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

[FISHY1118]

Well, the old accepted scenario does not stand up to close scrutiny so on that basis I have explored other likely scenarios which may explain some of the ambiguities in the accepted theory. One of the basic principles in criminal investigations in law is to prove or disprove the evidence as presented. The evidence you and others want to readily accept has been proven to be unsafe. I can't see why you and others won't accept that as fact and be prepared to take the blinkers off and look at other alternative scenarios which are just as plausible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well thats your opinion only , the old excepted theories do stack up to scrutiny, as far as i can see no one has been able to say or ''disprove'' they didnt happen just as the witness and medical evidence tells us, So what makes them any less believable than a new theory that also doesnt stack up to such close scrutiny. ?

[Ally]

I do not pay and have never paid experts to opine on any of these matters

Ah. So your "expert witnesses" are merely nothing more than unpaid unprofessionals spouting nonsense without facts based on whatever misinformation you fed them. Okay. So you value their expert opinions so little, you found its value to be "zero". We'll all consider it with that same value then.

The amount of rags used would depend on the individual and the individual's lifestyle which is a fact!

Exactly. Which means Eddowes could have used 12 or 20. You have no way of knowing, nor does your non-expert.

as stated by a modern-day gynaecologist and I am sure he knows more 130 years on from your Victorian expert

He may know more on some things ( I do love how it's now TWO men opining on a woman's menstrual flow) but what he doesn't know more about is than a person who actually SPOKE to women at the time, and asked multiple women how many rags they used. And the answer is AT LEAST A DOZEN.

So your expert and you are full of ****.

I am told by the expert that blood spotting is an integral part of the menstruation process, especially in women who are malnourished and emaciated.

See and the difference is, you have to be told. You refuse to listen to actual women. Dumbass, blood spotting is an integral process whether one is malnourished or emaciated. It can come at the beginning of a cycle and at the end. Regardless of one's state of nourishment. Which anyone with a functioning uterus is capable of telling you. Like the women on this thread, telling you.

and supposing as you suggest that the 12 pieces of rag were to be used as sanitary devices how do we know that those pieces of rag were not the remains of an old apron, and that she was using one of the pieces at the time of her arrest, and after her release from custody she made her way back in the direction of Flower and Dean Street where she discarded the soiled and wet sanitary device under the archway before turning around and going back to to the city

Because once again, imbecilic man that you are, SHE would NOT have cut up her apron, a functional garment, to use as a sanitary device when she had a dozen other options. It's only the fact that ONCE AGAIN, you cannot accept your theory is idiotic. It's literally stupid. It is ridiculously STUPID for anyone to suggest this, and to continually argue it. You look like those morons on reddit who have never met a woman, never had a relationship with a woman and are therefore arguing imbecilic things about what a woman would do, in absence of ever knowing one.

Your theory is STUPID. It actually makes you look dumber, every time you argue it. And yet you keep arguing it.

As I stated previously the old accepted theories surrounding this murder do not stand up to close scrutiny and therefore other alternative explanations
should be explored but it seems you and others are reluctant to do so

No, I'm not reluctant to explore alternate theories. But yours isn't a theory. It's a stupid idea, that you keep doubling down on, and refusing in the absence of fact, ACTUAL expert testimony from the time and basic common sense to just recognize you are wrong.

I'll explore any theory that's not full out stupid. Entertaining your ideas would mean my IQ was in the low double digits. I have standards of what nonsense and imbecility I am willing to entertain. Your constant whinging on a subject you clearly know nothing about, nor do your panel of "experts", who also never seem to actually be experts in the subjects they opine on, are not worth exploring. Because they're stupid.

[FISHY1118]

Wow. Heavy stuff .

[Herlock Sholmes]

But there is no plausible explanation as to why he would cut a piece of the apron in the first place, take it away with him and then deposit it at an off-road location some distance away from the crime scene. All the explanations put forward to date do not stand up to close scrutiny.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First plausible explanation - I’ve just killed a woman in the dark, I might have blood on me, I can’t see if I have blood on me here, so I’ll take a piece of cloth and check myself over when I get away from the scene and arrive somewhere with a bit more light.

Second, the suggestion that the killer might have injured himself and used the piece of apron as a makeshift bandage.

Third, that he took away a piece of cloth as a souvenir (more permanent than organs) then when he got to Goulston Street perhaps he saw some blood on his shoe. He wipes it off with the cloth but realises that there’s actually faeces on it so he decided to discard it.

Fourth, that he’d intended to write a message and used the apron in an attempt to verify for the police that it was written by him.

That you can dismiss these and yet propose the ‘sanitary towel’ theory pretty much beggars belief Trevor.

[Aethelwulf]

What I feel when I read Trevor's sanitary towel theory:

Vicarious embarrassment (also known as secondhand, empathetic, or third-party embarrassment and also as Spanish shame or Fremdschämen in German) is the feeling of embarrassment from observing the embarrassing actions of another person.

[Fiver]

Hopefully he used part of the apron without faeces to bandage his purported wound.

Purported? It's been suggested as a possibility, not proclaimed as a fact.

If the Ripper cut himself and was using the apron piece as an improvised bandage, he would try to use a clean portion of the apron. But working in poor lighting would not guarantee success. And even if the improvised bandage started clean, it could become spoiled from being used as an improvised bandage.

[Fiver]

First plausible explanation - I’ve just killed a woman in the dark, I might have blood on me, I can’t see if I have blood on me here, so I’ll take a piece of cloth and check myself over when I get away from the scene and arrive somewhere with a bit more light.

Second, the suggestion that the killer might have injured himself and used the piece of apron as a makeshift bandage.

Third, that he took away a piece of cloth as a souvenir (more permanent than organs) then when he got to Goulston Street perhaps he saw some blood on his shoe. He wipes it off with the cloth but realises that there’s actually faeces on it so he decided to discard it.

Fourth, that he’d intended to write a message and used the apron in an attempt to verify for the police that it was written by him.

That you can dismiss these and yet propose the ‘sanitary towel’ theory pretty much beggars belief Trevor.

Fifth, that he decided to carry away organs that he had removed from the body and used the apron piece to carry them in.

All are more plausible than Trevor's theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah. So your "expert witnesses" are merely nothing more than unpaid unprofessionals spouting nonsense without facts based on whatever misinformation you fed them. Okay. So you value their expert opinions so little, you found its value to be "zero". We'll all consider it with that same value then.




Exactly. Which means Eddowes could have used 12 or 20. You have no way of knowing, nor does your non-expert.




He may know more on some things ( I do love how it's now TWO men opining on a woman's menstrual flow) but what he doesn't know more about is than a person who actually SPOKE to women at the time, and asked multiple women how many rags they used. And the answer is AT LEAST A DOZEN.

So your expert and you are full of ****.





See and the difference is, you have to be told. You refuse to listen to actual women. Dumbass, blood spotting is an integral process whether one is malnourished or emaciated. It can come at the beginning of a cycle and at the end. Regardless of one's state of nourishment. Which anyone with a functioning uterus is capable of telling you. Like the women on this thread, telling you.



Because once again, imbecilic man that you are, SHE would NOT have cut up her apron, a functional garment, to use as a sanitary device when she had a dozen other options. It's only the fact that ONCE AGAIN, you cannot accept your theory is idiotic. It's literally stupid. It is ridiculously STUPID for anyone to suggest this, and to continually argue it. You look like those morons on reddit who have never met a woman, never had a relationship with a woman and are therefore arguing imbecilic things about what a woman would do, in absence of ever knowing one.

Your theory is STUPID. It actually makes you look dumber, every time you argue it. And yet you keep arguing it.

No, I'm not reluctant to explore alternate theories. But yours isn't a theory. It's a stupid idea, that you keep doubling down on, and refusing in the absence of fact, ACTUAL expert testimony from the time and basic common sense to just recognize you are wrong.

I'll explore any theory that's not full out stupid. Entertaining your ideas would mean my IQ was in the low double digits. I have standards of what nonsense and imbecility I am willing to entertain. Your constant whinging on a subject you clearly know nothing about, nor do your panel of "experts", who also never seem to actually be experts in the subjects they opine on, are not worth exploring. Because they're stupid.

I am going to treat your post with the contempt that it deserves, you haven't got a clue which shows in the utter drivel you post, and clearly shows you have lost the plot and you are making yourself look a complete fool so If I were you I would withdraw gracefully if that is possible

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

First plausible explanation - I’ve just killed a woman in the dark, I might have blood on me, I can’t see if I have blood on me here, so I’ll take a piece of cloth and check myself over when I get away from the scene and arrive somewhere with a bit more light.

Did he do that with any of the other murders, no he didnt so why would he do it at this crime scene?

Second, the suggestion that the killer might have injured himself and used the piece of apron as a makeshift bandage.

Then how did faeces get on the apron piece, and besides the apron piece if we are to believe some that it was half an apron would be too big to use as a bandage and there was only blood on one side of the apron if he had cut himself I would expect to see traces of blood on both sides

Third, that he took away a piece of cloth as a souvenir (more permanent than organs) then when he got to Goulston Street perhaps he saw some blood on his shoe. He wipes it off with the cloth but realises that there’s actually faeces on it so he decided to discard it.

he didn't take any such souvenir from any of the other murders did he?

Fourth, that he’d intended to write a message and used the apron in an attempt to verify for the police that it was written by him.

But how would he have known the cloth and the message would have ever been found and if they were found how would the finder know either was linked to a murder?

That you can dismiss these and yet propose the ‘sanitary towel’ theory pretty much beggars belief Trevor.

They no more beggars belief than the explanations you have posted above your trying to justify the old accepted theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First plausible explanation - I’ve just killed a woman in the dark, I might have blood on me, I can’t see if I have blood on me here, so I’ll take a piece of cloth and check myself over when I get away from the scene and arrive somewhere with a bit more light.

Did he do that with any of the other murders, no he didnt so why would he do it at this crime scene?

Maybe it’s something he learned from experience? Maybe he felt that he’d been lucky after the first murder? With Chapman he was in a back yard with a bit more time, with Kelly he was in a room.

Second, the suggestion that the killer might have injured himself and used the piece of apron as a makeshift bandage.

Then how did faeces get on the apron piece,

From Eddowes, we don’t know at what stage he cut it.

and besides the apron piece if we are to believe some that it was half an apron would be too big to use as a bandage

You’ve heard of folding I assume?

and there was only blood on one side of the apron if he had cut himself I would expect to see traces of blood on both sides.

From Eddowes, where else? Why would it be too big? How can we know that he didn’t fold it mag

Again, folding.

Third, that he took away a piece of cloth as a souvenir (more permanent than organs) then when he got to Goulston Street perhaps he saw some blood on his shoe. He wipes it off with the cloth but realises that there’s actually faeces on it so he decided to discard it.

he didn't take any such souvenir from any of the other murders did he?

Didn’t he? Do you know every item that these women had in their possession? Who knows what he might have taken?

Fourth, that he’d intended to write a message and used the apron in an attempt to verify for the police that it was written by him.

But how would he have known the cloth and the message would have ever been found and if they were found how would the finder know either was linked to a murder?

There would have been no certainties of course so he wasn’t ‘relying’ on them being found. It would have been a bonus. Surely though it would have been a reasonable bet that someone finding a bloodied rag next to a newly written chalk message might have reported it to the police. Even more likely though, knowing that he’d cut a piece from the apron, and knowing that the police would know that too, it would be a certainty the the police would be searching the area for it.

That you can dismiss these and yet propose the ‘sanitary towel’ theory pretty much beggars belief Trevor.

They no more beggars belief than the explanations you have posted above your trying to justify the old accepted theory.

……

But it’s not really an ‘old accepted theory’ in the singular is it? Added to the point that Fiver made there are 5 possible explanations. All more plausible than yours.

I think that it’s not ‘old accepted theories’ that you don’t like Trevor, it’s any theories that aren’t your own.

[Trevor Marriott]

First plausible explanation - I’ve just killed a woman in the dark, I might have blood on me, I can’t see if I have blood on me here, so I’ll take a piece of cloth and check myself over when I get away from the scene and arrive somewhere with a bit more light.

Did he do that with any of the other murders, no he didnt so why would he do it at this crime scene?

Maybe it’s something he learned from experience? Maybe he felt that he’d been lucky after the first murder? With Chapman he was in a back yard with a bit more time, with Kelly he was in a room.

Second, the suggestion that the killer might have injured himself and used the piece of apron as a makeshift bandage.

Then how did faeces get on the apron piece,

From Eddowes, we don’t know at what stage he cut it.

and besides the apron piece if we are to believe some that it was half an apron would be too big to use as a bandage

You’ve heard of folding I assume?

and there was only blood on one side of the apron if he had cut himself I would expect to see traces of blood on both sides.

From Eddowes, where else? Why would it be too big? How can we know that he didn’t fold it mag

Again, folding.

Third, that he took away a piece of cloth as a souvenir (more permanent than organs) then when he got to Goulston Street perhaps he saw some blood on his shoe. He wipes it off with the cloth but realises that there’s actually faeces on it so he decided to discard it.

he didn't take any such souvenir from any of the other murders did he?

Didn’t he? Do you know every item that these women had in their possession? Who knows what he might have taken?

Fourth, that he’d intended to write a message and used the apron in an attempt to verify for the police that it was written by him.

But how would he have known the cloth and the message would have ever been found and if they were found how would the finder know either was linked to a murder?

There would have been no certainties of course so he wasn’t ‘relying’ on them being found. It would have been a bonus. Surely though it would have been a reasonable bet that someone finding a bloodied rag next to a newly written chalk message might have reported it to the police. Even more likely though, knowing that he’d cut a piece from the apron, and knowing that the police would know that too, it would be a certainty the the police would be searching the area for it.

That you can dismiss these and yet propose the ‘sanitary towel’ theory pretty much beggars belief Trevor.

They no more beggars belief than the explanations you have posted above your trying to justify the old accepted theory.

……

But it’s not really an ‘old accepted theory’ in the singular is it? Added to the point that Fiver made there are 5 possible explanations. All more plausible than yours.

I think that it’s not ‘old accepted theories’ that you don’t like Trevor, it’s any theories that aren’t your own.

No, you are wrong, I challenge the accuracy of the old accepted theories which in my opinion are unsafe to totally rely on, and I have put forward other plausible alternatives which again may be unsafe to rely on but the fact is that there are other alternatives to be considered and not dismissed outright in favour of the unsafe accepted theories and having regard to the old accepted theories I fail to see why researchers are so keen to prop up these

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

LOL... so Trevor's response to my post is "I know you are but what am I". It's like arguing with a pathological toddler. He so desperately wants to be an avant garde theorist, he'll literally argue any stupidity just to be seen as "original".

That's... really quite sad. And desperate.

We should introduce him to the flat earthers, they'd get along like a house afire. It must be difficult to invest yourself so thoroughly in something so stupid, that it becomes your actual identity.

[Trevor Marriott]

LOL... so Trevor's response to my post is "I know you are but what am I". It's like arguing with a pathological toddler. He so desperately wants to be an avant garde theorist, he'll literally argue any stupidity just to be seen as "original".

That's... really quite sad. And desperate.

We should introduce him to the flat earthers, they'd get along like a house afire. It must be difficult to invest yourself so thoroughly in something so stupid, that it becomes your actual identity.

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I just want to say that you have to admire someone that thinks his Sanitary Napkin Stupidity is on par with Gandhi. Not that Gandhi ever said that, but still.

I mean ...that's a special kind of special.

Doesn't everyone wish they had the kind of ego that allowed them to go through the world being an absolutely exceptional kind of stupid and still feel superior?

[Fiver]

The old accepted theories have yet to be proven safe to rely on so there is a place for alternatives

No theory, including yours, can ever be safe, so your statement is meaningless.

The real questions are whether a theory is probable and makes sense. Your theories fail badly on both counts.