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

[harry]

I am well aware of what was reported.My point is,that the P.C' called to assist Long,would have had no knowledge of how Long obtained the apron piece.Therefor Long's testimony is uncororborated.
Same with Brown.He stated he matched two pieces of apron.There is no testimony of how this was done,when it was done,or if there were witnesses present.His evidence is uncororberated.
Now both Long and Brown may be telling the truth,but please do not try to force it down my throat that because they gave evidence under oath they must be telling the truth.I spent too long in law enforcement to fall for that explanation.
If posters are willing to believe or theorise that there is supporting evidence that puts Long's and Brown's testimony beyond doubt,they are welcome to it,but at this time I side with Trevor.There isreason to be cautious as to the truth being known.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well maybe you should retreat back down it and take a break because your posts are becoming more and more delusional

I see you have found the emoji button, the idea is you pick one add it and then take your finger off the button

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And perhaps you should examine your own posts and consider why people almost never agree with you Trevor? Although you try and console yourself by saying that people disagree with you because they haven’t understood or that they’ve ignored what you’ve said or that they’re just ‘attached’ to an older theory it’s well overdue that you realised that you aren’t the only person on here who can assess evidence. And perhaps you should desist from going to such bizarre lengths In trying to discredit other suggestions? I don’t think that I’ve ever heard anyone try to claim that mere suggestion that a killer could have worn gloves is far-fetched. Or that the action of taking off a coat is somehow a long drawn out process.

You put far more energy into, and take far more liberties in defending your theories than others do in defending older ones.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am well aware of what was reported.My point is,that the P.C' called to assist Long,would have had no knowledge of how Long obtained the apron piece.Therefor Long's testimony is uncororborated.
Same with Brown.He stated he matched two pieces of apron.There is no testimony of how this was done,when it was done,or if there were witnesses present.His evidence is uncororberated.
Now both Long and Brown may be telling the truth,but please do not try to force it down my throat that because they gave evidence under oath they must be telling the truth.I spent too long in law enforcement to fall for that explanation.
If posters are willing to believe or theorise that there is supporting evidence that puts Long's and Brown's testimony beyond doubt,they are welcome to it,but at this time I side with Trevor.There isreason to be cautious as to the truth being known.

Caution is a good thing to apply Harry but sometimes, like in this case, it spills out into conspiracy theory thinking. There comes a time when we have to consider how likely or unlikely it is that a witness lied or was mistaken. We also have to consider what reasons they might have had for lying.

No one can, as far as I can recall, come up with a remotely believable reason why Long might have lied or planted evidence and there’s certainly not a shred of evidence that Brown would have lied or that he could have been so incompetent that he could match up two pieces of cloth (with a cut which wouldn’t have been perfectly straight and so easier to match up, plus a patch which he matched to the two pieces)

So we have to assess fairly and without bias. Could Long have been mistaken about where he found the cloth……no. Could he have lied…..it’s not actually physically impossible but it’s just so unlikely as to be close to impossible. If he had planted evidence it would have had to have been in collusion with officers at the crime scene and the police had absolutely no reason for doing so. The suggestion that Long might have been mistaken or lied can be dismissed with safety.

Could Brown have been mistaken about matching the two halves? With the evidence that he had to work with Id say that this was pretty much impossible. We also don’t know how jagged the cut was but the more jagged the easier to match up and of course he had the patch to go on. So yes, we can say with a confidence close to 100% (I’d say 100%) that he couldn’t have been mistaken. Could he have lied? That’s not even worthy of consideration.

So taking a reasoned view, the chances of Long or Brown being mistaken or lying are about as close to non-existent as possible. So we are on safe ground to consider them as safe.

[Trevor Marriott]

Caution is a good thing to apply Harry but sometimes, like in this case, it spills out into conspiracy theory thinking. There comes a time when we have to consider how likely or unlikely it is that a witness lied or was mistaken. We also have to consider what reasons they might have had for lying.

No one can, as far as I can recall, come up with a remotely believable reason why Long might have lied or planted evidence and there’s certainly not a shred of evidence that Brown would have lied or that he could have been so incompetent that he could match up two pieces of cloth (with a cut which wouldn’t have been perfectly straight and so easier to match up, plus a patch which he matched to the two pieces)

So we have to assess fairly and without bias. Could Long have been mistaken about where he found the cloth……no. Could he have lied…..it’s not actually physically impossible but it’s just so unlikely as to be close to impossible. If he had planted evidence it would have had to have been in collusion with officers at the crime scene and the police had absolutely no reason for doing so. The suggestion that Long might have been mistaken or lied can be dismissed with safety.

Could Brown have been mistaken about matching the two halves? With the evidence that he had to work with Id say that this was pretty much impossible. We also don’t know how jagged the cut was but the more jagged the easier to match up and of course he had the patch to go on. So yes, we can say with a confidence close to 100% (I’d say 100%) that he couldn’t have been mistaken. Could he have lied? That’s not even worthy of consideration.

So taking a reasoned view, the chances of Long or Brown being mistaken or lying are about as close to non-existent as possible. So we are on safe ground to consider them as safe.

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

[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)

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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."

[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

[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.

[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,