Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    Cmon Ally dont keep us in suspense
    Click image for larger version

Name:	rocky-horror-melb_cova.jpg
Views:	212
Size:	18.3 KB
ID:	801645 Oops,thought you said suspenders
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Haha Dave, good one
      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        We don’t accept it because you are wrong. You’re the one that can never admit when you’re wrong.

        Only a fool would claim that the 2 pieces didn’t make a full apron and that Eddowes wasn’t wearing it at the time. The EVIDENCE shows this.

        Three people (including 2 police officers saw her wearing it - how many do you need?)

        Collard makes the point that it was found outside of her clothing. So it wasn’t concealed or in a pocket. Therefore she must have worn it.

        The idea that she would have cut up a valuable piece of clothing when she had 14 pieces of material to use for sanitary purposes is simply a joke.

        Dr. Brown matched up the 2 pieces, which included a patch. So zero chance of error. No mention of a missing piece because there wasn’t one as everyone but one person can see and understand.

        The Police were 100% of the opinion that the killer dropped the apron piece in Goulston Street. Again, so why no mention of a missing piece, no call for a search for it and no mention of a search.

        ……

        Im sorry if this annoys or offends but if you were a police officer you disguise it well. Some of the points that you make are simply embarrassing. You are so obsessed with your own theories that you’ll try absolutely anything to defend them. You apply stringent criteria to one witness or situation then completely neglect it when in suits you on another. You defend witnesses that suit you then try every trick in the book to discredit the ones that don’t.

        There shouldn’t be a single, intelligent, thinking, reasoned, logical person on the entire planet that doesn’t accept the FACT that Eddowes was wearing that apron the night that she was killed and that the killer dropped it in Goulston Street.
        One picture is worth a thousand words and what cant speak cant lie or make things up to prop up the old accepted theory

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 12-14-2022, 07:56 AM.

        Comment


        • Would she have been on the game whilst she was on the blob ?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dickere View Post
            Would she have been on the game whilst she was on the blob ?
            Brilliant Question
            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dickere View Post
              Would she have been on the game whilst she was on the blob ?
              Needs must when the devil calls, and the description of the apron piece shows that she may have come to the end of her cycle or as a gynaecologist opines someone living her lifestyle may not have a normal period.

              Victorian street women in order to avoid becoming pregnant would also adopt a non-penetrative method called femoral sex

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                Brilliant Question
                I have a brilliant answer see below

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  I have a brilliant answer see below

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Its Silly one, as no doubt will be pointed out to you shortly.
                  'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    Its Silly one, as no doubt will be pointed out to you shortly.
                    Again you rush to post without engaging your brain first

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      But I am not the one who made the suggestion that if she was menstruating she could have used the 12 pieces of rag for that purpose instead of her apron.

                      The issue is that was she simply in possession of two old pieces of an apron at some time before her arrest, one of which she was using as a sanitary device. The other piece of an apron was found in her possessions at the mortuary. The two pieces were never matched, and Browns description does not allow for a match

                      The official statement of Dr Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.

                      However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right-hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached, and would have been described as an old white apron with a piece missing, not as was described as old white apron piece, and would have been of significant size for the doctors and police to document it as just that. But because the piece found in Goulston Street matched the piece from the mortuary what was accounted for with the two pieces was in effect one half of an apron. see attached which has been posted before

                      Click image for larger version  Name:	Victorian apron new corner 2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	106.9 KB ID:	801630

                      The red line shows how the seams and the borders were matched

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                      Wickerman, myself and others put this nonsense to bed ages ago Trevor and you know it. Now you are just regurgitating the same fallacies. Let’s remind ourselves of what Dr. Brown said at the Inquest:

                      “I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood. I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding…”




                      You conveniently, as usual, neglect any mention of the patch which Brown clearly used when matching up the two pieces. The left hand side of the apron in your drawing is a hem and not a seam (which has also been explained to you). Brown mentions matching up via a seam. We don’t know the exact location of this but we know that the killer cut through it.

                      Wickerman posted a suggestion which I add here. This conforms to the known evidence. There’s also another suggestion involving a downward cut through the waistband, but what you’ve done (again) is to falsely present your diagram as the only possible explanation when of course it’s not because we have no description of exactly how the apron was cut. You can’t prove something that we know is false by a self-serving diagram Trevor. The two pieces made up a whole apron. If it hadn’t have done this fact would have been mentioned…..and it wasn’t.

                      Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	0 Size:	23.6 KB ID:	801655
                      This is Wickerman’s suggestion.

                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Again you rush to post without engaging your brain first

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Trevor, your the last person to be talking about brains, its clear to all you lack them. This idiotic theory of yours where you continue to make up different senarios to suit, is really embarassing. Your clearly so far down your own rabbit hole lately that the desperation to defend such a Ludicrous theory is taking a toll on you .

                        But i look forward to more of Trevors fictional stories of the ''what Eddowes might have or mght not have done'' on the night of her murder.
                        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Again you rush to post without engaging your brain first

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          What did you expect?

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	250px-Blinky.webp
Views:	191
Size:	10.3 KB
ID:	801658
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            But I am not the one who made the suggestion that if she was menstruating she could have used the 12 pieces of rag for that purpose instead of her apron.

                            The issue is that was she simply in possession of two old pieces of an apron at some time before her arrest, one of which she was using as a sanitary device. The other piece of an apron was found in her possessions at the mortuary. The two pieces were never matched, and Browns description does not allow for a match

                            The official statement of Dr Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.

                            However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right-hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached, and would have been described as an old white apron with a piece missing, not as was described as old white apron piece, and would have been of significant size for the doctors and police to document it as just that. But because the piece found in Goulston Street matched the piece from the mortuary what was accounted for with the two pieces was in effect one half of an apron. see attached which has been posted before

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	Victorian apron new corner 2.jpg
Views:	329
Size:	106.9 KB
ID:	801630

                            The red line shows how the seams and the borders were matched

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk




                            Your attempt to divert from my posts FAILS to stand up to serious Scrutiny.

                            It is YOU who as posted here that 12 towels was excessive, not an unnamed expert.
                            It is you who now attempts to divert from.the fact, that anyone who as lived with a woman, knows your suggestion that 12 is excessive is simple invention .

                            With regards to your "speculation"on the apron, there is a difference between speculation and invention. You cross that line sadly.

                            Steve


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                              Cmon Ally dont keep us in suspense
                              My goodness, I feel like Taylor Swift about to drop her 34th album. Unfortunately, I am biz-zay this week and well... there's the issue that I've come to the conclusion that Trevor is just pathologically stupid. There comes a point where arguing with people who are literally too dense to take onboard new information and incorporate it into their world view becomes an exercise in futility, if you're actually trying to argue rationally with him, Which of course, no one is at this point. Have you ever tried to argue with a flat-earther? I have, just to see how stupid people argue things, and it's basically the exact same "evolution" of argument as how Trevor argues his points.

                              He's proven wrong, repeatedly, and often and any time that happens, he just ignores the post or the points in it, and says "You're not credible, you need to shut up". He's incapable of admitting he's wrong -- even when he's on an audio recording, claiming A, and then turns around and says no one ever claimed A. You can't have a serious discussion with a person like that. And no one really is anymore of course. It's all about pinning the tail on the jackass. Which is a fun party game, and one I'm willing to play, it's a good way to while away an otherwise boring five minutes. I don't mind wasting time, when I have time to waste, but I'm a little pressed for the next couple of days.

                              For long term fun, I require my targets to have an IQ somewhere above the level of a slug, if only so that they can differentiate between people laughing at them, and applauding them. He hears the jeers and thinks they're cheers. Delusion like that is mostly fun to observe from the sidelines, with popcorn. And I've yet to see any amount of actually intelligent response that would make this a worthwhile endeavor to pursue over doing the laundry which is a more intellectually stimulating activity than any debate from him.

                              Anyone who actually argues a point and then when proven wrong says, "I don't care to find out the answer..." and then keeps arguing it? Well, I mean honestly. How absolutely ridiculous is that person.

                              Let all Oz be agreed;
                              I need a better class of flying monkeys.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ally View Post

                                My goodness, I feel like Taylor Swift about to drop her 34th album. Unfortunately, I am biz-zay this week and well... there's the issue that I've come to the conclusion that Trevor is just pathologically stupid. There comes a point where arguing with people who are literally too dense to take onboard new information and incorporate it into their world view becomes an exercise in futility, if you're actually trying to argue rationally with him, Which of course, no one is at this point. Have you ever tried to argue with a flat-earther? I have, just to see how stupid people argue things, and it's basically the exact same "evolution" of argument as how Trevor argues his points.

                                He's proven wrong, repeatedly, and often and any time that happens, he just ignores the post or the points in it, and says "You're not credible, you need to shut up". He's incapable of admitting he's wrong -- even when he's on an audio recording, claiming A, and then turns around and says no one ever claimed A. You can't have a serious discussion with a person like that. And no one really is anymore of course. It's all about pinning the tail on the jackass. Which is a fun party game, and one I'm willing to play, it's a good way to while away an otherwise boring five minutes. I don't mind wasting time, when I have time to waste, but I'm a little pressed for the next couple of days.

                                For long term fun, I require my targets to have an IQ somewhere above the level of a slug, if only so that they can differentiate between people laughing at them, and applauding them. He hears the jeers and thinks they're cheers. Delusion like that is mostly fun to observe from the sidelines, with popcorn. And I've yet to see any amount of actually intelligent response that would make this a worthwhile endeavor to pursue over doing the laundry which is a more intellectually stimulating activity than any debate from him.

                                Anyone who actually argues a point and then when proven wrong says, "I don't care to find out the answer..." and then keeps arguing it? Well, I mean honestly. How absolutely ridiculous is that person.
                                he is no more ridiculous than you and your constant defamatory posts. take some advice to stay round the cauldron and mind the broomstick



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X