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

[Fiver]

Long did say that the apron wasn’t there so there has to be reasonable chance that it wasn’t but……and yes there’s always a but….can we be at all certain that Long wasn’t covering his own a**e? If he hadn’t actually checked the doorway properly at 2.20 he might have said that it wasn’t there just to show that he’d been diligent in his duty. Of course we can’t prove or disprove this but it remains a possibility imo. Unlikely perhaps but nowhere near an impossibility. And the fact that he was sacked 6 months later for drunkenness points at least to him possibly not being the most trustworthy of officers.

I agree on most points, but PC Long's drunkenness 6 months later may not be an indication of how sober he was on the night of the murder. Some people blamed Long for going for help instead of searching the entire building himself and for not knowing there was a back entrance to the building, even though it was his first night patrolling that beat. Long might have ended up blaming himself for not catching the killer and turned to drink later.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have considered it and I’m guessing that pretty much everyone interested in the case has considered it at some point and it just doesn’t hold water. There’s nothing wrong with accepting that an ‘old established theory’ as you call them just might be old and established for good reason. That it best fits the known facts.

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

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

and you have the cheek to call my theories unbelievable?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

This suggestion of him cutting himself cannot be dismissed however if the killer's hands were both covered in blood when he cut a piece of the apron I would expect to see traces of blood on both sides of the GS piece because he would have to have used one of his bloody hands to wrap the apron piece around the cut.

You are making some assumptions here.
* That the killer would not have cut himself with one of his first cuts.
* That both of the killer's hands would have blood on them.
* That both his hands would be covered in blood.
* That there was blood on only one side of the apron.
* That the killer wrapped the apron piece around the wound instead of pressing it against the wound.
* That the killer did not fold the apron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, you have checked it and you disregard it that's fine, but you won't even consider or accept the additional evidence that I seek to rely on which creates doubt about the old accepted theory that the killer cut a piece of her apron and deposited it in GS. Police officers' evidence should not be readily accepted as gospel just because they are police officers, especially from what we know about some of their antics.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have considered it and I’m guessing that pretty much everyone interested in the case has considered it at some point and it just doesn’t hold water. There’s nothing wrong with accepting that an ‘old established theory’ as you call them just might be old and established for good reason. That it best fits the known facts.

[Trevor Marriott]

Was he pushed,or did he jump?

Little things please little minds

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Things Trevor has been proven wrong about just on this thread-

How many sanitary napkins a woman would use in a month ( bogglingly he’d even argue that to begin with).

Catherine Eddowes wasn’t homeless.

Where the GSG apron piece was cut from.

This is the guy who “claims” he was once a “murder squad” detective (which honestly sounds like a made up position from a guy who was a rent a cop at the mall dreaming of glory.)

Was he pushed,or did he jump?

[Trevor Marriott]

We have all gone over this before Trevor. The evidence presented by Hutt and Robinson isn’t ‘unsafe.’ There’s nothing remotely ‘unsafe’ about it. It’s purely because you need them to be discredited to prop up your theory.

Ive checked your scenario numerous times. It’s a non-starter. It’s why only you support it.

Yes, you have checked it and you disregard it that's fine, but you won't even consider or accept the additional evidence that I seek to rely on which creates doubt about the old accepted theory that the killer cut a piece of her apron and deposited it in GS. Police officers' evidence should not be readily accepted as gospel just because they are police officers, especially from what we know about some of their antics.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have gone over this before and stated in a previous post that some of the police officer's evidence throughout these murders is unsafe and may be misleading I am not going to go through those reasons again why the officer's evidence you refer to is unsafe and misleading yet again.

Maybe you should check out exactly what I do suggest because it bears no resemblance to the scenario you present above

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We have all gone over this before Trevor. The evidence presented by Hutt and Robinson isn’t ‘unsafe.’ There’s nothing remotely ‘unsafe’ about it. It’s purely because you need them to be discredited to prop up your theory.

Ive checked your scenario numerous times. It’s a non-starter. It’s why only you support it.

[Trevor Marriott]

She was wearing an apron. We know this for a fact because two non-partially sighted police officers saw her at the time and spent time in her company; seeing her at close quarters. Both confirmed that she was wearing an apron. I realise that you’ve obsessively tried to discredit there evidence on the grounds that it’s inconvenient to your theory but there is not a shred of evidence for doubt.

The chances of her cutting up her apron (especially given the proven fact that she was carrying more cloth than a dressmaker’s bench) is non-existent. And to add to the ludicrousness she would have needed possession of a knife between leaving the police station and her death. So unless she accosted some passerby for a lend of a blade this silly theory falls even flatter. It’s a non-starter and we’re long past the time when it should have been put to bed permanently.

I have gone over this before and stated in a previous post that some of the police officer's evidence throughout these murders is unsafe and may be misleading I am not going to go through those reasons again why the officer's evidence you refer to is unsafe and misleading yet again.

Maybe you should check out exactly what I do suggest because it bears no resemblance to the scenario you present above

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Things Trevor has been proven wrong about just on this thread-

How many sanitary napkins a woman would use in a month ( bogglingly he’d even argue that to begin with).

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

Catherine Eddowes wasn’t homeless.

That is not correct she and her partner had access to lodgings in Flower and Dean Street

Where the GSG apron piece was cut from.

The answer to that is quite simple it was cut from the piece of apron found in her possessions at the mortuary

This is the guy who “claims” he was once a “murder squad” detective (which honestly sounds like a made up position from a guy who was a rent a cop at the mall dreaming of glory.)

I would appreciate less of the character assassination it is uncalled for especially from you who is supposed to be a moderator who quickly condemns others who act in the same way you are acting

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just don’t understand how some of these definite statements are constantly being made about events that occurred 134 years ago in a case where there are so many things that we are in the dark about. If the police looked at the same circumstances today they would undoubtedly conclude that the killer took away a piece of apron (for whatever reason) and dropped it in Goulston Street. Why is this very obvious conclusion, which is supported by the evidence, so unacceptable? It can only be because we’re yet again seeing a ‘defend a theory at all costs’ situation.

All the evidence points away from the ‘sanitary towel’ theory. She had other cloths available. She had no knife to cut her apron. We have no one seeing her arrive back at her lodging house. We have no reason for her to return to the area around Mitre Square had she first returned to the lodging house (which, considering the time that she was released combined with the time that Lawende and co saw her, it would have meant pretty much entering then almost immediately leaving)

Against that we have 2 police officers who saw her wearing an apron and a Doctor who matched up the two halves.

We can discount the suggestion that it was carried there by a dog. Likewise the suggestion that it was moved by a police officer. The wind couldn’t have blown it there.

Obvious, unavoidable conclusion…….the killer dropped it there.

We needn’t call in at 221b to solve this particular question.

[Aethelwulf]

I didn’t realise that you were there.

was holding HGS's zimmerframe

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would she have needed to cut a piece according to some she had 12 pieces in her possession. but it is more likely that she was wearing the GS piece as a sanitary device and she then discarded it in GS after her release

www,trevormarriott.co.uk

She was wearing an apron. We know this for a fact because two non-partially sighted police officers saw her at the time and spent time in her company; seeing her at close quarters. Both confirmed that she was wearing an apron. I realise that you’ve obsessively tried to discredit there evidence on the grounds that it’s inconvenient to your theory but there is not a shred of evidence for doubt.

The chances of her cutting up her apron (especially given the proven fact that she was carrying more cloth than a dressmaker’s bench) is non-existent. And to add to the ludicrousness she would have needed possession of a knife between leaving the police station and her death. So unless she accosted some passerby for a lend of a blade this silly theory falls even flatter. It’s a non-starter and we’re long past the time when it should have been put to bed permanently.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There were no gloves!The apron piece was used to transport the kidney.

I didn’t realise that you were there.

[Ally]

Things Trevor has been proven wrong about just on this thread-

How many sanitary napkins a woman would use in a month ( bogglingly he’d even argue that to begin with).

Catherine Eddowes wasn’t homeless.

Where the GSG apron piece was cut from.

This is the guy who “claims” he was once a “murder squad” detective (which honestly sounds like a made up position from a guy who was a rent a cop at the mall dreaming of glory.)