Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott
You see, that’s one of the many differences between you and I Trevor,
You refer to ‘past glories’ and treat the subject as a competition. It isn’t, its about development and truth. As Ive stated many times, there is an onus of responsibility in what we do and should be approached in such away. There is no ‘glory’ in this field.
No one is looking for glory but many of those "experienced"researchers have nailed their colours to the mast way back in the 70`s and 80` Now in later years all they wrote and have stated in books articles etc is now questionable and they wont accept that they may have been wrong and to that end do their utmost to squash anything that goes against their beleifs.
I have experinced Old stagers who have altered their views on certain matters. This when presented with fact or plausible evidence than being bellowed at with personal opinion.
I am not stating the old ideas should not be questioned, I am stating that if you are going to question them then at least present your facts as to why these old fangled theories do not hold as opposed to personal opinion and ill considered conclusions based loaded experiments.
The trouble is that when new facts are presented the old guard and for that matter some of the new guard who are so fixated with their own individual theories cant and wont even consider new theories.
Do you not see the irony in that statement?
It humours me that you consider yourself one of the new guard. You aren’t. Trawl the message board archives since its conception over 10 years ago, and you will see your views aren’t unique nor fresh. Simons idea that Jack is a myth is one I first read in the early 90s thanks to AP Wolf (as Im sure Simon is aware and will acknowledge – and this is not intended to take anything away from his/that argument).
As far as my view are concerned I would disagree and I am not putting myself on a pedestal here I am merely stating a fact. I was the first to suggest the organs from the victims were not removed by the killer from the crime scenes. I have provided visual and verbal evidence as well to prove this fact. Yet there are still a handful of people who beleive that this killer in 5 mins in almost total darkness removed a uterus and a kidney with some medical precision and mutilated a body in almost total darkness. The same people who beleive that the same killer removed a uterus with the fallopian tubes attached in almost total darkness from Chapman.
No, you have not presented fact. You organised experiments based on your interpretation of statement, testimony and evidence. and came to flawed conclusions.
For example, you assume the woman Lewande saw was Eddowes, and therefore conclude that the killer had 5 minutes to conduct the act. You assume the killer was unable to see clearly what he was doing in the square. You then present that as fact.
Its opinion, not fact. If you can create all the factors then we may have something. However, as most of the factors are unknown you have to assume. And its that assumption that turns you fact into mere suggestions.
Whilst I admire your attempts, Im afraid you have proven nothing in this regard.
Why I have to ask ? I will even answer that. Its because that the organ removal issue has become and integral part of this ripper mystery, take it away and it waters down these murders, remove the suggestion that one man killed all the victims and what are you left with. A series of similar unsolved murders that had it not been for the myth of JTR and the organ removal would have drifted into obscurity many year ago and we would not be here today discussing them.
There is no ‘old’ or ‘new’ guard, we are all in it together. There is, however, experienced and inexperienced Ripperologists. Those that hold knowledge of the basics and those who do not. Your position, to me, is clear in that regard.
Yes and of those that are experineced they are still living with the past as far as ripperology is concerned trying to fit sqare pegs into round holes. They wil continue to do so simply because they have their own agendas for doing so FACT.
Again, irony.
Now, Im surprised you’ve asked me those questions as you have already approached those who know me with the very same. Didn’t get the answers you need? I hold no theory nor suspect, therefore I have no agenda on new ideas. I judge them on their merit.
Well I would suggest that in your old age your judgment has become clouded
You can suggest as you wish, however given your track record in concluding.....
Was JTR responsible for the the (sic) following murders Tabram,Nichols,Chapman, Stride,Eddowes,Kelly, McKenzie and Coles?
All of them? I would say no.
Did the killer cut/tear the apron piece from Eddowes?
Witness testimony indicates this was so.
The witness testimony is unreliable -FACT
When 5 people are stating the same then testimony must be given credence.
Did the killer deposit the apron piece in Goulston St?
If he cut the apron piece from Eddowes then the probability is that the Killer did deposit the apron piece in Goulston street.
Inconclusive then ?
Like most things in this case. However, its the most likely scenario.
Did the killer remove the organs from the victims at the crime scenes?
Witness testimony, medical evidence, indicates this was so. Certainly in the case of Mitre Square.
Medical evidence doesnt, medical evidence shows that when the doctors carried out the post mortems the organs were found to be missing.
Erm, yes, it does. Read the SOC report. Faecal matter.
Did the killer write the graffiti?
I cannot provide evidence indicating he didn’t, however I am of the belief he did not write the wall writing.
On that we agree
We do.
Is the marginalia totally authentic?
What do you mean by ‘authentic’? Are there parts you believe is and is not?
Yes
Thats a hefty accusation. I hope you have the evidence to back that up.
Do you believe (sic) that an ID parade ever took place with regards to Kosminski?
The witness evidence suggests it did. However procedure indicates that if it did then it was grossly against what should have occurred. That doesn’t sit right with me.
The witness evidence is questionable and isnt fully corrobotated and what corroboartion their is also questionable
Yet corroboration there is, its independant also.
Who is your preferred suspect and why ?
As stated, I do not have a preferred suspect. There is no evidence, in my opinion, which helps form an opinion on that.
As for sitting around, you seriously suggest thats all I do. I just sit around?
Well you always seem to be very quick in replying to posts you must be sitting somewhere have you got a power point fixed to the bed then ?
You see, that’s one of the many differences between you and I Trevor,
You refer to ‘past glories’ and treat the subject as a competition. It isn’t, its about development and truth. As Ive stated many times, there is an onus of responsibility in what we do and should be approached in such away. There is no ‘glory’ in this field.
No one is looking for glory but many of those "experienced"researchers have nailed their colours to the mast way back in the 70`s and 80` Now in later years all they wrote and have stated in books articles etc is now questionable and they wont accept that they may have been wrong and to that end do their utmost to squash anything that goes against their beleifs.
I have experinced Old stagers who have altered their views on certain matters. This when presented with fact or plausible evidence than being bellowed at with personal opinion.
I am not stating the old ideas should not be questioned, I am stating that if you are going to question them then at least present your facts as to why these old fangled theories do not hold as opposed to personal opinion and ill considered conclusions based loaded experiments.
The trouble is that when new facts are presented the old guard and for that matter some of the new guard who are so fixated with their own individual theories cant and wont even consider new theories.
Do you not see the irony in that statement?
It humours me that you consider yourself one of the new guard. You aren’t. Trawl the message board archives since its conception over 10 years ago, and you will see your views aren’t unique nor fresh. Simons idea that Jack is a myth is one I first read in the early 90s thanks to AP Wolf (as Im sure Simon is aware and will acknowledge – and this is not intended to take anything away from his/that argument).
As far as my view are concerned I would disagree and I am not putting myself on a pedestal here I am merely stating a fact. I was the first to suggest the organs from the victims were not removed by the killer from the crime scenes. I have provided visual and verbal evidence as well to prove this fact. Yet there are still a handful of people who beleive that this killer in 5 mins in almost total darkness removed a uterus and a kidney with some medical precision and mutilated a body in almost total darkness. The same people who beleive that the same killer removed a uterus with the fallopian tubes attached in almost total darkness from Chapman.
No, you have not presented fact. You organised experiments based on your interpretation of statement, testimony and evidence. and came to flawed conclusions.
For example, you assume the woman Lewande saw was Eddowes, and therefore conclude that the killer had 5 minutes to conduct the act. You assume the killer was unable to see clearly what he was doing in the square. You then present that as fact.
Its opinion, not fact. If you can create all the factors then we may have something. However, as most of the factors are unknown you have to assume. And its that assumption that turns you fact into mere suggestions.
Whilst I admire your attempts, Im afraid you have proven nothing in this regard.
Why I have to ask ? I will even answer that. Its because that the organ removal issue has become and integral part of this ripper mystery, take it away and it waters down these murders, remove the suggestion that one man killed all the victims and what are you left with. A series of similar unsolved murders that had it not been for the myth of JTR and the organ removal would have drifted into obscurity many year ago and we would not be here today discussing them.
There is no ‘old’ or ‘new’ guard, we are all in it together. There is, however, experienced and inexperienced Ripperologists. Those that hold knowledge of the basics and those who do not. Your position, to me, is clear in that regard.
Yes and of those that are experineced they are still living with the past as far as ripperology is concerned trying to fit sqare pegs into round holes. They wil continue to do so simply because they have their own agendas for doing so FACT.
Again, irony.
Now, Im surprised you’ve asked me those questions as you have already approached those who know me with the very same. Didn’t get the answers you need? I hold no theory nor suspect, therefore I have no agenda on new ideas. I judge them on their merit.
Well I would suggest that in your old age your judgment has become clouded
You can suggest as you wish, however given your track record in concluding.....
Was JTR responsible for the the (sic) following murders Tabram,Nichols,Chapman, Stride,Eddowes,Kelly, McKenzie and Coles?
All of them? I would say no.
Did the killer cut/tear the apron piece from Eddowes?
Witness testimony indicates this was so.
The witness testimony is unreliable -FACT
When 5 people are stating the same then testimony must be given credence.
Did the killer deposit the apron piece in Goulston St?
If he cut the apron piece from Eddowes then the probability is that the Killer did deposit the apron piece in Goulston street.
Inconclusive then ?
Like most things in this case. However, its the most likely scenario.
Did the killer remove the organs from the victims at the crime scenes?
Witness testimony, medical evidence, indicates this was so. Certainly in the case of Mitre Square.
Medical evidence doesnt, medical evidence shows that when the doctors carried out the post mortems the organs were found to be missing.
Erm, yes, it does. Read the SOC report. Faecal matter.
Did the killer write the graffiti?
I cannot provide evidence indicating he didn’t, however I am of the belief he did not write the wall writing.
On that we agree
We do.
Is the marginalia totally authentic?
What do you mean by ‘authentic’? Are there parts you believe is and is not?
Yes
Thats a hefty accusation. I hope you have the evidence to back that up.
Do you believe (sic) that an ID parade ever took place with regards to Kosminski?
The witness evidence suggests it did. However procedure indicates that if it did then it was grossly against what should have occurred. That doesn’t sit right with me.
The witness evidence is questionable and isnt fully corrobotated and what corroboartion their is also questionable
Yet corroboration there is, its independant also.
Who is your preferred suspect and why ?
As stated, I do not have a preferred suspect. There is no evidence, in my opinion, which helps form an opinion on that.
As for sitting around, you seriously suggest thats all I do. I just sit around?
Well you always seem to be very quick in replying to posts you must be sitting somewhere have you got a power point fixed to the bed then ?
Cheers
Monty
Leave a comment: