Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Absolutely.

    As I’ve said on other threads Trevor sets rules and guidelines for other posters which don’t appear to apply to himself. He does the same when deciding which bits of evidence are safe or unsafe.
    Hi Herlock,

    His rules and definitions set impossible criteria, making everything unsafe, and if everything is unsafe then unsafe has no real meaning.

    But of course, some data and evidence is unsafe, and shouldn't be relied upon. There are a lot of newspaper articles which are clearly unsubstantiated, and what someone says to a reporter will be presented very differently, and much less carefully (and more embellished; probably even encouraged to embellish by the reporter), and so should be treated like a soiled nappy from a baby who spent the morning gorging on apple sauce.

    it is important to cross validate statements, to look for the newspapers that are presenting transcripts of the inquests over summaries. And from that extract as accurate an idea of what was said and what happened as we can.

    Simply saying "the information we have that was gathered over 130 years ago using procedures that are now known to be deficient, combined with the fact that much of it is also lost or missing, makes it hard for us to know how reliable the facts are that are mentioned in those documents" is saying I think everyone here already knows. If he's trying to convince the converted, that's a bit of a waste of time. He just doesn't recognize that everyone knows the facts are suspect, except most other people get down to trying to establish what the actual facts are, though careful analysis of all the surviving bits of information, and from that rule out the erroneous options. Trevor, however, uses it as an excuse to say any old thing, and just repeat "unsafe" if anyone points out that he's just saying any old thing that comes to mind. That's not helpful. I mean, really, we're on page 47 just trying to establish that when multiple people testified to her wearing an apron that it means we have to accept she was wearing an apron. What's even more bizarre, is Trevor's claim that the two pieces of that apron didn't make up a whole apron, but there wasn't any piece missing from it! That was a new one to me, but it showed that Trevor is only about disagreement. It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch, the argument.

    Anyway, in some ways it's a shame. His completely new way of looking at things does create good exercises, to force people to go back and re-examine things just to see if those ideas can be strongly supported. That would be very helpful at times, but it requires him to recognize when the arguments against him outweigh the arguments for, and he should say "Ok, so that idea didn't work; but what about this one ..." Then it because an opportunity to learn, because there's recognition of the strength of the counter case. But Trevor cannot admit someone else is right (see the not-missing-any-pieces-but-still-not-a-whole-apron debacle), and that makes it a pointless exercise.

    But what does "unsafe" really mean? Trevor tries to suggest that if something is not 100% accurate it is unsafe. And I've used that against him to prove a point. But it's not true, is it. It's not something must be 100% safe, because if there's only a 0.1% chance of it being wrong, and 99.9% chance of it being right, then the odds are 999:1 that it is correct. That is a safe bet. If, however, there's a 50% chance of right and 50% chance of being wrong, the odds are 1:1, no better than a coin flip, and that would be an unsafe point to make a pillar of a case on. And truly unsafe is to build a case on something where the odds are in favor of it being wrong, so 75% likely to be wrong and only 25% correct, and it's 3:1 that information is wrong. Meaning, the "safety" of the information is more about the odds ratio than whether something has a 0% or 100% chance of being correct.

    And when we combine all the data, the odds of all the witnesses we have saying she was wearing an apron, notwithstanding one could suggest those are given with various degrees of confidence, and then being wrong about that are well in favour of her wearing an apron. It's safe to make that claim, even though there is a non zero percentage chance they all could be wrong. It's just such a small probability that they could be wrong that it becomes very very unsafe to go with that idea, which Trevor does.


    - Jeff
    Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-01-2021, 11:17 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by harry View Post
      Fiver,
      Of course there would be no indication of a second apron.The killer took it with him.
      Dr Brown's Inquest testimony was that the piece of apron found in Goulston street was part of the same apron in Eddowes possession.

      [Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        Where does it state they went inside?

        What do you think they were doing till 5,20am they were waiting the arrival of |Dr Phillips "outside" and as stated he had not arrived by then. Where else is it recorded that the press were allowed in any of the other mortuaries, why would they be allowed to enter and for what purpose? there is no answer to that because they would not have been permitted. There is no need for anything to be produced in writing to that effect that would have been protocol, just the same as none of the press or the public were allowed to enter the Mitre Square crime scene. The mortuary was not a circus and if they had have been allowed do you not think that there would have been some reports as to what they saw inside.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Trevor.

        > In his autobiography My Life's Pilgrimage, the editor of Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper Thomas Catling wrote the following:

        Proceeding next to Mitre Square, I learned from kindly-disposed police-men a number of details of both crimes. The bodies had been taken to the City mortuary, and I followed them as quickly as possible. There it was my good fortune to find a friend whom I had known in school circles, Mr. Gordon Brown, one of the medical officers of the police. He gave me facts — more than could be published — as to the condition of the bodies. Thus, when I returned to the office I was able to spin out a column and a half of accurate particulars very quickly. As fast as the copy was written it was composed and put into the paper.


        >In Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, September 30,1888

        Information of the crime was quickly sent to the police stations in the district, and doctors were immediately summoned, the two first to arrive being Mr. F. Gordon Brown, of 6, North-buildings, Eldon-street, Finsbury-circus; and Mr. Sequeira, of 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate. They made a minute examination of the body, Dr. Gordon Brown taking a pencil sketch of the exact position in which it was found. This he most kindly showed to the representative of Lloyd's, when subsequently explaining the frightful injuries inflicted upon the body of the deceased

        The presumption is the "representative of Lloyd's" is Thomas Catling.

        No, not definitive proof... and several rational explanations can be made as to why Thomas Catling didn't walk straight into the mortuary and take account of Catherine Eddowes' mutilated corpse directly. However. The above account does lean in favor of your assertion, Trevor. If, after all, an editor of a leading newspaper received his information via an explanation by Dr. Brown which was accompanied by an illustration rather than being taken to see her body, maybe-just-maybe The City was keeping the press and public at distance. I say this remembering how guarded The City was over particular details during the inquest.

        Emphasis my own.
        there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

          Dr Brown's Inquest testimony was that the piece of apron found in Goulston street was part of the same apron in Eddowes possession.

          [Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.
          People need to understand where the "strings" were on the original apron, and they could figure out where the 2x2 ft section...roughly..came from.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

            People need to understand where the "strings" were on the original apron, and they could figure out where the 2x2 ft section...roughly..came from.
            You saw it did you?
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Hypothetically speaking could it be possible if the From Hell letter was a genuine correspondence, JtR's original plan was to include the piece of apron with the kidney as evidence they were the perpetrator but dropped it by accident whilst escaping.

              Comment


              • Reckon the "from hell" letter and the letter to Openshaw were genuine.

                Ditto the left kidney half,which would have been left to dry intact before immersed in ethanol.

                Some reckon the author of the latter letter was imitating a Irishman.
                Strongly suspect Jack was a high functioning Asperger married to an Irish lady.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

                  Trevor.

                  > In his autobiography My Life's Pilgrimage, the editor of Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper Thomas Catling wrote the following:

                  Proceeding next to Mitre Square, I learned from kindly-disposed police-men a number of details of both crimes. The bodies had been taken to the City mortuary, and I followed them as quickly as possible. There it was my good fortune to find a friend whom I had known in school circles, Mr. Gordon Brown, one of the medical officers of the police. He gave me facts — more than could be published — as to the condition of the bodies. Thus, when I returned to the office I was able to spin out a column and a half of accurate particulars very quickly. As fast as the copy was written it was composed and put into the paper.


                  >In Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, September 30,1888

                  Information of the crime was quickly sent to the police stations in the district, and doctors were immediately summoned, the two first to arrive being Mr. F. Gordon Brown, of 6, North-buildings, Eldon-street, Finsbury-circus; and Mr. Sequeira, of 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate. They made a minute examination of the body, Dr. Gordon Brown taking a pencil sketch of the exact position in which it was found. This he most kindly showed to the representative of Lloyd's, when subsequently explaining the frightful injuries inflicted upon the body of the deceased

                  The presumption is the "representative of Lloyd's" is Thomas Catling.

                  No, not definitive proof... and several rational explanations can be made as to why Thomas Catling didn't walk straight into the mortuary and take account of Catherine Eddowes' mutilated corpse directly. However. The above account does lean in favor of your assertion, Trevor. If, after all, an editor of a leading newspaper received his information via an explanation by Dr. Brown which was accompanied by an illustration rather than being taken to see her body, maybe-just-maybe The City was keeping the press and public at distance. I say this remembering how guarded The City was over particular details during the inquest.

                  Emphasis my own.
                  Hi Robert
                  Thank you for your post which in my opinion confirms what I said previous that the press were not allowed inside the mortuary, and so the press references to her clothing etc which they printed are "UNSAFE" to the point that they are completely fabricated.

                  It also shows that the doctors only carried out a cursory examination of the body at that time, and they gave interviews to the press who were waiting outside the mortuary, and that at that time they had not discovered organs missing.

                  I again refer to the Star interview with Dr`s Brown and Sequeira which must have either taken place between the crime scene and the mortuary, and before the official post mortem. In the final edition of the paper there are two interesting quotes, one from Dr Brown, and a second from Dr Sequeira. Brown was asked a specific question by the reporter “How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found itBrown replied “At least five minutes” Sequeira when asked the same question and states “three minutes”.

                  So again we get back to trying to determine if the killer have enough time at the crime scene to do all that he is alleged to have done, and so those comments are quite relevant bearing in mind the organs were not found to be missing until the post mortem. Was the report correct and is it reliable?

                  I know that 5 mins is a figure that some have used to prop up the old theory but why is Browns time to be relied on and not Sequeira`s, of course if you take an average between the two we have at least 4 mins, But can either of these time safely be relied upon given the context of the interviews and when they took place. The term "As you found it" has to be carefully considered.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Hi Robert
                    Thank you for your post which in my opinion confirms what I said previous that the press were not allowed inside the mortuary, and so the press references to her clothing etc which they printed are "UNSAFE" to the point that they are completely fabricated.

                    It also shows that the doctors only carried out a cursory examination of the body at that time, and they gave interviews to the press who were waiting outside the mortuary, and that at that time they had not discovered organs missing.

                    I again refer to the Star interview with Dr`s Brown and Sequeira which must have either taken place between the crime scene and the mortuary, and before the official post mortem. In the final edition of the paper there are two interesting quotes, one from Dr Brown, and a second from Dr Sequeira. Brown was asked a specific question by the reporter “How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found itBrown replied “At least five minutes” Sequeira when asked the same question and states “three minutes”.

                    So again we get back to trying to determine if the killer have enough time at the crime scene to do all that he is alleged to have done, and so those comments are quite relevant bearing in mind the organs were not found to be missing until the post mortem. Was the report correct and is it reliable?

                    I know that 5 mins is a figure that some have used to prop up the old theory but why is Browns time to be relied on and not Sequeira`s, of course if you take an average between the two we have at least 4 mins, But can either of these time safely be relied upon given the context of the interviews and when they took place. The term "As you found it" has to be carefully considered.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    "They made a minute examination of the body, ...."

                    turns into :

                    "It also shows that the doctors only carried out a cursory examination of the body at that time,...."

                    Curious how you turned a minute examination into a cursory one, a complete reversal of the evidence. I see now how you managed to end up skewered. If you change the evidence, you will continue to get it wrong. Sophistry has never been about truth.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                      People need to understand where the "strings" were on the original apron, and they could figure out where the 2x2 ft section...roughly..came from.
                      Hi Michael,

                      Where did you get 2 x 2 ft section? The closest I've seen was only recently in a post here, where the description was "cut in half" type thing, from a newspaper report I hadn't seen before. Is there another where they give measurements somewhere? Could you please post it, or indicate the paper and date of the story where this comes from (I'm assuming it's a newspaper, but happy to be corrected). Cheers.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Iconoclasm for its own sake isn't worth listening to. Iconoclasm used as means to demean the works of others and promote ones own work is even less worthy of note. I'll stick with safer Ripper historians like Rumbelow, Sugden and Begg, thanks very much.
                        " Queen Vic lured her victims into dark corners with offers of free fish and chips, washed down with White Satin." - forum user C4

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          "They made a minute examination of the body, ...."

                          turns into :

                          "It also shows that the doctors only carried out a cursory examination of the body at that time,...."

                          Curious how you turned a minute examination into a cursory one, a complete reversal of the evidence. I see now how you managed to end up skewered. If you change the evidence, you will continue to get it wrong. Sophistry has never been about truth.

                          - Jeff
                          You are ducking and diving yet again

                          definiton of cursory "hasty and therefore not thorough or detailed"

                          They did not carry out a full post mortem in the early hours, so any examination had to be cursory.


                          But again its what the newspaper reported using their words is that safe to rely on as being accurate in any event?

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 04-03-2021, 10:06 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Trevor’s Ripperological Fantasy Island continues.....
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              Trevor’s Ripperological Fantasy Island continues.....
                              As do the farcical attempts at rebuttal

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Tattoo The Plane The Plane - YouTube

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X