Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[The Good Michael]

Trevor, Everyone,

I'm no ripperologist. It's an interest, yes. I'm in a country where I have no subject books. Shipping such things costs several hundreds of dollars a box, so they sit back in a safe place awaiting my return... if return I do. I come to this site to relearn things and to get opinions from experts and the fact is there is so little evidence for anything, that everything becomes possible.

I've been here for several years off and on. I was here when Feigenbaum was discussed, beaten-up, chewed on, spat out, and rebuilt again. I was here when the apron became a massive tampon that was able to plug several orifices at once according to Trevor and no organs were taken by the killer, also according to Trevor. For the most part, everyone was respectful of Trevor's opinions, but they were (in Radka's term) an Alternative Ripperology, and deserved to be taken apart and evaluated. It was all done fairly respectfully.

I was hiding in the wings a bit when Trenouth raped the boards for information and people respectfully helped her with her Q and A sessions, though in hindsight it may have not been such a great thing.

I was a part (I admit) of the Hutchinson signature debacle that sorely divided people into a few camps and involved a sociopath who played people like fiddles until being cast off. Folks were pretty respectful then until she came along with her "expertise". The rift sort of healed after time leaving behind one casualty (Sam Flynn) which was a loss.

Yet, we are all pretty respectful, though I now and then am flippant and dismissive, though I never plan to be (perhaps that's how it all works).

My point is this: Trevor, every time you come on the boards, people give you the benefit of the doubt at first. You have a good sense of humor and that could go a long way. Yet... you always go on the offensive. It's as if you believe you command respect and by God, we're going to give it to you...but we never do after your ranting begins. That's as it should be. Give respect to people. Treat them as human beings who put their pants on one leg at a time (except for Wescott who had that hunting accident) just as you do. You know Trev, we really want to like you. We really want to hear what you have to say. We absolutely respect your duty to your country as a police officer. How about respecting us too? Give it a go. It's addictive and it moves everything forward. Even the secret cabal can be touched by such a gesture.

That's all.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Same old, same old, Trevor. The only answer you have to criticism of your ideas and thinking is that your critics are blocking you because they're too wedded to old and outmoded ideas, whereas 'the public' is waking up to your thinking. Yeah, right, and that oink oinking you can hear is the flock of pigs flying overhead.

If I don't understand what evidence is, you tell me what it is.

If you think there is evidence that the murderer did not write the graffiti and that the graffiti can be dismissed, then say what that evidence is. That's how things should be done, Trevor.

Why should we be discussing it as evidence when the police in 1888 didnt regard it as evidence. Do we know something now that they didnt know then ?

[PaulB]

No theory is "written in stone". If it were, it wouldn't be a theory. A theory cannot be outdated. It's either credible or it's not. I accept that, when new evidence comes to light, that judgement may need to be re-assessed, but because of the new evidence, not because of its date. Novelty is not a proper yardstick by which to measure the quality of a theory.

Perhaps you best tell Paul Begg that

No need to, Trevor. I understand what a theory is. I understand what re-assessing a theory in light of new evidence means. The only problem is that you haven't presented any new evidence. Indeed, you criticized me for demanding evidence.

By the way, you are correct. You are spon on when you say that the graffiti goes out of the window if the apron was not dropped by the murderer. Absolutely. No question about that. If the apron wasn't dropped by the murderer then we'd have no reason to suppose that the murderer went anywhere near Goulston Street and the probability that he wrote the graffit drops to a notch above absolute zero.

The fly in the ointment is that there is no evidence at all that the apron wasn't dropped by the murderer.

Unfortunately, your idea that Eddowes used the apron for sanitary purposes is ridiculous. She was destitute and broke, she wore the clothes she owned, she’d pawned John Kelly’s boots to buy some basic necessities like tea and sugar. Do you seriously think she would have ruined her only apron, an important garment in those days, by tearing it and using it for sanitary purposes?

Do you seriously believe that she would have torn and ruined a top outer garment when she had under garments which would have served the same purpose?

Do you really believe that she would have torn and ruined her apron when she had other material in her pockets which she could have used and which may even have been intended for that purpose?

Even if you have answered yes to those questions, they still represent very serious doubt about your theory that Eddowes used a portion of her apron as a sanitary towel.

So, if Eddowes didn't use the apron as a sanitary towel and didn't drop it in Goulston Street herself, how did it get there?

[m_w_r]

I have no doubt whatsover but of course whatever and whenever all of this is later disclosed It wil come under close scrutiny which I whole heartedly subscribe to. because I would do exactly the same.

No doubt. But will you accept fair-minded objections, and well-reasoned disagreement? Or will you come out fighting in your usual way?

But what I do object to is the likes of Paul Begg and certain others who firstly cannot conlcusively prove the facts they seek to rely on to prop up their outdated theories and further more when anything new is introduced to negate those outdated theories, rather than consider accepting the new material which in the case of many aspects this mystery are as plausible as the original theories and go along way to suggest the original theories and what has been historically written is not totally correct. Consistently attempt to destroy them.

I don't think any of that is reasonable - the newness of a theory is not a guarantee of its superiority, and the fact that the historical evidence as we know it today doesn't lead us to a firm conclusion as to the identity of the Ripper doesn't indicate that the evidence needs to be thrown out. Instead, the various evidential threads need to be balanced and weighed against each other. Underlying all of this is must be the assumption that some things which were once known are now not known, accounting for some of the gaps in the fabric of the evidence. If, after taking into account all of these factors, Paul, or anyone, is cautious to restrict the scope of his theorising to the limits which the evidence imposes on it, then this is what I'd call being responsible, and I think most reasonable people would be inclined to agree with me.

It all that starts with the facts from 1888. Take a look at what evidence there is from 1888 to start with almost none in the true sense.

I disagree - there is evidence, but your frustration at the failure of the case to form itself into a coherent whole indicating the guilt of any given individual has, quite wrongly, persuaded you to throw the evidence out. Everything seems to be very black and white with you, Trevor - but the preferred approach must be to take proper account of the historical evidence, each part in balance with each other part.

All you keep hearing from Mr Begg and others is "Where is you evidence" it all gets back to people having the abilty to assess and evaluate and fully understand exactly what the term evidence means. Evidence it is split into different catergories, Primary, secondary,hearsay and circumstantial. When it comes down to it much of what people have sought to rely on is nothing more than hearsay and has no real evidential value and would need strong corroboation for it to have any value.

I'm afraid that the irony of your remarks in this paragraph appears to have eluded you. I would only add that, as far as I know, the process of solving a crime in real-time, for example as a serving police officer, must be in at least some of its dimensions a different one from that used by historians to assess historical evidence.

In an earllier post I wrote a long list of the old theories which have formed the back bone to this case virtually of them can be challenged with the introduction of new evidence, but it seems Mr Begg and others dont know the defintion of evidence as previously stated. Whilst he and a handful of others continue to block and disregard the new material there is always going to be these heated discussions.

Ditto. But I don't think these 'discussions' have to become 'heated'. I think there's often more heat than light, granted, but the heat which is consistently generated on the threads in which you participate leads me towards a conclusion that you use banal personal invective and stones-out generalisations as a form of defence mechanism to prevent anyone seeing the evidential vacuum at the centre of your case. Perhaps, when you produce the evidence you've been hinting at, you'll be able to say that I was wrong about this, but I'll take my chances with that one.

Personally I have beendirectly involved in these discussions over and over again and its now becoming tiresome, as it must be for the posters who have to sit and endure this sabre rattling which then finishes up with a tirrade of personal abuse being hurled back and forth.

See above. I hope that you will recognise that you, like me, and like the rest of us, are an imperfect individual and that the role you play in the sabre-rattling is very often an active one.

Why should I worry in fact I dont there is a hardcore of perhap 20 regular vistiors to casebook and maybe the same amount to JTR Forums.many sit on the fence and dont become embroiled in the argument so its difficult to understand their views on the challenges to the old theories. Others clearly and whole heartedly support the new evidence and theories. The remainder that wont are so set in their ways and so blinkered in the way they look at this they will never change they are addicted to the point of obsession.

Au contraire, I think that the interest of the reasonable majority in new evidence is as strong as it ever was. What they quite properly want, though, is evidence which can be tested, whose quality can be judged, and which can be set alongside existing knowledge and assimilated or rejected as its credentials dictate. If you're going to provide this, I'm afraid that you will need to play the same game as the reasonable majority, to some extent. We teach schoolchildren to assess the reliability of historical sources, and quite rightly so, for the ability to do one's own critical thinking is at the centre of the character of the democratic citizen (or, at least, it should be). It protects us from tyranny and demagogues, and from people who tell us to believe things because they do, or to do things because they think we should. I personally believe that one of the problems which modern Ripperology has is that post-structuralist and post-modern historical techniques have been co-opted by people who think that it's now all right to believe whatever you want, and have your belief, however crazy and counter-evidential it is, assessed as the perfect equal of any other belief, including beliefs which are based on robust ratiocination and a solid understanding of the evidence. But I digress.

But it would not be good for everyone to agree that never happens in anyhting in life so it wont ever happen in this mystery. So i am going to continue to do as I have done from the outsest to introduce other new facts other new evidence and I certainly wont lose any sleep over the fact that a handful of moronic posters wont agree or accept it or are not even prepared to consider it..

I'm not sure the word 'moronic' helps your case. Anyway, see above on all of this, and please explain whether you consider your apron piece / sanitary device scenario a 'fact'. If so, please explain where Catherine Eddowes was keeping the - minimum - 17% body fat below which the body ceases to menstruate. Also, please account for the facts - well, they are, aren't they? - that she was forty-four, a drinker, and undernourished, all of which would also tend towards an early cessation of menstruation.

Its the general public that have been misled over the years with the publication of an assortment of suspect based books lacking in any real evidence and many documenraties all formulated on the original facts again lacking in any real evidence which many of the objectors have themselves been directly involved in.

Well, we can all think of Ripper books which seem to have been designed purely to separate the public from their money, and documentaries which didn't, eventually, go anywhere. No names mentioned, though, eh, Trevor?

But now thankfully the public are waking up to the facts that there is new stuff out there and they are not so readily accepting the old theories as being correct so all has not been in vain.

I'm really not sure that the public are that much involved, except to the extent that your tours and other speaking engagements tend to bring the Ripper case to small provincial audiences - and even then I've been advised that they're not being fed a very reliable interpretation of the case in the time they spend with you. I don't know. Perhaps another way to look at this is to revisit Tracey Hookway's e-petition relating to the disclosure of 'all hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to [the Whitechapel] murders', established in October 2011. 100,000 signatures in one calendar year would bring the petition into the political spotlight, and give it a chance of being discussed in Parliament. The petition closes on 3 October 2012, which is in 94 days' time. So far, it has collected 76 signatures. It needs another 999,924. It needs, on average, 10,637 every day from this point in. It needs a little over seven-and-a-half signatures every minutes. It needs a signature every eight seconds. If the public were really involved, this would be their opportunity for direct action. But they're not. The only involvement they've really got in this case is commercial, and I'm afraid that, if you're the chap who believes himself to be standing, dimly lit and on stage before the Basingstoke Women's Institute, between the public and the nexus of lies and deceptions which you consider other people's Ripperology to be, then we're all in more trouble than we thought.

Regards,

Mark

[PaulB]

Why should we be discussing it as evidence when the police in 1888 didnt regard it as evidence. Do we know something now that they didnt know then ?

I don't want a discussion, Trevor. What I want is for you to justify and substantiate a conclusion you have reached.

I hesitate to say this, Trevor, but all the case papers of the City police have been destroyed, so actually you don't have the remotest idea whether the police regarded it as evidence in 1888 or not.

I also hesitate to point out that Anderson was critical of the erasure, maintaining that the graffiti could have provided a valuable clue, and he wasn't altogether alone in that view, so the police in 1888 did regard it as evidence.

And whether they regarded it as evidence or not is irrelevant to your certain assurance that the murderer didn't write it. All I am asking you is to explain the evidence on which you base that conclusion.

And just so you know, whilst I am unable to say whether the murderer wrote the graffiti or not, I quietly incline to the view that he didn't, largely, I confess, because I can't see the murderer squatting down to write a message. So, I don't have the least vested interest in arguing against you on this. The difference between us, though, is that I freely and openly admit that I don't know who wrote the graffiti. You, on the other hand, claim that you do at least know who didn't write it. Evidence please.

[Trevor Marriott]

"But now thankfully the public are waking up to the facts that there is new stuff out there and they are not so readily accepting the old theories as being correct so all has not been in vain."

By public you mean those who have not studied the case in great depth and only rely on information you claim is correct?

Like those who attend your talks and are oblivious to the finer details which show your 'evidence' to be nothing more than interpretation based on personal opinion.

And Hearsay evidence can convict Trevor, it is evidence none the less.

You are correct but not as an automatic matter of course. Now I am sure you dont want me to give you a refreseher course in evidence and procedure if you do I could bring a book along to York so that you have something to do in your room at nite !

Monty

I present the facts in an unbiased fashion and I am happy just doing that unklike others I do not seek to impose my will..

I will continue to fight my cause to the bitter end and if If I should later sink then I know that if that be the case then there will be a few going down with me rest assured of that.

Now I must go and pack going to spend a few days relaxing in France- Au Revoir

[Monty]

I know I'm correct Trevor,

Yeah, bring the book. It seems you require it.

Do you actually believe the rest of your post? Because I can lay many examples of your own words contradicting that.

A few going down with you? You posse worried too?

Remember, you reap what you sow.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't want a discussion, Trevor. What I want is for you to justify and substantiate a conclusion you have reached.

I hesitate to say this, Trevor, but all the case papers of the City police have been destroyed, so actually you don't have the remotest idea whether the police regarded it as evidence in 1888 or not.

I also hesitate to point out that Anderson was critical of the erasure, maintaining that the graffiti could have provided a valuable clue, and he wasn't altogether alone in that view, so the police in 1888 did regard it as evidence.

Ah Hans Christian again the man hadnt done a proper days police work in his life he is life you woulndt know what eveidence was if if jumped up and punched him on the nose.

What valuable clue do you think he was referring to ?

And whether they regarded it as evidence or not is irrelevant to your certain assurance that the murderer didn't write it. All I am asking you is to explain the evidence on which you base that conclusion.

You really are something I have more than once already give the reasons I am not keep going to repeat myslef like you keep doing.

And just so you know, whilst I am unable to say whether the murderer wrote the graffiti or not, I quietly incline to the view that he didn't, largely, I confess, because I can't see the murderer squatting down to write a message. So, I don't have the least vested interest in arguing against you on this. The difference between us, though, is that I freely and openly admit that I don't know who wrote the graffiti. You, on the other hand, claim that you do at least know who didn't write it. Evidence please.

Well arent facts there to be disputed in this way take suspects if you can t prove who the killer was you can prove who he wasnt

[PaulB]

Well arent facts there to be disputed in this way take suspects if you can t prove who the killer was you can prove who he wasnt

What the hell does that mean? Punctuation would do a lot to make you comprehensible, Trevor.

Anyway, still no answers, just the usual claptrap. But who knows, maybe you will have the last laugh. Let's hope so. It doesn't seem likely. Have a nice time in France.

[Bridewell]

Nope

Why should we be discussing it as evidence when the police in 1888 didnt regard it as evidence. Do we know something now that they didnt know then ?

Hi Trevor,

No, we don't know anything about the graffito now that they didn't know then, but some people choose to forget what is known. The graffito was erased in the face of strong opposition from the City of London police who wished to preserve it. Dc Daniel Halse urged that a photograph should be taken for the Acting Commissioner of the City Police to have sight of. When he realised that he was fighting a losing battle he asked that the word 'Juwes' be erased, but the remainder preserved until it could be photographed. Tell us why an experienced detective wanted this course of action with regard to the GSG if he "didn't regard it as evidence"? What was his reason for wanting something photographed that he didn't consider to be evidence?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Cutting

Originally posted by PaulB: Unfortunately, your idea that Eddowes used the apron for sanitary purposes is ridiculous. She was destitute and broke, she wore the clothes she owned, she’d pawned John Kelly’s boots to buy some basic necessities like tea and sugar. Do you seriously think she would have ruined her only apron, an important garment in those days, by tearing it and using it for sanitary purposes?

Hi Paul,

As another poster has pointed out, the missing section of apron had not been torn off, but cut. Kate had "1 White Handle Table Knife & 1 Metal Tea Spoon" in her possession. So either Kate was in the habit of using one knife for both eating and tampon manufacture - or someone else cut the apron.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

No, we don't know anything about the graffito now that they didn't know then, but some people choose to forget what is known. The graffito was erased in the face of strong opposition from the City of London police who wished to preserve it. Dc Daniel Halse urged that a photograph should be taken for the Acting Commissioner of the City Police to have sight of. When he realised that he was fighting a losing battle he asked that the word 'Juwes' be erased, but the remainder preserved until it could be photographed. Tell us why an experienced detective wanted this course of action with regard to the GSG if he "didn't regard it as evidence"? What was his reason for wanting something photographed that he didn't consider to be evidence?

Regards, Bridewell.

You could argue that looking at by way of the police practices today why do officers seize a variety of things when a crime has been commmited because they might be of evidential value but if those things are soon eliminated then they become irrelevant.

Because of all what was going on at Goulston Street and the fact that the uniform officer had pointed it out it was probably right and proper to do so, seeing as the two of them couldnt even write it down correctly. But was it looked on as evidence thereafter did anyone come out and say the killer wrote it.

Mr Begg comes back and again with the old chestnut now he says all the City files were lost or destroyed or stolen. I dont subscribe to that for one moment, the city kept their own files my understanding is that they have not so long ago been transferring them and are still doing so. So if they were stolen could it have been a police officer then?

Has Don Rumbellow given any indication that when he had access to them he found any evidence to suggest files had been lost stolen or destroyed.?

[Phil Carter]

What was his reason for wanting something photographed that he didn't consider to be evidence?

Hello Colin,

Any slight comment about this will cause eruptions..but I'll merely suggest something. Can't prove it, can't disprove it. Don't put great personal weight on it either.

It isn't unusual for people of all walks of life to be prejudiced against another race. Policemen in the Met have had their fair share of accusation and bias against certain communities for many many years here and there.

I asked an English friend who by sheer co-incidence lives in the same small town as I in Norway about exactly this. He is an ex-policeman, serving in various Met Police Divisions. He said..
"Right up until the late 50's and early 60's there was a small but underlying racism problem involving the East End involving the Jewish population. It started to change with the influx of first West Indian communities, then predominantly Asian communities in the general area from the 60's onwards."

Now I am NOT putting too much weight on this, but give it as an example that in the 1880's and I am sure onwards, there were anti-semetic policemen (as indeed there were in all walks of life) in the area. Sir Robert Anderson didn't exactl;y paint a pretty picture of the community himself, I note.

Whether this applies to Halse for example, I have no idea..and I do NOT make the assumption nor accuisation. But it would explain your comment. It may not be evidence, per se, but it would discredit the Jews. Remember the Pizer incident? The feeling that an "Englishman wouldn'tdo such a thing" re the manner of the muredrs was pretty strong. That isnt anti-semetc in itself, by by default?

In these politically correct times it is hard to imagine such open comment and feeling such as Anderson's towards any community. It would not be unusual for a person to "want" to "find blame", would it?

I repeat, I put no real weight on it personally. But I wont dismiss the possibility out of hand either. And I do realise the mention of the erasure of the word Juwes as well.

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

As another poster has pointed out, the missing section of apron had not been torn off, but cut. Kate had "1 White Handle Table Knife & 1 Metal Tea Spoon" in her possession. So either Kate was in the habit of using one knife for both eating and tampon manufacture - or someone else cut the apron.

Regards, Bridewell.

Yes, you have a good point, unlike Catherine's table knife, but do you think it's too complex an argument for some to grasp?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Paul,

As another poster has pointed out, the missing section of apron had not been torn off, but cut. Kate had "1 White Handle Table Knife & 1 Metal Tea Spoon" in her possession. So either Kate was in the habit of using one knife for both eating and tampon manufacture - or someone else cut the apron.

Regards, Bridewell.

Keep up the good work you wil soon be officially asked to join the cartel I understand there are one or two vacancies ly