Who cut Eddowes Apron?

[Trevor Marriott]

The most amusing thing being, you wrote a book, and got paid to do it apparently, and didn't bother to do the research BEFORE cashing the check. If THAT wasn't the appropriate time to deal with the questions, I don't know when was.

And for christ's sake will you LEARN how to use the freaking quote feature? You expect anyone to believe you can solve one of the greatest mysteries of all time when you can't even fumble your way through basic deduction like that?

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not looking to solve the mystery simply making others aware that there other plausible explantions to some of the old outdated theories which the likes of you and a handful of others have been ramming down their throats for the past 20 years with books by the dozen all purporting to be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.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm sorry, why are we noting the capital K? What's the relevance? If your premise is there was an accomplice, the capital K would not be of issue, it would be the lack of an "s" at the end of it?



Nobody EVER knows in cases of crime what happened. All that can ever occur is opining based on the facts presented. By your logic, unless one is caught red handed on tape in the act, no judgment can ever be made. I disagree. One must look at the facts and come to a REASONED conclusion. Some opinions absolutely count more than others. When one has concocted a theory that has no support, and is in direct contradiction to the established facts, ones opinion counts far less than one who came to an alternate conclusion after looking at all the facts.



There's no evidence that transporter beam technology was invented then. There's no evidence of doggie teeth marks, there's no evidence of a lot of things. Therefore one must actually look at most likely, because afterall, in certain situations, what is most likely to have occurred is usually what does in fact occur. Not always, granted, but Occam's razor, etc.



I'm confused. Was that supposed to be your "evidence" of a possible accomplice? Because I have to state, that a reward notice indicating the possibility of an accomplice is NOT evidence. It's speculation on the police's part (which we aren't allowed to do here, but you are taking as evidence there). You are opposed to the police who ASSUMED regarding the goulston street graffito, as that assumption doesn't support your theory, but when they assume there may have been an accomplice and put up a reward notice, suddenly THAT'S evidence? That's not evidence, that's cherry-picking. And you are absolutely leaving out the issue of "accomplice after the fact" which is anyone who did not in fact help kill the women, but may know or have provided assistance, given shelter, etc. Accomplice after the fact doesn't necessarily mean there was a duo stalking in tandem.

But again, I fail to see what "evidence" there is of an accomplice.



I'm sorry, I admit fully I am not as up to speed on the Halse issue as I ought to be, but can you please point me to where it states that Halse stopped both the men "together"? As far as I am aware from his inquest testimony, he stated that they were to stop every man, and he proceeded down a couple of streets where he said he stopped two men. It did not actually state two men, walking together, or anything of the sort. But again, I may well be wrong.




Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? The dumping of the apron was what gave the graffito importance, not the other way round. The graffito is largely irrelevant and can be dismissed entirely from this argument. There was a piece of Catherine's apron there. That is the only evidence.



What reason is there? The fact that she MAY (no evidence that she did ) have passed by that street has absolutely nothing to do with whether she would have cut up her apron. Just because she may have walked past the spot where the apron was, in not in fact any evidence at all as to whether she dumped it.



Yes, and? We have no evidence which way he walked. However, the fact that there was a piece of evidence from the crime scene found there, is in fact evidence. If you do not grant this, then basically you are saying that inevery crime, where goods from the crime is found elsewhere is not in fact indicative of anything. If someone robs your house, and your stuff turns up at someone else's house, and all other comings and goings of the house are ruled out, nothing can actually be proven because there is no evidence that that particular person transported your goods. ??? This is not logic, this is lunacy. Sometimes you have to actually grant that the most likely scenario is what happened.



And? While I grant that you cannot assume the graffito was connected, I believe that's a leap, it's not at all the same leap to assume that a piece of a murdered woman's apron, cut off from her at the scene and then appearing in a location blocks away was transported there by the killer.




You say that like it's something to be proud of. Frankly, I believe lying conmen ought to be insulted vigorously and with great outrage. And I believe when someone puts forth a theory that is in direct contradiction to the established facts and proceeds to make money off of it, it is no better than being a conman. It is lazy, sloppy thinking, and greedy. I find these imminently insultable traits.



So your basic premise is, you can come up with any outlandish theory you like, and as long as we can't prove it didn't happen that way, it's valid??

Okay, here we go people. Aliens, from an alternate dimension needed woman parts for a banquet they were having. They slaughtered the whitechapel women, but while carrying away their main course, there was a fluctuation in the transporter beam and the apron piece got flung away to ghoul-ston street. PROVE it didn't happen.

This is what drives me nuts about sloppy thinkers.

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

[Phil Carter]

Ally,

If the comment 'lying con men' is directed at me I find the comment grossly insulting and unacceptable and respectfully ask you to withdraw it forthwith.
Thank you.

Phil

[Ally]

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.

LOL..find yourself a good dictionary and look up the word "plausible". I think you'll find it doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Ally]

Ally,

if the comment 'lying con men' is directed at me I find the comment grossly insulting and unacceptable and ask you to withdraw it forthwith.
Thank you.

Phil

Have you put forth a theory from which you are proceeding to make money, knowing full well it is direct contradiction to the established facts? If not, then I find your bluster to be typical as a means of deflecting from the actual debate in favor of trotting up phony indignation. There was an entire post, full of rebuttal which you completely ignored, in favor or seizing on one part, that you knew full well was not directed at you.

Really it is quite typical of the basic tactics.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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)

[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]

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.

[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]

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,

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.