Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 12-04-2022, 04:36 PM.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View PostSo taking that all into account the police investigation into the murders of Chapman and Eddowes was based on the facts that they were both killed by the same hand, and the killer removed their organs at the crime scene. Additionally, in the case of Eddowes a piece of apron matching a piece of apron found in Eddowes possessions was believed to have been taken away and dropped by the killer in GS. That is the police theory!!!!!!
The apron piece found in Goulston Street being dropped by the killer was a police theory. It is still the most credible theory.
Some police were sure graffito was not written by the killer. Some expressed no opinion. So far, neither you nor anyone else has presented evidence that any of he police were sure that the graffito was written by the killer. So far, nether you nor anyone else has presented any evidence that the police had a prevailing theory about the graffito.
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View PostThere is no logic in a murder investigation.
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View PostAs to the 12 pieces of rag, we do not know the quality of this material.
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View PostEddowes was described as being a hawker so she may have had them in her possession to sell 12 pieces of the same material is suggestive of that. The bloodstaining was clearly a result of her being stabbed in and around the abdominal area
Why would Eddowes cut a section of apron off to use as a sanitary napkin when she had "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained"?
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View PostI never mentioned constables lying, I stated some of their inquest testimony was misleading
"Did they give false evidence to support a police theory"?
Giving false evidence, as anyone remotely familiar with the law would know, is not just lying, but lying under oath, which is a crime."The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren
"Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I just found out that the word s n i g g e r i n g can’t be typed in normally - s******ing.
c.d.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
12 would be excessive for anyone even back then in the Victorian days, especially a female who was malnourished and may not have had a full menstrual cycle, and in case you are inquisitive as to how I know this it has come from a consultant gynaecologist so your sarcastic comment and the attempt at humour has fallen on Stoney ground
www.trevormarriott.co.uk
In other words idiots.
But yeah, keep mansplaining how many rags a woman would need. Because you're an expert on women's menstrual cycles.
But you still haven't answered the question; What pray tell did your "expert gyno" say was the CORRECT number of rags a woman would have needed. Since you know, all woman flow the same. I still am waiting for the "right number" that you would have allowed her to carry for her cycle. No more no less, that exact number. What is it?
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View PostEven Anderson thought the murderer left the message - and the police's view was that it was intended to create a diversion by blaming the Jews.
I am unaware of him commenting on the Goulston Street graffito.
"The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren
"Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
So who is to say that the 12 pieces of rag had not been cut from an old apron? we do not know what material they were made from
Researchers need to take the blinkers off and think outside the box
But I do not intend to debate this issue yet again it has been debated more times than I care to mention
Researchers can believe what they want to believe in fact no one has been able to come up with a plausible and believable explanation for the killer to cut a piece of apron and deposit it in GS
www.trevormarriott.co.uk
There are plenty of plausible explanations for JtR to to have cut the apron, and deposited it in GS. For example, he cut himself during the evisceration, cut a piece of apron to staunch the blood, and then abandoned it on the way home when the bleeding had stopped. Another would be to deliberately draw attention to the graffito which he had written.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ally View Post
LOL... a consulting gynecologist, ROFLMAO. I'm going to say this one goes up there with your list of "experts" like the fortune teller writing expert you got to compare the Swanson marginalia and the dimwit who said it would take 45 minutes to remove an organ from a dead body.
In other words idiots.
But yeah, keep mansplaining how many rags a woman would need. Because you're an expert on women's menstrual cycles.
But you still haven't answered the question; What pray tell did your "expert gyno" say was the CORRECT number of rags a woman would have needed. Since you know, all woman flow the same. I still am waiting for the "right number" that you would have allowed her to carry for her cycle. No more no less, that exact number. What is it?
Let me ask you a question do you carry around 12 sanitary devices in your bag when you are menstruating?
Comment
-
Oh I adore experts. Proper ones, who ... you know, actually have a clue what they are talking about.
From Obstetrics: the Science and the Art, by Charles Meigs, 1852:
“For the most part, as soon as the menses are perceived to begin to flow, the woman applies a T-bandage, consisting of a napkin.... (cut out all the intervening discussion of the mechanics of application to focus on the important part)...
Many female patients have assured me they never use less than a dozen napkins upon each catamenial occasion— and fifteen, and even twenty such changes are not very rare in the history of healthy menstruations. An ounce to a napkin is, perhaps, not an excessive computation.”
And as for whether I carry around 12 sanitary devices in my bag when I am menstruating, if I were homeless, I probably would. Where do you think Catherine Eddowes would be keeping hers? In her spare closet?
Do give my very best to your gyno pal, who clearly doesn't know their facts from their vaginal canal.
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
If, as you suggest, the 12 pieces of rag might have been from an old apron, then surely she would have used one of them as a sanitary towel, not cut her existing apron!
There are plenty of plausible explanations for JtR to to have cut the apron, and deposited it in GS. For example, he cut himself during the evisceration, cut a piece of apron to staunch the blood, and then abandoned it on the way home when the bleeding had stopped. Another would be to deliberately draw attention to the graffito which he had written.
If he didn't remove the organs at the crime scene then how could he have cut himself removing them
The description of the apron piece is not consistent with the scenario you cite, surely if he had done that he would have waited until he got home to dispose of the apron piece and besides the apron piece by how it was matched would have been too big to use as a bandage.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ally View PostOh I adore experts. Proper ones, who ... you know, actually have a clue what they are talking about.
From Obstetrics: the Science and the Art, by Charles Meigs, 1852:
“For the most part, as soon as the menses are perceived to begin to flow, the woman applies a T-bandage, consisting of a napkin.... (cut out all the intervening discussion of the mechanics of application to focus on the important part)...
Many female patients have assured me they never use less than a dozen napkins upon each catamenial occasion— and fifteen, and even twenty such changes are not very rare in the history of healthy menstruations. An ounce to a napkin is, perhaps, not an excessive computation.”
And as for whether I carry around 12 sanitary devices in my bag when I am menstruating, if I were homeless, I probably would. Where do you think Catherine Eddowes would be keeping hers? In her spare closet?
Do give my very best to your gyno pal, who clearly doesn't know their historical facts from their vaginal canal.
So you are now a self-proclaimed expert on Victorian women and their menstrual cycles and you know more than a consultant gynaecologist
Comment
-
You still hold onto the nonsense that the 2 pieces of apron didn’t make up a whole apron and that she wasn’t wearing one that night? It’s hard to credit that you haven’t let this go and it just goes to illustrate what I said in an earlier post. Any ‘new’ theory will do. It can be total hogwash but it doesn’t matter as long as it’s a ‘new’ theory. A theory just for the sake of it. The evidence that she was wearing an apron that night and that the 2 pieces made up a whole apron is beyond doubt.
There’s far too much out and out silliness talked about on this case. New thinking is good but we really need to weed out the nonsense. Too much time is wasted refuting plain daftness.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
Eddowes was not homeless she had lodgings
So you are now a self-proclaimed expert on Victorian women and their menstrual cycles and you know more than a consultant gynaecologist
www.trevormarriott.co.uk
And two, I'll put my expert, named and published in the Victorian era about how many sanitary napkins a Victorian era woman would have used against your "nameless" pulled straight from your ass and having absolutely no credentials gyno "consultant". But go ahead and provide a name. I'd love to check credentials. And extensively quiz them on their comprehension of Victorian era sanitary devices, the use thereof, and their familiarity with the wide variety of uterine sloughings.
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ally View Post
Your inability to just ever admit you are wrong, even when you are confronted by direct fact is .... truly evidence of quite the pathology. One, Catherine did not have a steady lodging. She moved. From lodging house to lodging house, like she had in the days preceding her death which was preceded by a lengthy travel from a hops picking expedition out of the city.
And two, I'll put my expert, named and published in the Victorian era about how many sanitary napkins a Victorian era woman would have used against your "nameless" pulled straight from your ass and having absolutely no credentials gyno "consultant". But go ahead and provide a name. I'd love to check credentials. And extensively quiz them on their comprehension of Victorian era sanitary devices, the use thereof, and their familiarity with the wide variety of uterine sloughings.
You are the one who should be producing direct facts, you are the one challenging the expert's credibility please feel free to publish those facts, either put up or shut up
If you want to know the details of all of my expert's credentials they can be found in my book "Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth" which you might like to read and appraise yourself of the results of my long cold case review after all you might learn something
Comment
-
"Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth about my as yet to be proven new theory '' that seems to have a better ring to it going by the post of late.'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
Comment