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

[Elamarna]

Again why can you NOT use the quote facility correctly, it makes replying so time consuming the way you posts

Because they wont accept that the evidence they seek to rely on is unsafe

Translation , because most won't accept you are right.
They have looked at the evidence for the current theory and found it to be sound.
They have looked at the evidence you give to support your idea, and find it wanting.

Thats not going to happen

Should we take that to mean you believe there is a conspiracy to stop you telling the "Truth".

Equally, it is for you to prove the old accepted theory correct The original evidence does not stand up to serious scrutiny

You clearly do not understand how this works.
The current theory as been scrutinised and studied for man years, it is general accepted as being both plausible and probable. It as not failed to stand up to scrutiny as you clam, that is simply your own individual view.
Therefore if you wish to challenge that view, then YOU must provide evidence to dismiss it. Others need only counter your claims.

That's how it works in the real world.

Me: Despite you continuing to repeat a few points over and over, you have not convinced the vast majority of people that the current theory is flaw, unreliable or unsafe.
In those circumstances it is for you to convince the majority, that's how theories work.

Trevor : And those seeking to protect the old theory keep doing the same

Such a reply is completely irrelevant to the comment it claims to be replying to.

If taken as a reply to the comment, not only is it irrelevant but it makes no sense.

It's not arrogance it is attempting to show you and others that there could be a more plausible explanation than the old one

Suggestions of alternatives are one thing. Insistinting that only you know the truth, that your opinion is supreme, and you know better than historians who do not understand as you do, is I am afraid arrogant.

That's not true I highlight the flaws in the evidence in all of the murders, and No I don't claim that at all but I do claim that much of this evidence is unsafe to totally rely on

Sorry but it is true, all evidence that does not agree with your view is deemed to be unsafe.
Trevor, it's time to take a long look in the mirror.

There is no imagination on my part and it might be advisable for there to be on your part so you can see exactly what I am suggesting

Clear as you have not one shread of evidence, physical, written or implied, that the apron was used as a sanitary towel , you do rely greatly on imagination.

I clearly see what you are suggesting , and I am not convinced by your claims

[Herlock Sholmes]

The sanitary towel ‘theory’ is laughable nonsense which has been shown to be a desperate attempt at originality. That Trevor peddles such stuff on here shows that his reason is to persuade everyone on here of its validity. He’s failed time and time again to do this but his ego won’t allow him to even consider that he might be wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801834]

And not forgetting that her killer pulled her clothes up around her waist so that any apron she had been wearing would have been furthest away from him and less accessible, and before you come back and say he could have cut the apron before the mutilations if that had been the case he would have cut a piece from the bottom and we would then see evidence of the remaining part of the apron still around her waist and visual evidence of the apron strings being cut, but both pieces of the apron strings would still be joined at some point.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is a perfect example of you believing that your reasoning is sound even though you’ve made the least sound of points.

The killer would have had to have cut from the bottom of the apron because that would have been impossible. If he’d have grabbed the apron with one hand with the knife in the other he’d have just had a large piece of cloth hanging down loose making it impossible to even begin cutting. To cut cloth with a knife the cloth need to be held firm on both sides of the blade. So unless the killer had an assistant or three arms then he couldn’t have done it.

What he glaringly obviously could have done though was to have held the waistband with one hand, put the knife under the waistband and cut downwards (and probably diagonally as Wick suggested in his diagram. The killer pulls away the GS piece and the string, held in place by the weight of Kate’s body, slides through the waistband and stays with the piece with the body.

Simple.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801860]

This is a perfect example of you believing that your reasoning is sound even though you’ve made the least sound of points.

The killer would have had to have cut from the bottom of the apron because that would have been impossible. If he’d have grabbed the apron with one hand with the knife in the other he’d have just had a large piece of cloth hanging down loose making it impossible to even begin cutting. To cut cloth with a knife the cloth need to be held firm on both sides of the blade. So unless the killer had an assistant or three arms then he couldn’t have done it.

What he glaringly obviously could have done though was to have held the waistband with one hand, put the knife under the waistband and cut downwards (and probably diagonally as Wick suggested in his diagram. The killer pulls away the GS piece and the string, held in place by the weight of Kate’s body, slides through the waistband and stays with the piece with the body.

Simple.

And I am being accused of using my imagination to prove a point

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801863]

And I am being accused of using my imagination to prove a point

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, your being accused suggesting the impossible. It is a physical impossibility to hold a piece of cloth, suspended from a waistband, in one hand and cut it with the other. It can’t be done but you ‘seek to rely’ on this.

[harry]

I was going to post a reply on this thread,but I have been given an infraction notice.Why?.Because of my reply to Abby.Someone appears to believe I actually meant it.They kidding?It was odds on either Trevor or I would be blamed for th recent unpleasantness,but I leave posters to consider who started it.
So it's farewell from me.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801865]

No, your being accused suggesting the impossible. It is a physical impossibility to hold a piece of cloth, suspended from a waistband, in one hand and cut it with the other. It can’t be done but you ‘seek to rely’ on this.

With a sharp knife, anything is possible, and your explanation is reliant on your suggestion that the killer cut the apron before carrying out the mutilations but have you forgotten she was wearing a jacket which would have obscured the waistband of the apron? He could not have cut it after the mutilations because he lifted the clothes up above her waist and he would have a great deal of blood on his hands which as has been said before would have transferred to both sides of the apron piece, and furthermore by lifting the clothes up the apron would be buried under the rest of her clothes

But no one has put forward any plausible explanation for him to have cut a piece from the apron in the first place

If he wanted the apron piece to wipe his hands or knife on he could have done that on her clothes before leaving the crime scene

The diagonal cut to the apron through the waistband isn't plausible in my opinion as that would leave two pieces both with strings attached and the evidence doesn't show that, realistically if the killer cut the apron through the waistband down the middle and then took half away with him which is another suggestion made by another, firstly that would not leave a corner piece and secondly, both pieces would have a string attached. Even a diagonal cut would still result in the same and that would not result in a corner piece being left behind

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

I was going to post a reply on this thread,but I have been given an infraction notice.Why?.Because of my reply to Abby.Someone appears to believe I actually meant it.They kidding?It was odds on either Trevor or I would be blamed for th recent unpleasantness,but I leave posters to consider who started it.
So it's farewell from me.

[jmenges]

prove it. where ? when? for how long? how many murders did you solve? what was your solve rate?
i want documented evidence. name one person/ victim whos murder you personally have solved.


And just what the hell is a "murder squad detective"??

I dont have to prove anything to you, or anybody else on here

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Male Strippers, eh?

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801877]

With a sharp knife, anything is possible, and your explanation is reliant on your suggestion that the killer cut the apron before carrying out the mutilations but have you forgotten she was wearing a jacket which would have obscured the waistband of the apron?

More evidence of the bizarre lengths that you’ll go to. We can’t know that a jacket would have ‘obscured’ anything. A jacket can ride up; a jacket could have been open; the killer could have lifted it to get to the waistband. For Christ’s sake Trevor this is embarrassing.

And with a sharp knife anything isn’t possible. Go to the kitchen and get a sharp knife, go over to your curtains, hold the bottom with one hand and try and cut upwards with the knife…..you won’t be able to do it. It’s impossible. Your suggestion would have been impossible for a solitary man with only two arms!

He could not have cut it after the mutilations because he lifted the clothes up above her waist and he would have a great deal of blood on his hands which as has been said before would have transferred to both sides of the apron piece, and furthermore by lifting the clothes up the apron would be buried under the rest of her clothes

So he cut before the mutilations…..as I said. Your attempt to try and claim that he couldn’t have cut before the mutilations is genuinely one of the most desperate things that I’ve ever heard.

But no one has put forward any plausible explanation for him to have cut a piece from the apron in the first place

Yes we have but you keep ignoring them because your so desperate to bolster your silly theory.

If he wanted the apron piece to wipe his hands or knife on he could have done that on her clothes before leaving the crime scene

Yes ‘Detective’ but in the dark of Mitre Square and under time pressure the killer found himself in, and who we can assume wasn’t an utter cretin, couldn’t have known if he’d got blood on his trousers or shoes or jacket or shirt or knife or even if he’d removed all of the blood from his hands so it makes absolute sense that he might have wanted to check himself over somewhere the light was better and away from the crime scene because the body might have been discovered at any time. So he gives himself the ‘once over’ underneath a lamp in Goulston Street then ducks into the doorway for a quick clean out of sight.

The diagonal cut to the apron through the waistband isn't plausible in my opinion as that would leave two pieces both with strings attached and the evidence doesn't show that, realistically if the killer cut the apron through the waistband down the middle and then took half away with him which is another suggestion made by another, firstly that would not leave a corner piece and secondly, both pieces would have a string attached. Even a diagonal cut would still result in the same and that would not result in a corner piece being left behind.

Its difficult to see how you can consistently keep getting this so wrong.

Corner - no matter where he cut through the waistband it would have left a corner piece. It would have been physically impossible not to have left a corner piece. At the waistband there were 2 corner areas. Cutting away a chunk that included one of those corners would have left the other.

String - when he cut through the the waistband the string was still partially within the waistband and the rest of it underneath Eddowes body where she tied it around here self. The killer cuts down from the waistband and pulls the loose piece away; the string naturally slides through the waistband (due to the weight of her body being on it) and remains in situ. Piece taken away to Goulston Street with no string attached…..piece left in Mitre Square with the string still attached.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I really wish that you would give this one up Trevor. Looking at new angles is commendable and we should all do it but when you get to a complete dead end it serves no purpose if you can’t admit it and move on. Eddowes was wearing the apron. It has been proven by so many points beyond all reasonable doubt.

[Dickere]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801900]

I really wish that you would give this one up Trevor. Looking at new angles is commendable and we should all do it but when you get to a complete dead end it serves no purpose if you can’t admit it and move on. Eddowes was wearing the apron. It has been proven by so many points beyond all reasonable doubt.

I can see Eddowes the Aardvark as the new Peppa Pig.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n801900]

I really wish that you would give this one up Trevor. Looking at new angles is commendable and we should all do it but when you get to a complete dead end it serves no purpose if you can’t admit it and move on. Eddowes was wearing the apron. It has been proven by so many points beyond all reasonable doubt.

I think it is you that should be giving it up and I have not got to a dead end

You and others vehemently continue to prop up the old theory and in doing so constantly keep asking me to provide proof of my theory having done so what do I see you and others continually adjusting the old accepted theory in an attempt to prop it up.

As I have said before if this evidence you seek to rely on had to form part of a prosecution case the evidence and some of the witness testimony would be torn to shreds because it is unsafe.

It's Sunday and I have better things to do than sit here all day your attempt at humour by setting up the poll just goes to show your mentality. As the saying goes "little things please little minds"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

Out of curiosity, can someone British tell me if over yonder, "Retired" is used synonymously with "resigned in disgrace"?


Purely idle curiosity. Words have such different meanings across the pond.

[Trevor Marriott]

Out of curiosity, can someone British tell me if over yonder, "Retired" is used synonymously with "resigned in disgrace"?


Purely idle curiosity. Words have such different meanings across the pond.

We have a saying over here "little things please little minds" but it only has one meaning

and your inbox must be overloaded with infractions and I am surprised you are still here given all the defamatory comments you have posted and continue to post about me, but hey ho you carry on water off a ducks back to me, that's another saying we have over here which means you carry on with the abuse I don't give a flying f..k

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

We have a saying over here "little things please little minds" but it only has one meaning

and your inbox must be overloaded with infractions and I am surprised you are still here given all the defamatory comments you have posted and continue to post about me, but hey ho you carry on water off a ducks back to me, that's another saying we have over here which means you carry on with the abuse I don't give a flying f..k

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why Trevor what makes you think that comment is about you? You haven't ever resigned in disgrace now have you?