Who cut Eddowes Apron?

[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.

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not looking to solve the mystery simply making others aware that there other plausible explantions to some of the old outdated theories which the likes of you and a handful of others have been ramming down their throats for the past 20 years with books by the dozen all purporting to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

[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

[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

[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.

[Ally]

Question: Who cut and disposed of Eddowes apron?

The Killer? (note the capital K)

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?

Answer from this poster: Other
Reasons:

1) I don't KNOW.
2) NOBODY KNOWS. Opine? Yes. KNOW? No.

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.

3) There is no evidence to PROVE the killer transported the apon piece, only assumption based on opined likelyhood, not factual proof.

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.

4) There is no evidence to rule out an accomplice.
5) There is POSSIBLE evidence to consider an accomplice.
(After the Kelly murder, according to the police and a doctor in his C5 list to Anderson, the killer of MJK and Eddowes were one and the same. The reward statement given by the Home Office after the Kelly murder INCLUDE a possibility of an accomplice. If this was just in conjunction with the Kelly murder it indicates 2 two different murderers- one who acted alone and one who way have acted with an accomplice. So if the killer may have had an accomplice for MJK- be he the same man- he may have had an accomplice murdering Eddowes. We do not know the specific reason for the nature of the wording in the reward statement- so we cannot rule out any reason)

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.

6) The only known persons stopped by any known policeman were the TWO people said by Halse to have been both seen and stopped, and cleared, without any known particulars taken. Contrary to known police procedure we have no record that the ONLY people ever seen NEAR the murder site, walking in the general area of the graffito, were never escorted to a station. Therefore it is possible they dumped the apron piece at some time after 2.20am. This cannot be ruled out as we hear of no other person on the streets in the vicinity of the graffito. They were stopped BEFORE Halse didnt see the apron piece at about 2.20am,

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.

7) There is nothing to link the chalk writing to the killer, thereby downgrading the reason the ASSUMED reasoning by the police the importance of said chalk writing. If the writing WASNT made by the killer, the dumping of the apron piece is less likely to have any direct link to it.

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.

8) There is reason to leave the option of Eddowes herself dumping the rag. She left the police station with ample time to have walked via Gouston St to (if Lawende be correct) the top of Church Passage. Why? Dont know. Nobody can say she didnt take that or any other route in those 30mins. Could she have used the piece herself? Possible. But unknown.

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. And none of that addresses the very real question of -- why in god's name WOULD she?

9) We have NO evidence the killer walked to Goulston St. IF he had an accomplice, the killer would not have to walk that way, leaving the accomplice to dump the rag.

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.

10) Because of lack of official papers, we have only been fed the assumption of the police that the killer dumped it. The SAME police that assumed the writing was connected to the murder.

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.

There. All done without insulting any poster or their views, or their theories.

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.

Fine if disagreed with- but I reserve the right to use the marginalia response about the ID AT A Seaside Home. You cant PROVE it didnt happen that way.

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.

[PaulB]

Apparently you do and quite desperately, otherwise you wouldn't be hanging your hat on your ludicrous theory, and planning your triumph at the York event, looking forward to us removing our "outdated concepts from our backsides". So yes, I'd say you do care, really quite desperately and pathetically.




Paul,

Thanks for that. If anyone listens to the podcast, I think it was quite clear from when these issues were first raised with Trevor, he had absolutely NO IDEA about them. I would hazard a guess he'd never even read the inquest reports on Eddowes before writing his book, because some of his 'theorizing' was so completely contrary to the established facts of the case. I do firmly believe that he is of the sort that once he decides his opinion of what happened is what happened, facts have absolutely no business interfering and therefore, won't even be considered. His statements about how he scientifically "proved" the Ripper didn't use the rag to wipe his hands were dumbfounding in their illogic.

Luckily, it doesn't appear anyone has fallen for the malarkey, which is what I primarily wanted to know. Sometimes I need a check to see how far irrationality has swept the world. So far, in this little corner, so good.

Hi Ally,
The downside is that he peddles it to the public, and not just in books, and the catalogue of errors he makes is long - Monty mentioned a few on another thread. Not having a cynical bone in my body, I wouldn't even think that he hangs his hat on ludicrous theories because it makes him money. Some might think it. Not me though.

[Ally]

I do not propose at this time to play all my cards I have stated that as far as I am concerned all the questions arising from the differences in opinions etc will be fully dealt with at the appropriate time.

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?

[Ally]

Do I care ?

Apparently you do and quite desperately, otherwise you wouldn't be hanging your hat on your ludicrous theory, and planning your triumph at the York event, looking forward to us removing our "outdated concepts from our backsides". So yes, I'd say you do care, really quite desperately and pathetically.




Paul,

Thanks for that. If anyone listens to the podcast, I think it was quite clear from when these issues were first raised with Trevor, he had absolutely NO IDEA about them. I would hazard a guess he'd never even read the inquest reports on Eddowes before writing his book, because some of his 'theorizing' was so completely contrary to the established facts of the case. I do firmly believe that he is of the sort that once he decides his opinion of what happened is what happened, facts have absolutely no business interfering and therefore, won't even be considered. His statements about how he scientifically "proved" the Ripper didn't use the rag to wipe his hands were dumbfounding in their illogic.

Luckily, it doesn't appear anyone has fallen for the malarkey, which is what I primarily wanted to know. Sometimes I need a check to see how far irrationality has swept the world. So far, in this little corner, so good.

[PaulB]

Do I care ?

Unfortunately, you don't. Which actually says a lot about you.

[PaulB]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;228952]

I do not propose at this time to play all my cards I have stated that as far as I am concerned all the questions arising from the differences in opinions etc will be fully dealt with at the appropriate time.

As you are busy traveling the country telling this crap to paying audiences, 'the appropriate time' came and went a very long time ago.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

My money's on "Other", as it definitely wasn't "Eddowes, herself" and need not necessarily have been "The Killer".

Regards,

Simon

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think one of the reasons for wearing an apron in Victorian times, among the lower working classes, was for warmth.

Would have been an inappropriate time of the year to dispense with an article of clothing offering some shelter against the elements.

[Trevor Marriott]

And none apparently believe what you believe.

Do I care ?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello FM,

i have absolutely no argument with your views. It IS reasonable, per se, to use a likely scenario. Yes.
But, there is a wimdow that allows for an accomplice based on that reward wording IF the killer of Kelly was the same as Eddowes. Something told the police (we know not what) that an accomplice may have been involved. Ipso facto.. Eddowes' demise may have been the same premiss. We dont know.

As regards that futile argument- I agree! But when I put that very point forward I was told it was 'up to you to prove it didnt happen' re the marginalia.
Whats good for the goose.
But yes, I agree- its futile.

hope you are well? Ages since we discussed!

Best wishes

Phil

Very well thanks, Phil, same to you and your family.

The something that told the police. Seems there is no known evidence of an accomplice. It may have been no more than clutching at straws. With a lack of evidence they may have been prepared to try anything.

In terms of the marginalia, I suppose the position is that the evidence suggests it is genuine. I am always sceptical where there's money involved, but to date the available evidence suggests genuine. The burden of proof certainly rests with the accuser, and I think those saying genuine do have some substantial evidence to support that accusation; I don't see any substantial evidence to support the contrary assertion.