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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[FISHY1118]

Credibility !!!!

[Ally]

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

Actually it's been proven repeatedly that you wouldn't zip it even when everyone knows you're talking out your backside and you've long since lost credibility. So .... one of those instances of inability to recognize your own glaring fallacies?

But it is to giggle. Trevor speaks of credibility. Let's look at the evolution of his "argument" on this thread. Just one little piece.

On The Subject of the 12 rags in Catherine's possession here's what he's argued:

Well she clearly had that number of "rags" for a specific reason, far too many for her to carry and use as her own sanitary napkins as some have suggested

Evidence refuting this (other than every woman telling him 12 was not "far too many for her to use"):

From Obstetrics: the Science and the Art, by Charles Meigs, 1852:

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.

His response to being proven straight up completely full of **** and wrong??

There is no definitive answer to this and to be fair I am not interested in finding out the answer

To sum up: He makes a claim, he's proven wrong, he responds "I don't care this doesn't matter, there's no definitive answer." Except there is. But at least he's right about something. He's not interested in finding out the answer. Because the answer was provided to him and he refuses to accept he's wrong.

Yes, Trevor, let's talk about credibility. And how you have none.


Because you're wrong. All the way wrong. But yeah, just keep saying how you'd zip it before being proven a fool. Even though history shows that's a lie.

[harry]

I would be happy Herlock,for any eyewitness to either Brown's or Long's claims.To both would be a bonus.Now it migt be claimed that there is circumstantial evidence that shows both could have been correct,but then there is the same kind of evidence that could be used to negate what they claim,and to maintain a ninety nine and a half per cent in either case,iwould I believe ,be more than a trifle excessive.But,Herlock knows best.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would be happy Herlock,for any eyewitness to either Brown's or Long's claims.To both would be a bonus.Now it migt be claimed that there is circumstantial evidence that shows both could have been correct,but then there is the same kind of evidence that could be used to negate what they claim,and to maintain a ninety nine and a half per cent in either case,iwould I believe ,be more than a trifle excessive.But,Herlock knows best.

It’s not a case of Herlock knows best Harry. It’s a case of reading the evidence and assessing the likelihood of Dr. Brown incorrectly matching up 2 pieces of cloth which had been cut apart with a knife and which had a patch as guidance. If we set a requirement that 100% proof was required then no police case would ever be solved and there would be no point in discussing this particular case. That the GS piece matched up with the mortuary piece can’t be doubted.

If someone saw a man entering a room that had no second exit and he then heard 2 gunshots. He then saw the same man exiting with the gun in his hand and there was a man inside who had been shot twice with the same gun, would we doubt who had killed him even though no one actually saw anyone pull the trigger? Or would we assume that there could be no reasonable doubt as to who killed the man?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve never understood this ‘defend at all costs’ or ‘discredit at all costs’ approach which almost always comes from people seeking to defend a particular theory. Perhaps it is a mistake to apply percentages as I’ve done but I was only using them as an illustration when discussing reasonable doubt and I certainly don’t ‘know best’ as Harry said. So overall I’d say (and I’ll still use 99% to indicate ‘beyond reasonable doubt’:

Was Catherine Eddowes wearing an apron - Yes 99%
Was the GS piece a part of the mortuary piece - Yes 99%
Did the killer discard the apron piece - Yes 99%
Did the killer write the graffito - unsure 50%
Do we know why the killer took the apron piece - no, we can only speculate
Was the apron piece in GS at 2.20 when Long passed - unsure but we should perhaps give Long the benefit of the doubt, although I don’t think it impossible that he could have missed it.
Did the killer remove organs at the scene - yes 99%
Did Lawende and co see the killer - probably 80%

[FISHY1118]

Id go along with these percentages except for 1. Did the killer write the graffito - unsure 50% , id say 95%

2.Did Lawende and co see the killer - probably 80%.. that ones more like 50% imo

[DJA]

100%

Zilch.

[JeffHamm]

I’ve never understood this ‘defend at all costs’ or ‘discredit at all costs’ approach which almost always comes from people seeking to defend a particular theory. Perhaps it is a mistake to apply percentages as I’ve done but I was only using them as an illustration when discussing reasonable doubt and I certainly don’t ‘know best’ as Harry said. So overall I’d say (and I’ll still use 99% to indicate ‘beyond reasonable doubt’:

Was Catherine Eddowes wearing an apron - Yes 99%
Was the GS piece a part of the mortuary piece - Yes 99%
Did the killer discard the apron piece - Yes 99%
Did the killer write the graffito - unsure 50%
Do we know why the killer took the apron piece - no, we can only speculate
Was the apron piece in GS at 2.20 when Long passed - unsure but we should perhaps give Long the benefit of the doubt, although I don’t think it impossible that he could have missed it.
Did the killer remove organs at the scene - yes 99%
Did Lawende and co see the killer - probably 80%

Hi Herlock,

Just so you know, the use of probabilities/percentages as a representation of the strength of belief is is very common, and useful. Sometimes we might want to describe things in odds ratios, like I think it's 4 to 1 that X is the case, and you can switch between the two easily (i.e. 4:1 -> 4/(4+1) = 0.8, so 80%, and 80% can get converted to an odds ratio by 80/(100-80) so 80/20 = 4, so 4:1.

These values then represent the strength of belief in something (note, not the truth of it, truth is binary, something either is or is not true; for example, B.S. either killed or did not kill Stride in truth; but we don't know, so we gather evidence which shifts our beliefs from 1:1 (50% either way) ether towards or away from one of those options. Depending upon how well the two options can account for the evidence results in our beliefs shifting a little or a lot. Again, belief isn't truth, and we could believe something very strongly and still be wrong, but the short story is that there are ways that these probabilities as a measure of belief can be used to determine how a rational use of evidence should change belief.

In the end, one has a set of options, weighted in terms of how strongly one believes things, even if none of them are 100%. Hence I tend to phrase things as a list of theories, with the one I think the evidence most strongly suggests (which translates to a stronger belief score), as the preferred idea, while accepting that other ideas will also have reasonable levels of "belief" as well (meaning, the evidence can fit them too). At some point, as you mention, the belief (percentage, odds ratio, whatever), swings so strongly in favour of one option that it becomes irrational to prefer the other (technically, even if the values were something like 51 and 49, it is irrational to prefer the 49, but one could argue that the difference is so small it is also irrational to prefer the 51 to the point of exclusion of the 49 theory). While the other does have some small possibility, it would require new evidence that it can explain that cannot be explained by the other (in which case, the calculation could quickly reverse those belief values! Belief is not truth, it is simply what emerges based upon evidence; and most evidence is not conclusive and able to definitively rule out one or the other option. As such, some will cling to that idea, that there's still a possibility that theory B is correct and so it somehow needs to be viewed as on equal footing with theory A. It doesn't, though, and when the odds are so far against it, theory B can be considered a well and truly distant 2nd.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Just so you know, the use of probabilities/percentages as a representation of the strength of belief is is very common, and useful. Sometimes we might want to describe things in odds ratios, like I think it's 4 to 1 that X is the case, and you can switch between the two easily (i.e. 4:1 -> 4/(4+1) = 0.8, so 80%, and 80% can get converted to an odds ratio by 80/(100-80) so 80/20 = 4, so 4:1.

These values then represent the strength of belief in something (note, not the truth of it, truth is binary, something either is or is not true; for example, B.S. either killed or did not kill Stride in truth; but we don't know, so we gather evidence which shifts our beliefs from 1:1 (50% either way) ether towards or away from one of those options. Depending upon how well the two options can account for the evidence results in our beliefs shifting a little or a lot. Again, belief isn't truth, and we could believe something very strongly and still be wrong, but the short story is that there are ways that these probabilities as a measure of belief can be used to determine how a rational use of evidence should change belief.

In the end, one has a set of options, weighted in terms of how strongly one believes things, even if none of them are 100%. Hence I tend to phrase things as a list of theories, with the one I think the evidence most strongly suggests (which translates to a stronger belief score), as the preferred idea, while accepting that other ideas will also have reasonable levels of "belief" as well (meaning, the evidence can fit them too). At some point, as you mention, the belief (percentage, odds ratio, whatever), swings so strongly in favour of one option that it becomes irrational to prefer the other (technically, even if the values were something like 51 and 49, it is irrational to prefer the 49, but one could argue that the difference is so small it is also irrational to prefer the 51 to the point of exclusion of the 49 theory). While the other does have some small possibility, it would require new evidence that it can explain that cannot be explained by the other (in which case, the calculation could quickly reverse those belief values! Belief is not truth, it is simply what emerges based upon evidence; and most evidence is not conclusive and able to definitively rule out one or the other option. As such, some will cling to that idea, that there's still a possibility that theory B is correct and so it somehow needs to be viewed as on equal footing with theory A. It doesn't, though, and when the odds are so far against it, theory B can be considered a well and truly distant 2nd.

- Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Thanks for that. There’s so much to be uncertain about in the case that I’m wary when confronted with what appears to me to be over-confidence. Then I sometimes find myself dropping in my own percentage ‘levels of confidence’ which I later consider too high or which I begin to lose confidence in when someone else suggests I’ve quoted too high a number. In the current discussion though it seems that a high percentage has to be called for when considering how the apron piece got to Goulston Street. It’s not physically impossible that someone other than the killer dropped it there but then again it’s not physically impossible that Liz Stride cut her own throat then someone stole the knife but we wouldn’t get many takers on that particular theory (I’d hope) Likewise any suggestion that Brown mistakenly matched up the two pieces. So I’d say that those two percentages have to be not just high but close to the limit. Whereas others are more debatable - did the killer write the GSG - could Long have missing it at 2.20?

[harry]

If Herlock,there was a witness who saw the man enter the room,there would be an eyewitnes.If a body was later found in the room shot to death,the body would show evidence of a crime.The bullet wound and the bullet if in the body would be real evidence.How does your example compare with that of Brown and Long,where there were no eyewitnesses to what they claim?

[harry]

For a very long time there has been a measure of proof in murder,that is,'Beyond a reasonable doubt'.That shouldn'tbe a problem with most persons,as the final decision is left with Judges and juries.Is there reasonable doubt in regard to the apron piece,and the claims of Brown and long?Trevor and I think there is.