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 Elamarna View Post


    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

    and you totally ignore my previous post, no one is inventing anything, you are another so immersed in the old accepted theory that you have become blinkered to anything that goes against that. How sad is that, but it is to be expected from you and the handful of other armchair detectives who hold court day after day here

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      and you totally ignore my previous post, no one is inventing anything, you are another so immersed in the old accepted theory that you have become blinkered to anything that goes against that. How sad is that, but it is to be expected from you and the handful of other armchair detectives who hold court day after day here

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Again, I must point out how I do not go with old theories when they fail. I mentioned this before.
      I challenge much with regards to the accepted in Bucks Row, and in Berner Street. Therefore your claim is unjustified, but of course it's simply a poor attempt to divert attention.

      Armchair detective? As opposed to what?

      You are no longer a detective, like me you are retired, so we are the same.
      Pot, kettle, black comes to mind.
      Of course armchair detective is such a non insult anyway in the age of online records.

      Sadly, repeating theories that DO stand up to serious and rigiouros Scrutiny, by the vast majority of people both lay and expert, fail scrutiny does not mean that they do.

      Similarly repeating evidence is UNSAFE, over and over, is simply you in your own personal echo chamber Trevor. Just because YOU deem it unsafe DOES NOT mean it is.

      I see, you still avoid the issue that 12 towels is not excessive. But you should know, after the photo tear incident, that I will not let go.

      Steve

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

        Again, I must point out how I do not go with old theories when they fail. I mentioned this before.
        I challenge much with regards to the accepted in Bucks Row, and in Berner Street. Therefore your claim is unjustified, but of course it's simply a poor attempt to divert attention.

        Armchair detective? As opposed to what?

        You are no longer a detective, like me you are retired, so we are the same.
        Pot, kettle, black comes to mind.
        Of course armchair detective is such a non insult anyway in the age of online records.

        Sadly, repeating theories that DO stand up to serious and rigiouros Scrutiny, by the vast majority of people both lay and expert, fail scrutiny does not mean that they do.

        Similarly repeating evidence is UNSAFE, over and over, is simply you in your own personal echo chamber Trevor. Just because YOU deem it unsafe DOES NOT mean it is.

        I see, you still avoid the issue that 12 towels is not excessive. But you should know, after the photo tear incident, that I will not let go.

        Steve
        A detective never loses that investigative and suspicious mind

        You and the wicked witch of the north can sling as much mud as you like I have nothing to fear. I am more than happy with the results of my cold case review of this case and I grow tired of having to keep preaching to the unconverted. I have said all that I can say I have posted images to show the old accepted theory is flawed so I will withdraw from further participation in this topic

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          take some advice to stay round the cauldron and mind the broomstick


          Keep you sexist pig f****ing remarks off of this board or I’ll toss your ass.

          JM

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            I have a brilliant answer see below
            Usually you avoid giving answers.

            Why would Eddowes cut up an apron to use as a sanitary napkin when she already had 12 rags?

            Why would Eddowes try to use non-absorbent cloth like an apron as a sanitary napkin?

            Why would Eddowes discard the apron piece instead of washing and reusing it?

            Why would Eddowes choose so public a place - the entryway of a tenement - to remove and discard the apron?

            Why are you assuming the killer would have blood on both hands?

            Why are you assuming there was blood on only one side of the apron piece?

            Why are you assuming a theory where PC Long misses spotting the apron piece twice is more credible than a theory where PC Long only missed seeing it once or never missed seeing it?

            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jmenges View Post

              Keep you sexist pig f****ing remarks off of this board or I’ll toss your ass.

              JM
              So its alright for her to continually attack and abuse me on here ?

              Thats me done for good now with casebook

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                So its alright for her to continually attack and abuse me on here ?

                Thats me done for good now with casebook
                Promise?

                JM

                Comment


                • My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    A detective never loses that investigative and suspicious mind

                    You and the wicked witch of the north can sling as much mud as you like I have nothing to fear. I am more than happy with the results of my cold case review of this case and I grow tired of having to keep preaching to the unconverted. I have said all that I can say I have posted images to show the old accepted theory is flawed so I will withdraw from further participation in this topic

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    I see, running away, rather than answering the question.
                    So I ask again.
                    Anyone who as lived with a woman knows that 12 towels a month is NOT excessive.
                    Do you accept that statement?

                    Your images do not prove anything is flawed, a image you have constructed, (which does not follow the actual evidence) merely shows an alternative view. It's not a factual image, just one you have drawn up.

                    And as a career researcher my skill set is similar to yours with regards to analysis of evidence.
                    There if I am an Armchair detective, so are you.

                    Steve
                    Last edited by Elamarna; 12-14-2022, 05:22 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      A detective never loses that investigative and suspicious mind

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Also…

                      A detective should never lose impartiality.

                      A detective shouldn’t defend the indefensible.

                      A detective shouldn’t assume infallibility.

                      A detective shouldn’t claim to know what can’t be known.

                      A detective shouldn’t assume that a non-detective can’t assess evidence and apply reason.

                      A detective should apply the same standards/requirements to everything and everyone and not do it selectively.

                      A detective should be big enough to admit when he or she is wrong.

                      A detective shouldn’t ignore inconvenient evidence.

                      A detective should accept that just because a theory is old it doesn’t mean that a newer one must be found.

                      A detective shouldn’t listen to expert advice only when it suits him or her to do so.

                      A detective should try to be logical.

                      A detective shouldn’t assume that everyone in authority was a liar or a moron.





                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                      Comment


                      • Well Jeez. Men are so sensitive and emotional. Must be that time of the month.



                        .....

                        I am sorry, but I could not resist that. I will give my own self an infraction for being a sexist pig.

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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                          Yes there is!

                          At the inquest, PC Robinson confirmed that Eddowes was wearing an apron at the police station. He was asked if he could identify it, and he said he could if he saw "the whole of it". The two parts were produced, and he identified it. PC Hutt confirmed that she was wearing the apron when she left the station, and that he believed that the "apron" shown to PC Robinson was the one she was wearing. No-one at the inquest said anything to suggest that the whole apron was not available, nor that the two parts did not make up a full apron. Why would a police officer ask to be shown a "whole apron" if the police were aware that they did not have the whole apron? It makes no sense whatever!

                          The police evidence is quite clear - Two different officers independantly swore she was wearing the apron, and the only available evidence suggests that the whole apron was available at the inquest. There is therefore a complete absence of evidence that the two parts did not make up the whole apron.

                          You can, of course, claim that the sworn evidence of the two officers, and the total absence of any suggestion at the inquest that the apron was not complete is "unsafe", but you cannot claim that there is "no evidence".

                          I don't accept the suggestion that the inquest was several days after the murder, and the PC's memories could have been hazy. The officers would have been asked shortly afterwards for a description of Eddowes and all related events, so questions about the apron weren't sudden and unexpected at the inquest. They would have made their observations within 24 hours of the event.
                          Hi Doctored Whatsit,

                          I'm interested in the bolded part above in particular. In the Daily Telegraph (Oct 12th) coverage of the inquest (the version found under the official documents area here on Casebook), that section of his testimony reads:

                          "Mr. Crawford: Did any one appear to know her? - No. The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.​"

                          The DT doesn't include the wording of all the questions posed, and it is clear something is missing after the initial "No." of the response, as producing the apron makes no sense in the context of a question about anyone appearing to know her.

                          Can you point me to the paper that includes PC Robinson's more complete statements please, particularly where he indicates he would need to see the whole of the apron? That request makes no sense, of course, if she hadn't been wearing a whole apron to begin with. Also, as you say, it is positive evidence that what was shown at the inquest made up a complete apron.

                          - Jeff



                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                            Hi Doctored Whatsit,

                            I'm interested in the bolded part above in particular. In the Daily Telegraph (Oct 12th) coverage of the inquest (the version found under the official documents area here on Casebook), that section of his testimony reads:

                            "Mr. Crawford: Did any one appear to know her? - No. The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.​"
                            - Jeff


                            Hi Jeff, I think what happened here is that whoever was taking notes, didn't record all the dialogue, in favor of describing action, leading to a confusion in what is "testimony" and what is court transcript notes that indicate action. Action- The apron being produced (shown to the witness) the witness says "To the best of my knowledge it is the apron she was wearing." It is not all verbal transcription.

                            The apron being produced means that an apron was taken out and shown to the PC and the reporter described it as torn and bloody. There was probably a dialogue in there that went "Was this the apron that the deceased was wearing" PC: "Yes, to the best of my knowledge that was the apron". The transcriber has left out the direct question in favor of just saying they produced the apron, and the PC confirmed it was the one she was wearing.

                            If you look at Hutt's testimony the Coroner asks "Was that the apron she was wearing" indicating they must be showing the Pc's an apron for them to identify.

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

                            Comment


                            • Times 12 Oct
                              "Mr. Crawford. - No one in the crowd appeared to know the woman. Witness last saw her on the same evening at about 10 minutes to 9 o'clock in the police cell.
                              Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron. - Yes, she was.
                              Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it? - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.​"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                                Times 12 Oct
                                "Mr. Crawford. - No one in the crowd appeared to know the woman. Witness last saw her on the same evening at about 10 minutes to 9 o'clock in the police cell.
                                Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron. - Yes, she was.
                                Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it? - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.​"
                                Thank you Josh! You are, of course correct. The extract also appears in the JtR Sourcebook.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X