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

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually just to be clear, I'm not a moderator. I am the Queen of All You Survey. Second, I don't condemn anyone who acts the way I do. Pointing out errors and straight up lies and misrepresentation of fact is considered Gold Star behavior.

You are wrong. Factually inaccurate and spouting nonsense, repeatedly. When called on it, you never admit your error, you refuse to ever just say "Oh I was wrong" as if it's a mortal sin for you to admit what everyone else readily sees. One can argue belief, one can argue theory, you persist repeatedly in arguing fact. As if it can be argued. It cannot, or at least it cannot without the person looking like an utter fool.

Given your absolutely blinding inability to accept your own inaccuracy, the fact that you purport to be a retired homicide detective is truly frightening. Makes one wonder just how good you could have possibly been at your job, and just how many people you locked up based on ignoring actual facts, and evidence, because what you "Believed" to be true was more important than the actual facts in front of your face. You claim to be a former homicide detective and you're arguing a murder case and getting so many of the basic facts wrong and refusing to accept basic evidence .... that's .... staggering. Seriously, your arrest record, must be a .... sheer wonder to behold.


So don't think for a minute your "appeal to being harassed" has any merit. You are wrong. Multiple times on this thread, and refuse to have the good sense or the good grace to just accept it. And pointing that out, that you are wrong, that you purport to have been a detective, is not against the rules. These are all facts. If the facts are things you find inconvenient, they don't change just because you don't like them.

Your comments have been duly noted and totally disregarded on the grounds that you are talking out of your backside so if I were you I would zip it while you still have a modicum of credibility on here

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

I would appreciate less of the character assassination it is uncalled for especially from you who is supposed to be a moderator who quickly condemns others who act in the same way you are acting

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Actually just to be clear, I'm not a moderator. I am the Queen of All You Survey. Second, I don't condemn anyone who acts the way I do. Pointing out errors and straight up lies and misrepresentation of fact is considered Gold Star behavior.

You are wrong. Factually inaccurate and spouting nonsense, repeatedly. When called on it, you never admit your error, you refuse to ever just say "Oh I was wrong" as if it's a mortal sin for you to admit what everyone else readily sees. One can argue belief, one can argue theory, you persist repeatedly in arguing fact. As if it can be argued. It cannot, or at least it cannot without the person looking like an utter fool.

Given your absolutely blinding inability to accept your own inaccuracy, the fact that you purport to be a retired homicide detective is truly frightening. Makes one wonder just how good you could have possibly been at your job, and just how many people you locked up based on ignoring actual facts, and evidence, because what you "Believed" to be true was more important than the actual facts in front of your face. You claim to be a former homicide detective and you're arguing a murder case and getting so many of the basic facts wrong and refusing to accept basic evidence .... that's .... staggering. Seriously, your arrest record, must be a .... sheer wonder to behold.


So don't think for a minute your "appeal to being harassed" has any merit. You are wrong. Multiple times on this thread, and refuse to have the good sense or the good grace to just accept it. And pointing that out, that you are wrong, that you purport to have been a detective, is not against the rules. These are all facts. If the facts are things you find inconvenient, they don't change just because you don't like them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The investigation of crime Herlock,is to reveal thetruth.Whether it is on sites like this,or in actual performances by law enforcement officers.The difference between you Herlock,and law enforcement officers is that the latter has powers of investigation that you do not.

If by ‘powers of investigation’ you mean the authority to question witnesses then of course I accept the obvious but the same applies to all of us (you and Trevor included)

Both Brown and P.C.Long made grevious mistakes in their handling and reporting of evidence,to the extent that we have only their word that certain incidents took place.I'll repeat there is no corrorborating evidence that things happened the way they claimed.They may be telling the truth,but there is no way to prove it,so there will always be doubt.

What ‘grievous mistakes?’ We can’t say for certain that when Brown matched up the two halves there wasn’t someone else could have corroborated it but we never get to hear from that person. What we can say however is that it can’t have been difficult to match up two pieces of cloth which had been cut with a knife across an area where there was a patch. So how confident can we be that Brown was correct in matching the two halves? Without video footage I’d say 99.9% which should be good enough for anyone.

You Herlock can believe all you wish,can be as emphatic as you want,but all you will be left with is belief,and belief is not proof.Without proof there is doubt.

That the two halves matched up there can be no doubt. All ‘doubt’ on this particular issue can only be seen as a deliberate effort to obfuscate or discredit.

We all have to accept don’t Harry but we can assess likelihood. We also have to accept that 2 people can look back at the same set of circumstances and come to 2 different conclusions based on interpretations. On some individual issues though we can say that there’s little room for doubt and the suggestion that the killer dropped the apron piece in Goulston Street is one of those instances.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's an interesting series of pictures, but they don't really tell us anything. For starters, you appear to be using a hand towel, a piece of cloth designed to absorb as much liquid as possible. The apron was an apron, a piece of cloth designed to minimize penetration by liquid. Clearly the absorption patterns of blood would be completely different.

You appear to be using fully liquid blood, instead of blood that had been given some time to dry and coagulate.

You don't tell us what your fudge factor was for using surgical gloves instead of bare hands.

You don't give us any indication of how much blood was used in your tests and no way to determine if your estimates are reasonable.

You also make assumptions. You assume the way shown is the only possible way to hold the cloth and the knife. You assume that the killer would have blood on both hands. You assume that there was blood on only one side of the apron piece,

Your comments have been duly noted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

I have attached a series of photos taken in a mortuary to prove my theory, as can be seen the blood is not blood red it is deoxygenated due to it not coming directly from a freshly killed body.

The first series is to negate the theory that the killer wiped his bloody knife on the apron piece, and as can be seen with blood on both his hands and how he would have had to hold the knife and the apron piece he could not have failed to transfer blood onto both sides of the apron piece

The second series shows just how much blood would have likely been on his hands after having them inside the abdomen and trying to remove organs this series also shows the effect on a piece of material by wiping bloody hands on it. Now I appreciate that the pic showing bloody hands may be an exaggeration due to the expert wearing rubber gloves which as can be seen blood is less absorbed by these types of gloves. So the first series shows the effect on a cloth with less blood residue on the hands

The point of this exercise was to show that the description of the apron piece was not consistent with it being used to wipe a bloody knife or to wipe blood-stained hands and these pictures clearly show that no matter how the killer held the apron piece and for what purpose he could not have failed to transfer blood onto both side of the apron piece

and like I have said before if he wanted to wipe his knife or his hands he could have done that on her clothing before leaving the crime scene

That's an interesting series of pictures, but they don't really tell us anything. For starters, you appear to be using a hand towel, a piece of cloth designed to absorb as much liquid as possible. The apron was an apron, a piece of cloth designed to minimize penetration by liquid. Clearly the absorption patterns of blood would be completely different.

You appear to be using fully liquid blood, instead of blood that had been given some time to dry and coagulate.

You don't tell us what your fudge factor was for using surgical gloves instead of bare hands.

You don't give us any indication of how much blood was used in your tests and no way to determine if your estimates are reasonable.

You also make assumptions. You assume the way shown is the only possible way to hold the cloth and the knife. You assume that the killer would have blood on both hands. You assume that there was blood on only one side of the apron piece,

[harry]

The investigation of crime Herlock,is to reveal thetruth.Whether it is on sites like this,or in actual performances by law enforcement officers.The difference between you Herlock,and law enforcement officers is that the latter has powers of investigation that you do not.
Both Brown and P.C.Long made grevious mistakes in their handling and reporting of evidence,to the extent that we have only their word that certain incidents took place.I'll repeat there is no corrorborating evidence that things happened the way they claimed.They may be telling the truth,but there is no way to prove it,so there will always be doubt.
You Herlock can believe all you wish,can be as emphatic as you want,but all you will be left with is belief,and belief is not proof.Without proof there is doubt.

[Trevor Marriott]

Rubbish. You’re just trying to invest police officers with some mystical skill acquired through years of training. It doesn’t take a police officer to analyse facts. It takes a human being with a brain, a sense of reason and logic and an open mind and ex-police officers are just as likely to get things wrong as everyone else, as evidenced by the fact that I had to show you that you’d been working all along on a theory with the string left on the wrong piece of apron!

I don’t challenge your modern day experts and yet you clearly do. Your favourite expert Dr. Biggs has no issue with the killer removing organs in Mitre Square and yet you think it was impossible. So why is Biggs suddenly untrustworthy? Just like the witnesses and officers at the time of the murders that you cherry pick on ‘reliability,’ you also cherry pick experts. Hutt and Robinson remembering a few days earlier are ‘unreliable’ according to you and yet Inspector Reid remembering something 8 years earlier is perfectly reliable! MacNaghten’s private info can’t be relied upon because no one else heard it and yet Feigenbaum’s alleged admission to Lawton is ok, even though no one else heard that either.

You move the goalposts to suit whichever theory you are promoting at the time and then you accuse others of all manner of nonsense.

Your comments have been duly noted

https://www.trevormarriott.ci.uk

[Fiver]

Using "wealth of experience" twice in one sentence is strange to say the least

There's an old saying - "A mule that has been on 100 campaigns with Frederick the Great is still a mule."

[Herlock Sholmes]

is it nonsense?

And people are quick to dismiss, and you are the worst offender you keep inventing scenarios to prop up the old accepted theory when clearly that old accepted theory is unsafe for all the reasons which have been stated.

I, and others, have looked in detail into your ‘sanitary towel’ theory and have concluded it doesn’t hold water. That isn’t being quick to dismiss. Being quick to dismiss would have meant not longing into it.

All suggestions (scenarios) are invented if we don’t know exactly what happened. We all do it. I merely mentioned the possibility of the killer wearing gloves and surely for the first time ever a former police officer considers the possible use of gloves to prevent a killer getting blood on his hands as science fiction! Absolutely staggering! The merest consideration that a killer might have considered ways of reducing the chances of him being caught and we get a former police officer claiming it as an outlandish suggestion (just because it doesn’t conform to your theory) I really have heard it all now Trevor. And you have the nerve to say that I don’t consider all possibilities.

You don't understand that it takes years of experience to assess and analyze witness statements to be able to find flaws in what is written, that is an experience that cannot be attained overnight, I don't see you challenging my modern-day experts about their qualifications and their ability to give their opinions some of which do have an impact on the old accepted theories.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Rubbish. You’re just trying to invest police officers with some mystical skill acquired through years of training. It doesn’t take a police officer to analyse facts. It takes a human being with a brain, a sense of reason and logic and an open mind and ex-police officers are just as likely to get things wrong as everyone else, as evidenced by the fact that I had to show you that you’d been working all along on a theory with the string left on the wrong piece of apron!

I don’t challenge your modern day experts and yet you clearly do. Your favourite expert Dr. Biggs has no issue with the killer removing organs in Mitre Square and yet you think it was impossible. So why is Biggs suddenly untrustworthy? Just like the witnesses and officers at the time of the murders that you cherry pick on ‘reliability,’ you also cherry pick experts. Hutt and Robinson remembering a few days earlier are ‘unreliable’ according to you and yet Inspector Reid remembering something 8 years earlier is perfectly reliable! MacNaghten’s private info can’t be relied upon because no one else heard it and yet Feigenbaum’s alleged admission to Lawton is ok, even though no one else heard that either.

You move the goalposts to suit whichever theory you are promoting at the time and then you accuse others of all manner of nonsense.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I do wish you would learn to use the quote facility , it makes replying so much easier.

If you seriously belive it's impossible to pick up a cloth, without touching both side, you are in a different physical universe to me and everyone else.


It's not academic at all when he cut the apron, it's actually intrinsic to how it may have become marked. That you refuse to acknowledge that, actually damages your theories.

That you don't care what others think is very clear over the years Trevor. You see that as a sign of strength I suspect, sadly it's not, it shows an inflexible mindset, that is closed to the views of others. Which in my view is a great shame, because you COULD offer so much more.

Again repeating people are attempting to prop up old theories, that they suggest desperate theories to do so.

Why do you think this is Trevor?

Of course you think your theories are not only plausible, but are far superior to other theories, that is human nature.

It simply does not seem to occur to you that others are not propping anything up, they are simply saying what they believe to be the truth, they, we, have looked at the evidence and found those thoeies to be the best answers.

Yet your posts by implication at least, suggest that almost everyone else in the community, in research, are somehow involved in a mass conspiracy to hide the truth, from themselves, from the public and the world in general.

To call that unrealistic is to be kind.

Steve

Your comments are duly noted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Trevor, I do wish you would learn to use the quote facility , it makes replying so much easier.

If you seriously belive it's impossible to pick up a cloth, without touching both side, you are in a different physical universe to me and everyone else.


It's not academic at all when he cut the apron, it's actually intrinsic to how it may have become marked. That you refuse to acknowledge that, actually damages your theories.

That you don't care what others think is very clear over the years Trevor. You see that as a sign of strength I suspect, sadly it's not, it shows an inflexible mindset, that is closed to the views of others. Which in my view is a great shame, because you COULD offer so much more.

Again repeating people are attempting to prop up old theories, that they suggest desperate theories to do so.

Why do you think this is Trevor?

Of course you think your theories are not only plausible, but are far superior to other theories, that is human nature.

It simply does not seem to occur to you that others are not propping anything up, they are simply saying what they believe to be the truth, they, we, have looked at the evidence and found those thoeies to be the best answers.

Yet your posts by implication at least, suggest that almost everyone else in the community, in research, are somehow involved in a mass conspiracy to hide the truth, from themselves, from the public and the world in general.

To call that unrealistic is to be kind.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

You still don’t get it.

No one has been “quick to dismiss.” And this is the whole point Trevor. You won’t give anyone the credit of also having looked at the evidence or of having assessed it and weighed up the pro’s and con’s. You assume that everyone else just makes snap judgments; that they take everything at face value; that they don’t look at all angles. You assume that only your opinions carry any weight and that anyone that disagrees with you is either an idiot or sentimentally attached to ‘old established theories’ (which is absolute nonsense)

is it nonsense?

And people are quick to dismiss, and you are the worst offender you keep inventing scenarios to prop up the old accepted theory when clearly that old accepted theory is unsafe for all the reasons which have been stated.

You don't understand that it takes years of experience to assess and analyze witness statements to be able to find flaws in what is written, that is an experience that cannot be attained overnight, I don't see you challenging my modern-day experts about their qualifications and their ability to give their opinions some of which do have an impact on the old accepted theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Using "wealth of experience" twice in one sentence is strange to say the least

needed to emphasise the point being made

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dickere]

It's nice to see that another poster Harry who has obviously a wealth of experience in law enforcement like myself, also questions the validity and accuracy of the evidence, perhaps certain parties will now sit up and take note, and not be so quick to dismiss what those with a wealth of experience in criminal investigations have to say

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Using "wealth of experience" twice in one sentence is strange to say the least

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's nice to see that another poster Harry who has obviously a wealth of experience in law enforcement like myself, also questions the validity and accuracy of the evidence, perhaps certain parties will now sit up and take note, and not be so quick to dismiss what those with a wealth of experience in criminal investigations have to say

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You still don’t get it.

No one has been “quick to dismiss.” And this is the whole point Trevor. You won’t give anyone the credit of also having looked at the evidence or of having assessed it and weighed up the pro’s and con’s. You assume that everyone else just makes snap judgments; that they take everything at face value; that they don’t look at all angles. You assume that only your opinions carry any weight and that anyone that disagrees with you is either an idiot or sentimentally attached to ‘old established theories’ (which is absolute nonsense)