Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • .

    It is a fact that there is no transcripts that either you or I can say are word for word exactly what the witnesses said. It is an opinion that the inquest version is somehow error free due to the witnesses signing them
    Its possible that a witness could sign for a statement as being correct but it’s ludicrous to suggest that he or she would be signing to say that it was an exact transcription of what he or she had said. If the witness signed they were saying that the general facts were correct but there could have been some difference in wording that he or she felt was insignificant but us, looking into it 130 years later, might see as relevant.

    So in that respect, everything written in connection with the case is ‘unsafe’ to some extent. We use our own judgment in assessing them. We should simply try to dismiss things because they are inconvenient to some theory.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • .
      It doesnt mater what type of investigation it is. the facts and the evidence are the important factors, and as I have stated some of the evidence you and others seek to rely on as I have said before is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason
      Which part of your theory is ‘tested’ and ‘safe’ then. Are you ‘safe’ in dismissing 3 perfectly good witnesses for zero reason. And do bother saying that you’ve explained your reason for doing so because it holds no water. The 3 witnesses cannot dismissed and they destroy your theory.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        Hi Harry
        I have touched on that by reason of the fact that she was in possession of a knife but the naysayers come up with an explantion that the knife would not have been sharp enough to cut. Any excuse to prop up the old theory

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        And why would Eddowes, sitting in her cell sobering up, think “what can I do to pass the time?” “Shall I have a kip so that I can sober up and get out of here quicker?” “Nah, even though I’m desperately poor I think I’ll destroy my clothing

        Couldn’t you just occasionally visit Earth?

        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Its possible that a witness could sign for a statement as being correct but it’s ludicrous to suggest that he or she would be signing to say that it was an exact transcription of what he or she had said. If the witness signed they were saying that the general facts were correct but there could have been some difference in wording that he or she felt was insignificant but us, looking into it 130 years later, might see as relevant.

          So in that respect, everything written in connection with the case is ‘unsafe’ to some extent. We use our own judgment in assessing them. We should simply try to dismiss things because they are inconvenient to some theory.
          I am a poet and do a lot of open mics on Zoom these days with fellow writers from around the world. Even when I read my own poems displaying them on screen using "Screen Share" I know I don't always read the identical words that I had written. So you can't tell me that even if the witness signs a statement they would know exactly what they testified to.
          Christopher T. George
          Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
          just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
          For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
          RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            It doesnt mater what type of investigation it is. the facts and the evidence are the important factors, and as I have stated some of the evidence you and others seek to rely on as I have said before is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason.

            To clarify my statement, if this matter was the subject of a trial and I know its not but these have to be considered with regards to the police officers and Wilkinson and the police officers who gave sworn evidence that they saw her wearing an apron, These statements form the backbone of the arugments from you and others to show that she was wearing an apron. Although this is not a trial you and the others still have to ask yourslelves the same questions as if it were a trial to ascertain whether or not you, can safely rely on that evidence.

            There are questions which would be asked in a court and should be asked by you and others based on the inquest testimony in coming to a sensible and unbiased view

            Firstly the inquest did not take place until Oct 5th 5 days after the murder. They gave their signed statements at that time I would challenge their evidence as to their recollection of events 5 days previous to the point of asking these questions

            Ill answer as George Hutt.

            1. How can you be sure she was wearing an apron when you last saw her?

            Because I’m not blind.

            2. And the most important question "Whats was unusual about the apron you saw her wearing for you to identify the apron piece before you as being worn by the deceased?"

            What I actually said was…

            “I noticed she was wearing an apron. I believe the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the Station.”

            I said this, very obviously, because I didn’t expect that someone had slipped in another apron to try and trick me. There was nothing to lead me to believe that it wasn’t the one that she was wearing.


            3. "Did you make an notes at the time or as soon as practicable of the events that night or are you today speaking from memory?"

            Im speaking from memory about a woman that I can recall vividly because she was paralytic and a bit of a character.

            Pc Robinson is catergoric in his testimony "I belive the apron produced was the one she was wearing" that is an unsafe statement one white apeon is the same as another unless he was able to answer question 2 above his evidence is unsafe to rely on.

            Exactly as I said for Hutt. He had no reason to believe that it was another apron.

            The same applies to Pc Hutt who says the same "I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing"

            Dealt with above.

            There was never one produced the two pieces were produced separtely by Dr Phillips and Dr Brown, There is no evidence to show that the two pieces were ever joined by the police to make up a full apron and produced in court as one.

            And Brown, who matched them up didn’t mention any piece being missing. Proving categorically that no piece was missing.

            All in all in my professional opinion there is sufficient evidence to cast a major doubt about the testimony of those witnesses,

            And in unbiased opinion we have no reason at all to cast any doubts on these 3 witnesses.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            If these 3 are unsafe then every single witness in the case is unsafe.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post

              I am a poet and do a lot of open mics on Zoom these days with fellow writers from around the world. Even when I read my own poems displaying them on screen using "Screen Share" I know I don't always read the identical words that I had written. So you can't tell me that even if the witness signs a statement they would know exactly what they testified to.
              Exactly Chris. It would take a photographic memory if witnesses were signing to say “that’s exactly what I said and in exactly the way that I said it.”

              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                But you dont understand in order for you and others to satsify your beliefs, you should be asking yourself those questions and not readliy accepting the evidence as conclusive, and after you have asked yourself those questions a normal reasonable person who is unbiased must agree that the evidence is unsafe, and the evidence from the mortuary should also raise concerns about the reliabilty of those officers statements, because there is no evidence to show that she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Not you then.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Its possible that a witness could sign for a statement as being correct but it’s ludicrous to suggest that he or she would be signing to say that it was an exact transcription of what he or she had said. If the witness signed they were saying that the general facts were correct but there could have been some difference in wording that he or she felt was insignificant * but us, looking into it 130 years later, might see as relevant.

                  So in that respect, everything written in connection with the case is ‘unsafe’ to some extent. We use our own judgment in assessing them. We should simply try to dismiss things because they are inconvenient to some theory.

                  * Ill add….or that they didn’t notice when reading……especially relevant went considering the very poor or non-existent levels of education that some of the witnesses had. I might even further add that many of these witnesses would have been extremely nervous in this situation and would have simply wanted to get out of there. Would they have felt confident enough to have challenged what they had read or had been read to them?
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Its possible that a witness could sign for a statement as being correct but it’s ludicrous to suggest that he or she would be signing to say that it was an exact transcription of what he or she had said. If the witness signed they were saying that the general facts were correct but there could have been some difference in wording that he or she felt was insignificant but us, looking into it 130 years later, might see as relevant.
                    Exactly Herlock.

                    When you're in court and the officer says "quiet", you go quiet, when he says "stand", you stand, when he says "sign here", you sign here.

                    You follow procedures because most people don't want to be singled out, it's quite often their first experience.

                    The witness does what they are told.



                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post

                      I am a poet and do a lot of open mics on Zoom these days with fellow writers from around the world. Even when I read my own poems displaying them on screen using "Screen Share" I know I don't always read the identical words that I had written. So you can't tell me that even if the witness signs a statement they would know exactly what they testified to.
                      They are asked to read it first

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        Exactly Herlock.

                        When you're in court and the officer says "quiet", you go quiet, when he says "stand", you stand, when he says "sign here", you sign here.

                        You follow procedures because most people don't want to be singled out, it's quite often their first experience.

                        The witness does what they are told.

                        See previous post for my reply

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          They are asked to read it first

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          And then are they tested to see if they can recall the exact wording of what they’d said compared to what had been written?
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-09-2021, 04:24 PM.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Exactly Herlock.

                            When you're in court and the officer says "quiet", you go quiet, when he says "stand", you stand, when he says "sign here", you sign here.

                            You follow procedures because most people don't want to be singled out, it's quite often their first experience.

                            The witness does what they are told.


                            Questions Wick.

                            At what point in the proceedings were witnesses handed statements to sign?

                            If their statements had to be written into long hand does that mean they had to hang around waiting for it to be completed?

                            Did the witnesses have to wait in a certain area to prevent them from just walking out before they’d signed?

                            If a witness couldn’t read when and where would the statement have been read back to them? Surely not in the Inquest room?
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              And then are they tested to see if they can recall the exact wording of what they’d said compared to what had been written?
                              You need to stop being pedantic I see you are still struggling to find excuses not accept what is fact.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                You need to stop being pedantic I see you are still struggling to find excuses not accept what is fact.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                I’m not being pedantic Trevor. You can’t possibly believe that when a witness signs for a statement after being questioned for say half an hour that he’s signing to say that it was a word perfect statement? So it’s far from impossible that there couldn’t have been small errors. Especially one’s of wording and phrasing. You can’t treat something as error free just because someone signs a transcript.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X