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

[Elamarna]

That is not the issue the issue is that at some point in time before her arrest she was in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some point in time had been cut from a full apron and she was using one as a sanitary device which she was wearing in custody and on release she herself discarded it in GS

The pieces of material she had in her possession are academic to this scenario

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.

That you believe this conjecture on your part is anything other than unsupported speculation is again poor methodology and a very poor attempt at presenting a deeply bias, very flawed and unsafe approach to historical research.
I do hope you understand no one is taking you seriously.

[Trevor Marriott]

You have not proved anything conclusively,
that you believe you have clearly shows how poor your abilities at interpretation and analysis are.

I have proved conclusively that it is unsafe to rely on newspaper reports and for your benefit, I will show the example again I posted this shows how it is unsafe and how a misplaced word can cloud people's perception of the evidence and how they interpret it

Dr Browns signed deposition
“My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached

Telegraph report
Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801811]

and by your assessment of the facts and the evidence and your conclusions, you are not a very good one

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A far better historian than you that's clear.
I seriously doubt you have the ability to tell good historical research and methology from bad.

You present personal belief as FACT, you cherry pick and have clearly stated in a previous post that historians follow the evidence tgat suits their theory.
Only bad historians or non historians/authors like yourself do that.

[Elamarna]

The only desperation I see here is you in trying to prop up the old theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The issue you continually make is that the "old theory" DOES NOT need propping up.
It stands on it's own, it's only your opinion that it is flawed, your posts merely attempt to prop up your increasingly weak theory.
Not by producing convincingly arguments for the theory, but by attacking the theory you wish to replace, and sadly failing very badly at doing it.

[Trevor Marriott]

That you believe this conjecture on your part is anything other than unsupported speculation is again poor methodology and a very poor attempt at presenting a deeply bias, very flawed and unsafe approach to historical research.
I do hope you understand no one is taking you seriously.

I am not talking about historical research I am talking about assessing and evaluating the facts and the evidence in these murders and providing what I believe to be a fair assessment of the accuracy and truthfulness of those facts and evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I have proved conclusively that it is unsafe to rely on newspaper reports and for your benefit, I will show the example again I posted this shows how it is unsafe and how a misplaced word can cloud people's perception of the evidence and how they interpret it

Dr Browns signed deposition
“My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached

Telegraph report
Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No you have shown one report gave a misleading impression, that's why we, serious researchers , read ALL the reports, both the press and the official papers.

The official papers make it very clear that several witnesses, say she was wearing an apron, and that the portions they were shown were that apron.

Indeed one said he could not say UNLESS he saw the WHOLE apron.
Both pieces being produced he confirmed it was the apron.
Having previously said he could not say UNLESS he saw the WHOLE apron, it follows that the two portions made up the WHOLE APRON.

That you believe one line from one report demonstrates that the inquest reports are unsafe, simply shows the bias which you previously confirmed you use, that you follow tgat which supports your theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;n801820]

A far better historian than you that's clear.
I seriously doubt you have the ability to tell good historical research and methology from bad.

You present personal belief as FACT, you cherry pick and have clearly stated in a previous post that historians follow the evidence tgat suits their theory.
Only bad historians or non historians/authors like yourself do that.

The facts I put forward are based on my assement of the orginal facts and evidence which is cleary riddled with evidential flaws which a historian or an armchair detective might not be able to see and comprehend.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I am not talking about historical research I am talking about assessing and evaluating the facts and the evidence in these murders and providing what I believe to be a fair assessment of the accuracy and truthfulness of those facts and evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's historical research, how can it be anything else.
We are looking at historical documents and attempting to reach conclusions.


That you think this is not historical research is very revealing, you cleary either cannot be bothered to apply accepted historical methodology to your comments, or you do not know how to.

[Trevor Marriott]

No you have shown one report gave a misleading impression, that's why we, serious researchers , read ALL the reports, both the press and the official papers.

The official papers make it very clear that several witnesses, say she was wearing an apron, and that the portions they were shown were that apron.

Indeed one said he could not say UNLESS he saw the WHOLE apron.
Both pieces being produced he confirmed it was the apron.
Having previously said he could not say UNLESS he saw the WHOLE apron, it follows that the two portions made up the WHOLE APRON.

That you believe one line from one report demonstrates that the inquest reports are unsafe, simply shows the bias which you previously confirmed you use, that you follow tgat which supports your theory.

I picked out one if I had the time or the inclination there would be many

He says he could not tell unless he saw the whole apron but the whole apron was not there, to be seen there were only two pieces your interpretation is that the two pieces made up a whole apron but there is no evidence to prove that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801824]

The facts I put forward are based on my assement of the orginal facts and evidence which is cleary riddled with evidential flaws which a historian or an armchair detective might not be able to see and comprehend.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again armchair detective, is used presumably as an attempted put down. As I previously pointed out, given we are all using the same material and you are now retirrd, you are also an Armchair detective.

To suggest that serious historians, are unable to see or comprehend what you do is not only risible, but the height of ego and arrogance.

I have told you that you could offer so much to this field, and I stand by that, but sadly you are so intent on proving (and failing to do so) that ONLY you have the insight needed , that you waste what you could offer.
It's tragic .

[Elamarna]

I picked out one if I had the time or the inclination there would be many

He says he could not tell unless he saw the whole apron but the whole apron was not there, to be seen there were only two pieces your interpretation is that the two pieces made up a whole apron but there is no evidence to prove that

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Seriously?

My interpretation you say, let's look.

He says he cannot say unless he sees the WHOLE apron.

He is then shown both pieces and confirms it is the apron.

That seem pretty clear, it's not about personal interpretation, he says he can only comment if he sees the WHOLE apron, he is shown both pieces and confirms.
Using his own qualifying words, that unless he sees the WHOLE apron He cannot say, for him to then say he must see the WHOLE APRON.

That you insist on stating that the WHOLE was not present is PERSONL INTERPRETATION on your part. Heavily bias, to support you view that the apron was not complete.

That interpretation fails serious scrutiny, it is not just unsafe, it is disingenuous.

[Trevor Marriott]

Seriously?

My interpretation you say, let's look.

He says he cannot say unless he sees the WHOLE apron.

He is then shown both pieces and confirms it is the apron.

That seem pretty clear, it's not about personal interpretation, he says he can only comment if he sees the WHOLE apron, he is shown both pieces and confirms.
Using his own qualifying words, that unless he sees the WHOLE apron He cannot say, for him to then say he must see the WHOLE APRON.

That you insist on stating that the WHOLE was not present is PERSONL INTERPRETATION on your part. Heavily bias, to support you view that the apron was not complete.

That interpretation fails serious scrutiny, it is not just unsafe, it is disingenuous.

But he could not have been shown the whole apron which he stated he would be able to recognise if he were shown it because it could not have been shown to him as a full apron only two pieces, and unless someone physically held it up so as to see it was the full apron which there is no evidence to support this, and besides having been shown the two pieces how was he able to identify it as the one she was wearing the two pieces were from a white apron and there was nothing disclosed which made it different or identifiable from any other white apron. In reality he could have been show two other pieces of whiet apron and he would still have said the same

I am not disputing he was shown two pieces which by the time he gave his evidence he would have already known that two pieces had been found and matched what I am disputing is the positive ID of a full apron and I also note that the testimony you refer to was not in his official testimony but was reported in The Times and may not be as accurate as you profess

On another note Dr Brown describes the Mortuary piece as having a string attached and you can tie an apron with just one string

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

prove it. where ? when? for how long? how many murders did you solve? what was your solve rate?
i want documented evidence. name one person/ victim whos murder you personally have solved.


And just what the hell is a "murder squad detective"??

I dont have to prove anything to you, or anybody else on here

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.... interesting.

[Elamarna]

But he could not have been shown the whole apron which he stated he would be able to recognise if he were shown it because it could not have been shown to him as a full apron only two pieces, and unless someone physically held it up so as to see it was the full apron which there is no evidence to support this, and besides having been shown the two pieces how was he able to identify it as the one she was wearing the two pieces were from a white apron and there was nothing disclosed which made it different or identifiable from any other white apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Pardon?

He is shown the two portions, are you seriously suggesting he could not tell if they formed a whole apron?

So it doesn't say the two portions were held up, nor does it say they were not, it says he was shown BOTH portions. That clearly let him make his conclusion.

So now you want to question what he said he believed, despite the fact it's a sworn and signed deposition.
But it's not just this issue.

He along with others claims she was wearing an apron at the police station, this is in the signed depositions, yet you chose not to believe it, not for any sound reason, but because it does not fit your theory.

Why do we not just dismiss all the evidence and depositions that don't fit your theory?
Ignore solid historical sources in favour of your opinion.
Even if we did the theory that she was using this cloth as a sanitary towels fails to pass even the mildest scrutiny.

The arguments around the 12 separate pieces of cloth you present are not simply ludicrous but totally unrealistic.

Please do not attempt to hide behind your unnamed expert, as you did in previous posts. The idea that women do not know if 12 towels is excessive is insulting. And as I said anyone whose lived with a woman, maybe had to purchase said products, knows that 12 is not unrealistic.
Yet you KNOW better.

The idea that having used this large cloth , she would simply dispose of it in the street, despite the fact it could be reused is comical.
Theory , with no common sense or even basic knowledge applied .


Again your post simply shows the bias you employ to push your theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n801824]

The facts I put forward are based on my assement of the orginal facts and evidence which is cleary riddled with evidential flaws which a historian or an armchair detective might not be able to see and comprehend.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Basically Trevor you are saying that everyone apart from yourself is too stupid to evaluate evidence. We see exactly what you see but we assess the whole in a fair way, or at least we attempt to. If we see half a dozen newspaper reports but in one particular version one of them is worded differently or omits a particular point you focus solely on that one when it suits you to shout ‘unsafe.’ Whereas a more reasoned approach would allow a fairer and far more likely conclusion. Or you focus on a triviality and interpret it in an unreasonable and biased way. A perfect example is Collard’s use of the word ‘apparently.’ You react as if this rings alarm bells when it actually makes perfect sense. The apron piece had been cut so it obviously couldn’t have still been properly attached to her body but the fact that it was found outside of her clothing (as opposed to inside like the rest of the items) leaves no other conclusion but that she was wearing it. Therefore entirely reasonably he uses the word ‘apparently.’ She clearly had been wearing it but she couldn’t have been said to have actually been wearing it after it had been cut by the killer. This is obvious stuff. There is no mystery about it.

It can’t be simply a case of disregarding all newspaper accounts or of accepting them wholesale. We make a judgment but we have to do it without bias and this is something that you repeatedly fail to do. You arrive at a theory and then try to discredit and dismiss anything that doesn’t fit. So it’s actually you that’s propping up a theory. You take a defend-at-all-cost approach. How many times has this been apparent. I’ll use an obvious one that I’ve made before. You aim to discredit and throw doubt on two police officers who spent time with Eddowes (Hutt and Robinson) who both saw her wearing an apron. You say “how could they remember it?” And yet when we discus whether Kelly’s heart was missing or not (it was) you seek to rely on Reid who was remembering back 8 years previously! This is cherry picking.