Who cut Eddowes Apron?

[Supe]

Tom,

The question remains: Did Halse accost two men separately or in tandem?

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Don. Even if Le Grand were the Ripper, I have no idea if he worked with an accomplice or not. Having said that, regardless of who the Ripper was, he quite possibly did work with an accomplice. Criminal accomplices were far, far more common in those times than they are today.

In any event, my point still stands, does it not? The WVC had men patrol in twos and once accounted for, would be let on their way by a constable.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

The Vote

I will stick to my beleifs and continue to present the full facts in unbiased fashion. Time will tell as to which way the public vote.

Indeed, Trevor, and at the moment it's 24 votes to 0 against Kate Eddowes being the person who deposited the apron piece. That doesn't prove that she didn't do it of course, but does mean that, to date in this poll, nobody believes that she did.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Supe]

Tom,

Sorry, I did not mean your prime suspect, but most likely just working men. As I said, if you want to believe . . . you will believe darn near anything.

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

Examined from as objective a point of view as we might muster today, it would seem logical that, having just come from Mitre Square and seen the devestration wrought upon Kate Eddowes, that he would be at his most suspicious during the ensuing 20 minutes or so. Yet, he seems to have been quite satisfied with the account the two provided of themselves.

You mean like private investigators' cards? Vigilance committee patrolmen? That would likely do the trick.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Ally,

Realized you knew the basics too late. In any case, we were not told if Halse met the two separately or in tandem, nor does it seem to make any difference. Those who want to clutch at straws to bolster a theory will do so.

Examined from as objective a point of view as we might muster today, it would seem logical that, having just come from Mitre Square and seen the devestration wrought upon Kate Eddowes, that he would be at his most suspicious during the ensuing 20 minutes or so. Yet, he seems to have been quite satisfied with the account the two provided of themselves.

From investigations of other murders it is clear people were on the streets, headed to or from work, in the wee hours so to find a couple of people on Wentworth Street was likely no great surprise to an experience detective like Halse. Indeed, it seems likely that was the thinking of those at the inquest.

But, if you want to believe . . . you will believe darn near anything.

Don.

[Ally]

Yep, I was aware of the basics, but I know some people know more of the niggling details than I do. I was just curious, as to whether those who shout the loudest about not taking assumption as fact were, in fact, being impaled by their own sword. Which they seem to do quite frequently.

[Supe]

Ally,

If I may presume: When Halse set off on his search for the killer that took him as far as Goulston Street he later reported that he had stopped two men in Wentworth Street -- whether each was alone or they were together was not stated. They evidently gave a satisfactory account of themselves and even at 2:20 a.m. to find people on a thoroughfare like Wentworth would not be unexpected.

Don.

[Ally]

Heya Mont-ster,

Possibly you can answer me this, because I am truly riddled and it doesn't appear I will be getting any sort of logical response from anyone else.

The accomplice theory apparently hangs one of its hooks on the idea that two men, a pair, were questioned together by Halse. Where is this "evidence" from, or is it merely an assumption (gasp)based on the testimony that he questioned two men, and that therefore those two men must have been together?

I *really* want to know.

Thanks if you can help.

[Monty]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;228947]

I, For one, have better things to do.

Besides, I promised to be a good boy.

If its anything like lasts weeks talk, I tell you, you need more than a table knife and a pot bellied nag.

Monty
[/QUOTE

And afterwards some of you may need the services of a doctor to remove your outdated theories from out your backside !

How can't you counter that? It defeats itself.

Monty

[Ally]

Another of your silly one-liners. Okay, let's suppose for one moment that Ally has lost the plot and is having tea and cakes with the fairies; why don't you actually address the points she has made and explain why she's lost the plot?

Is it because you can't? Or maybe the time's not quite right...? Or are you the one who's really out playing with Tinkerbell.

Paul,

You keep making my arguments for me, and I am going to have to bury the hatchet (and not IN you neither)

[Ally]

Ally,

So you are calling SOMEONE a lying con man. Who? Who is the lying con man Ally if not me?
i apparently, am a 'lazy, sloppy thinker' and 'greedy'-
these 'traits' of mine being 'eminently suitable' and 'no better than a con man'.
A con man, unnamed in the same paragraph, who deserves insulting 'vigourously and with great outrage'.

By labelling me of being 'no better' than a con man you have insulted me in a way I find grossly unacceptable. I am 'greedy' as well according to you. Another term that is not only a trait completelx abhorrent to my nature, it is actually an extremely rude accuration to make.

I respectfully ask you again to withdraw there personal comments and false accusations either direct or in comparison, forthwith.
Thank you

Phil

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like you to look at the above as evidence of the deductive abilities of the people who argue these points. I stated, quite clearly, that the comment was not directed at him, which he then turned around and stated was directed at him.

And these are the sorts of people who claim that we are incapable of seeing the truth. God help us.

Phil, *respectfully*, No. I am not going to apologize or withdraw my comments. For starters, I didn't state you were a lying, greedy conman. I stated that people who do specific, explicitly-defined things were, in my opinion, lying greedy conmen. I am entitled to that opinion.

But that is entirely besides the point, because I stated clearly that the comment was not directed at you. Once again, you are COMPLETELY overlooking the point in favor of throwing up FAKE and PHONY indignation to deflect from the real argument. You made a point of saying how you managed to not insult someone, as if that was a virtue. I believe there are people on this planet who deserve to be insulted. I made an argument for that case. If you don't like it, tough. But don't pull a fake hysterical argument that I called you a lying greedy conman.

And I suspect we all know the reason why you have decided to focus on this non-issue. People only put up that sort of nonsense when they have no real rebuttal. Bluster and bluff and side-tracking without any real evidence to back up your opinions. Where, oh where, have we seen that before?

I am not going to debate this with you any more. Your question was asked twice, and answered twice. And I am done with your phony affront. You aren't going to answer my well-reasoned post, which is just proof you doesn't WANT a well-reasoned debate, you want drama.

[Phil Carter]

Ally,

So you are calling SOMEONE a lying con man. Who? Who is the lying con man Ally if not me?
i apparently, am a 'lazy, sloppy thinker' and 'greedy'-
these 'traits' of mine being 'eminently suitable' and 'no better than a con man'.
A con man, unnamed in the same paragraph, who deserves insulting 'vigourously and with great outrage'.

By labelling me of being 'no better' than a con man you have insulted me in a way I find grossly unacceptable. I am 'greedy' as well according to you. Another term that is not only a trait completely abhorrent to my nature, it is actually an extremely rude accusation to make.

I respectfully ask you again to withdraw these personal comments and false accusations written either directly or in comparison, forthwith.
Thank you

Phil

[PaulB]

You have really lost the plot, you are completely out with the fairies

Another of your silly one-liners. Okay, let's suppose for one moment that Ally has lost the plot and is having tea and cakes with the fairies; why don't you actually address the points she has made and explain why she's lost the plot?

Is it because you can't? Or maybe the time's not quite right...? Or are you the one who's really out playing with Tinkerbell.

[PaulB]

I am not looking to solve the mystery simply making others aware that there other plausible explantions to some of the old outdated theories which the likes of you and a handful of others have been ramming down their throats for the past 20 years with books by the dozen all purporting to be factually correct, because you and a few others think that you are the bees knees of ripperolology and think that what you say and write is gospel and shouldnt be challenged. Well if you think that then your days are numbered.

I will stick to my beleifs and continue to present the full facts in unbiased fashion. Time will tell as to which way the public vote.

You haven't offered any 'plausible explanations' for anything. Your sanitary towel notion, for example, is completely implausible. Nor do you present the 'full facts'. As has been pointed out, you present a catalogue of errors. And you don't present 'in unbiased fashion', but the Ripper according to Trevor Marriott. And when you are challenged, you have nothing to back yourself up with other than silly one-liners, claims that in time you'll show your hand and win the day, and accusations that those who challenge you are protecting their own interests.