done so on any of her items of clothing which would have at that time been more accessible to him than the apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

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,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yet there was no fingerprint technology in 1888.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes I do. And everyone appears to agree with me. Maybe we could start the smallest club in the world and call it “People Who Agree With One Of Trevor’s Theories?” Although it would be easier solving the case than to find members.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Parisi North Humber]

Given the knowledge and expertise shown in Mitre Square,it is highly unlikely that Jack the Ripper wore gloves.

Gloves would have hampered his feeling of touch necessary to locate and remove the kidney.

What if the gloves were employed after the crime to cover blood stained hands and possibly cuffs.

Helen x

[FISHY1118]

This new theory is becoming an old unacceptable theory very fast.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It may fit the accepted facts but it has been proven that those old accepted facts do not stand up to close scrutiny.

Which ‘facts’ don’t stand up to scrutiny? And by ‘don’t stand up to scrutiny’ I don’t accept that to be the case just because you disagree with them.

You only have to look at what has been discussed on this thread on this one topic alone and you must see that there are flaws in those accepted facts,

There is no ‘flawed fact’ that changes the absolute certainty that the killer dropped the cloth in Goulston Street. The chances of an alternative explanation being correct are within a hair’s breadth of being impossible. So I dismiss them with confidence. That the killer dropped the cloth can safely be regarded as a fact. No further discussion should be required. You should just accept it and move on.

you have tried desperately to prop up this part of the case by introducing gloves and overcoats taking coats off and putting coats back on and folding of the apron piece to avoid blood stains.

And in your long career as a ‘detective’ I assume then that when one of your colleagues said “you know what Trevor, I think that the killer wore gloves,” that you proceeded to fall about laughing at the sheer outlandishness of such a suggestion?

Was the man seen standing at the entrance to Miter Square wearing an overcoat?

It didn’t have to be an overcoat. Any kind of coat/jacket would have hidden bloodstains on a shirt. The simplest and easiest of precautions. Nothing remotely unlikely about it.

and you have the cheek to call my theories unbelievable?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes I do. And everyone appears to agree with me. Maybe we could start the smallest club in the world and call it “People Who Agree With One Of Trevor’s Theories?” Although it would be easier solving the case than to find members.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are making some assumptions here.
* That the killer would not have cut himself with one of his first cuts.
If he had cut himself at that point he may well have not continued and if he bandaged such a wound then having a bandaged hand would cause him difficulty in trying to remove organs the same difficulty if he were wearing gloves

* That both of the killer's hands would have blood on them.
That is a fact he could not have avoided that because he would have needed to feel his way around the inside of the abdomen to locate the organs then he would have needed to take hold of the organs to remove them

* That both his hands would be covered in blood.
unavoidable

* That there was blood on only one side of the apron.
That is an irrefutable fact

* That the killer wrapped the apron piece around the wound instead of pressing it against the wound.

Then if he had blood on his hands he would first have to have taken hold of the apron before he could cut it leaving traces of blood on both sides of the apron piece

* That the killer did not fold the apron.

There is no evidence to support that but again with blood on both hands he could not avoid transferring blood onto both sides of the apron piece even when trying to fold it

The fact that there were blood spots/smears on only one side of the apron piece shows that that piece could have been between her legs and that it is common for vaginal and anal discharges in women and anal discharges in men using today's vocabulary commonly called "skid marks" resulting in those smears/spots on the apron piece which she had been using and then disposed of under the archway.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

Gentleman, I realize this isn't the main thrust of what is under discussion, but let me throw it out there, because I have an opposing view.

Isn't the concept of the murderer 'reemerging' or 'venturing out again' influenced by the widely held--but quite possibly mistaken--belief that the murderer was a local man, with a remarkable ability to allude the police, and maybe even some 'daring'?

Why must it be so?

If Long was not wrong, and I have no reason to believe that he was, the inordinate delay between cutting the apron and depositing the apron might be explained by the murderer not having particularly good knowledge of local geography; as he made his getaway, he got 'turned around,' lost his bearings in the dark, and was thus literally wandering the streets for the better part of 40 minutes.

He never 'reemerged' because if never returned home to begin with.

In short, his supposed expertise of local geography is not in evidence. He was flat-out lost.

That's an interesting theory. If the killer was wandering the streets lost, how do you explain him not discarding the apron piece until about 40 minutes after the killing?