John Richardson

[GBinOz]

Hey George.

I understand I am addressing the comments of your daughter, but I wonder if her view was hindered by not having an accurate medical report for Chapman, we only have press coverage, and likely edited at that.
It's a bit like comparing apples with oranges, not your daughters fault.
Whereas we do have the autopsy for the Eddowes inquest, which is more detailed.

If you recall Dr Phillips, at the Chapman inquest, was asked by the coroner if he thought there was any anatomical knowledge displayed.

Wynne Baxter:
Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?

Dr Phillips:
- I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.

I won't get into the issue of surgical knowledge as opposed to anatomical knowledge, what we can safely assume in his response is that he saw evidence of a skilled man at work, but one under the pressure of time.

So, not the best examples for a comparison.

Hi Jon,

I gave her a link to this site:

http://www.pathguy.com/jack.html

Am I mistaken in thinking that these are actual autopsy reports rather than press reports?

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Why did the killer have to have entered the square with Eddowes? They could have entered the square from different ends and met by chance.

Get a grip Trevor.

I think it is you that needs to get a grip, what would Eddowes have been doing frequenting a deserted square at that time of the morning? if she was prostituting herself there was business to be done in Aldgate or outside the club where Lawenede and co came from.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it is you that needs to get a grip, what would Eddowes have been doing frequenting a deserted square at that time of the morning? if she was prostituting herself there was business to be done in Aldgate or outside the club where Lawenede and co came from.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But she was found in the square Trevor!!! Therefore she had entered it!!!

And just because she entered Mitre Square that doesn’t make it her ultimate destination. She may have been passing through on the way to somewhere? It was Mitre Square and not Mitre Cul-De-Sac!

That i’m actually having to explain this stuff to a former detective is more than a little worrying.

[Trevor Marriott]

But she was found in the square Trevor!!! Therefore she had entered it!!!

Well I would have never guessed thats where she was found had it not been in the public domain for the past 135 years, of course she entered the square that's where she was killed if you remember, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and the fact that Lawende was shown the clothing of Eddowes at the police station and he believed what he was shown was the clothing he saw Eddowes wearing in company with the man we must assume it was Eddowes and the killer.

This again is where the timings are flawed because Lawende didn't see them move off so we cannot say what that time was. All I will say is that the later they moved off the less time the killer had to do all that he is alleged to have done.

And just because she entered Mitre Square that doesn’t make it her ultimate destination. She may have been passing through on the way to somewhere? It was Mitre Square and not Mitre Cul-De-Sac!

and she may not have been passing through as you intimate its laughable as to how you keep coming up with these explanations which have nothing to support them, coupled with a whole load of accompanying conjecture

That i’m actually having to explain this stuff to a former detective is more than a little worrying.

and the fact that I am having to keep going over the same things with you is also worrying.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I gave her a link to this site:

http://www.pathguy.com/jack.html

Am I mistaken in thinking that these are actual autopsy reports rather than press reports?

Cheers, George

Sorry to say, but yes.
There are no autopsy reports for any of the canonical murders.

We only have two official inquest reports, that of Eddowes & Kelly.
Everything else you read above comes from the press, except the notes on Mary Kelly.

The press may be using the doctors words verbatim in some cases, but not always.
The only post-mortem (autopsy) report we have came from Dr Bond, but his was not the official one. He was simply making notes for a separate report concerning the wounds, requested by Anderson.
Dr Bond's notes are called a post-mortem (or autopsy) report merely because any such report taken after death is a post-mortem.
Dr Phillips would have conducted the official post-mortem for Kelly, and written that report, but it does not appear to have survived.

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
Hi Trevor,

Thank you for saying what I and everyone else has been saying all along - that the evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions.

Given you agree with that, why do you insist the ToD was earlier and that anyone who favors the latter is blinkered? (Please consult a dictionary for the word favors before replying).

Also, given what you said above, why do you have a theory at all if you think the evidence is so unable to inform on any point?

Given how inadequate the evidence is, are you saying that your organ thieves are only something you made up to illustrate how many holes remain in a case iver 130 years old for which most of the official documents are lost? That you use something so preposterous in order to emphasize how the current data can't even rule out the rediculous? Is that what you are doing here?

I'm curious, did you really think anyone here thought differently? This may come as a surprise to you, but nobody here thinks the evidence behind their suggestions is beyond reproach, rather we are discussing what the information seems to be indicating in our opinions. Somethings are factual bits, like the error margins for ToD estimations, others are subjective calls, like how strongly one feels Lawende saw Eddowes.

But you say the evidence is full of holes and then proceed to talk about your theory as if we should all drop our views and agree you got it right? But given the evidence is so unsafe, again I ask you, why do you even have a theory at all? But given you do, why are you so convinced by it given it is based in such unsafe evidence?

- Jeff

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are fully entitled to your opinion, and as the original evidence you clearly seek to rely on is unreliable which again you clearly can't or won't accept that fact. (point A)

I have suggested an alternative (point B) to the killer removing the organs and I believe I have shown enough with that theory to cast a major doubt about the old accepted theory you are so keen to prop up.

You cannot speculate on the evidence 130+ years later (Point C) in this day and age we have to go with what has been left and assess and evaluate that evidence using modern-day investigative methods to prove or disprove the truthfulness, or to cast doubt on that witness testimony

You mention the fact that the couple seen by Lawende may not have been Eddowes and the killer which I totally agree with but if that be the case then when did the killer enter the square with Eddowes and from what direction? (Point D) If that is suggested as being correct then the evidence of Pc Watkins is unsafe and proves my point (Point E) that the witness testimony in these murders cannot be relied upon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Wow. The lack of comprehension displayed in your post is truly remarkable.

Point A)
My post literally points out that nobody is claiming that, and that I do not claim that the evidence is sufficient (i.e. reliable enough, etc), and that you have a tendency to set this false claim up as a straw man so that you have something simple to rebut. And low and behold, that's exactly what you do! Thank you for providing a clear demonstration of my point.

Point B)
You have just said the evidence should not be relied upon. Your post does not address the question I put to you a couple of times in my post that you quoted. I put it to you again:
Given you yourself think the evidence should not be relied upon, why do you suggest a theory at all?

Point C)
Given you yourself say the evidence is not to be relied upon (and I agree, see Point A and my post that you quoted), what prohibits me from speculating? I cannot claim firm conclusions, but I do not claim firm conclusions, but I am more than capable of speculating on what the evidence appears to indicate.

Point D)
You had just said I cannot speculate, and now you ask me to speculate? Do you not recognize how self-contradictory you're being? However, if you wish to see various ideas I've considered, you are more than welcome to view the simulations I've put together. I examine the idea that Eddowes and JtR entered from any of the 3 possible entrances to Mitre Square, and in the end, point out that any of those 3 are physically possible and could fit with the information we have, so I cannot rule any of them out (please see Point A and how your comprehension about what I, and others are doing, is lacking).

Point E)
If you view the simulations you will see that PC Watkin's testimony, as given does not necessarily create an impossible time line. As such, while all evidence must be viewed with caution, what the simulations show is that PC Watkins' testimony is not demonstrably wrong, therefore, you cannot claim that his information must be incorrect. This is what it means to say the information is insufficient to draw firm conclusions, it may be wrong but it may be right - you bank on it being wrong, which means the only one of us making an error is you because it may be right. If it is wrong, though, then you have nothing to build upon because there are may ways for things to be wrong and you speculate a theory for which there is no actual evidence, making it even more unsafe than one which builds upon the evidence as stated because the information we do have may be correct. Simply because we do not know for sure if it is correct does not automatically mean it is wrong, something you seem not to comprehend.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

That i’m actually having to explain this stuff to a former detective is more than a little worrying.

Considering he couldn't even run a bicycle lost and found properly, I'm not even slightly surprised.

[Herlock Sholmes]

and the fact that I am having to keep going over the same things with you is also worrying.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’ve now realised that you’ve been wrong and so have given up on any pretence of providing an answer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Considering he couldn't even run a bicycle lost and found properly, I'm not even slightly surprised.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wow. The lack of comprehension displayed in your post is truly remarkable.

Just thought I’d add my ditto’s to this perfectly well reasoned post for Trevor.

Point A)
My post literally points out that nobody is claiming that, and that I do not claim that the evidence is sufficient (i.e. reliable enough, etc), and that you have a tendency to set this false claim up as a straw man so that you have something simple to rebut. And low and behold, that's exactly what you do! Thank you for providing a clear demonstration of my point.

EXACTLY….Trevor uses this time and time again….in fact I’d say that he uses it in every single discussion and it’s glaringly obvious why.

Point B)
You have just said the evidence should not be relied upon. Your post does not address the question I put to you a couple of times in my post that you quoted. I put it to you again:
Given you yourself think the evidence should not be relied upon, why do you suggest a theory at all?

EXACTLY…..but the word ‘inconvenient’ should be inserted because the evidence that tends to be up for dismissal is always evidence pointing away from Trevor’s particular viewpoint at the time. I’d also add ‘inconvenient’ witnesses are always dismissed; senior police officers are conveniently always liars. It’s a script.

Point C)
Given you yourself say the evidence is not to be relied upon (and I agree, see Point A and my post that you quoted), what prohibits me from speculating? I cannot claim firm conclusions, but I do not claim firm conclusions, but I am more than capable of speculating on what the evidence appears to indicate.

Only Trevor is allowed to speculate.

Point D)
You had just said I cannot speculate, and now you ask me to speculate? Do you not recognize how self-contradictory you're being? However, if you wish to see various ideas I've considered, you are more than welcome to view the simulations I've put together. I examine the idea that Eddowes and JtR entered from any of the 3 possible entrances to Mitre Square, and in the end, point out that any of those 3 are physically possible and could fit with the information we have, so I cannot rule any of them out (please see Point A and how your comprehension about what I, and others are doing, is lacking).

And Trevor, for example, appears to believe that because Eddowes entered Mitre Square that must have been her destination. This is the kind of thinking that we’re up against.

Point E)
If you view the simulations you will see that PC Watkin's testimony, as given does not necessarily create an impossible time line. As such, while all evidence must be viewed with caution, what the simulations show is that PC Watkins' testimony is not demonstrably wrong, therefore, you cannot claim that his information must be incorrect. This is what it means to say the information is insufficient to draw firm conclusions, it may be wrong but it may be right - you bank on it being wrong, which means the only one of us making an error is you because it may be right. If it is wrong, though, then you have nothing to build upon because there are may ways for things to be wrong and you speculate a theory for which there is no actual evidence, making it even more unsafe than one which builds upon the evidence as stated because the information we do have may be correct. Simply because we do not know for sure if it is correct does not automatically mean it is wrong, something you seem not to comprehend.

- Jeff

I just wish that Trevor would accept that final point Jeff. It would be progress at least.

[Trevor Marriott]

Wow. The lack of comprehension displayed in your post is truly remarkable.

Point A)
My post literally points out that nobody is claiming that, and that I do not claim that the evidence is sufficient (i.e. reliable enough, etc), and that you have a tendency to set this false claim up as a straw man so that you have something simple to rebut. And low and behold, that's exactly what you do! Thank you for providing a clear demonstration of my point.

I think you need to take a good look at your take on these murders, in one breath you state the evidence is correct and in the next breath you say that it might not be correct get off the fence

Point B)
You have just said the evidence should not be relied upon. Your post does not address the question I put to you a couple of times in my post that you quoted. I put it to you again:
Given you yourself think the evidence should not be relied upon, why do you suggest a theory at all?

I suggest an alternative to the old accepted theory based on years of research, and my consultation and the opinions given by modern-day medical experts who are much better informed than you and I and the Victorian doctors.

Point C)
Given you yourself say the evidence is not to be relied upon (and I agree, see Point A and my post that you quoted), what prohibits me from speculating? I cannot claim firm conclusions, but I do not claim firm conclusions, but I am more than capable of speculating on what the evidence appears to indicate.

Have you not considered you may be wrong in your assessment? I notice you use the word "appears" The use of that word indicates you are not sure and if you are not sure then you have to consider alternatives

Point D)
You had just said I cannot speculate, and now you ask me to speculate? Do you not recognize how self-contradictory you're being? However, if you wish to see various ideas I've considered, you are more than welcome to view the simulations I've put together. I examine the idea that Eddowes and JtR entered from any of the 3 possible entrances to Mitre Square, and in the end, point out that any of those 3 are physically possible and could fit with the information we have, so I cannot rule any of them out (please see Point A and how your comprehension about what I, and others are doing, is lacking).

I accept that Eddowes could have entered the square from any of the three entrances and could have entered at any time, but no one came forward to say that they were the couple seen by Lawende, and as I have stated the general consensus seems to be that the couple seen were the killer and Eddowes. So I say again that if they were the couple we have no time to show when they went into the square, and even you must accept that the later they moved off the less time the killer would have had with the victim.

But of course, those who want to prop up the organ removal at the crime scene have and in order to make the time fit suggest that it was 1.35 am the time when they were seen and moved off, 2-4 mins later makes the removal of the organs impossible time-wise bearing in mind Pc Harvey arriving on the outskirts of the square and who the killer would see him coming down Church Passage and would have made a quick exit.

Not forgetting a witness apparently identified the clothing of Eddowes as the clothing worn by the female seen with the man. Now I accept that this is not the best evidence but the police of the day clearly accepted it so that evidence has to taken on face value and not dismissed in favour of the killer and Eddowes entering the square from another entrance

Point E)
If you view the simulations you will see that PC Watkin's testimony, as given does not necessarily create an impossible time line. As such, while all evidence must be viewed with caution, what the simulations show is that PC Watkins' testimony is not demonstrably wrong, therefore, you cannot claim that his information must be incorrect.

This is what it means to say the information is insufficient to draw firm conclusions, it may be wrong but it may be right - you bank on it being wrong, which means the only one of us making an error is you because it may be right. If it is wrong, though, then you have nothing to build upon because there are may ways for things to be wrong and you speculate a theory for which there is no actual evidence, making it even more unsafe than one which builds upon the evidence as stated because the information we do have may be correct. Simply because we do not know for sure if it is correct does not automatically mean it is wrong, something you seem not to comprehend.- Jeff

When you assess and evaluate all the facts and evidence you finish up with the balance of probabilities and that balance swings in favour of the couple seen were Eddowes and the killer, and the timings to determine if the killer had the time to do all that he is alleged to have done must create a doubt

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
Wow. The lack of comprehension displayed in your post is truly remarkable.

Point A)
My post literally points out that nobody is claiming that, and that I do not claim that the evidence is sufficient (i.e. reliable enough, etc), and that you have a tendency to set this false claim up as a straw man so that you have something simple to rebut. And low and behold, that's exactly what you do! Thank you for providing a clear demonstration of my point.

I think you need to take a good look at your take on these murders, in one breath you state the evidence is correct and in the next breath you say that it might not be correct get off the fence

I don't say the evidence IS correct, what I do is say "If the evidence is correct, does it result in constructing an impossible story?", and I also point out that by "correct" means to properly include the margins of error associated with the witness' statements - whether that be someone stating the time or a doctor estimating the ToD. In the end, the story that gets created by the information we have does not result in an impossible to occur set of events. Therefore, the possibility remains that the information we have is correct. And I have on numerous occasions added the point that I am not claiming that proves it is correct, it only proves that it could be, which is very different. What it does mean is we cannot safely say the information is incorrect - sure it might be, but it might not be. That is what "the information is not sufficient to draw firm conclusions" means. You do not seem to comprehend this, but I'm hoping if I spell it out again it will flick a switch and you will get it. I'm "on the fence" because the information does not clearly say which side to get down on.

You base your theory on the requirement that the information is wrong. That is unsafe because you cannot show the information is wrong, you only point out what I keep saying, that it "might be", but treating "Might be wrong" as "must be wrong" is just as blinkered as someone claiming "might be right" is the same as "must be right"!

I'm only saying that given the information might be right, and given we have no good reason to dismiss anything, then the best current explanation is what the evidence states. Otherwise, we have to go making up stuff completely - and that will almost certainly end up being wrong.

Point B)
You have just said the evidence should not be relied upon. Your post does not address the question I put to you a couple of times in my post that you quoted. I put it to you again:
Given you yourself think the evidence should not be relied upon, why do you suggest a theory at all?

I suggest an alternative to the old accepted theory based on years of research, and my consultation and the opinions given by modern-day medical experts who are much better informed than you and I and the Victorian doctors.

Yes, which is fine, go for it. But your alternative is simply put up against an alternative that does not dismiss any evidence, and the story it creates is entirely plausible. Therefore, given that the story that the statements creates cannot be shown to be wrong, it is still the best working theory. It is not proven to be true though, and I've never said that (unless I got careless in my wording on occasion, but I do try to phrase things carefully most times to indicate I'm never saying this must be how it was. Nobody knows how it actually was, the information doesn't allow that degree of certainty).

And all the modern medical experts can say is what everyone has been saying for ages ; the information is not sufficient to be certain. You're theory, though, has no information to back it at all, that, by definition, makes it less acceptable, and less likely to be true. That is why people are not buying your organ thieves - it has no evidence at all, it is mere speculation that requires the information we have to be wrong and that is no more certain that the information is correct. So you're theory, which requires the information to be wrong is unsafe.

If you presented it as simply, "Well, if we speculate that all of this information is wrong, then who knows, maybe someone stole the organs at the mortuary?" then people might go, "Well, maybe, but that's an awful lot of information that all has to be wrong in the first place, and so far, all of it might even be right for as much as we know. And if any of it is right, than that whole line of speculation fails. But of course, if we accept your initial speculation that all this stuff is wrong, then sure, why not, because by that point we know nothing so any old story could be the one. Hey, I've got one ..."

Point C)
Given you yourself say the evidence is not to be relied upon (and I agree, see Point A and my post that you quoted), what prohibits me from speculating? I cannot claim firm conclusions, but I do not claim firm conclusions, but I am more than capable of speculating on what the evidence appears to indicate.

Have you not considered you may be wrong in your assessment? I notice you use the word "appears" The use of that word indicates you are not sure and if you are not sure then you have to consider alternatives

You've almost got it there. You see I used the word "appears", and that should answer your question. Bingo! You see how I am phrasing things to ensure I'm not saying my assessment "HAS" to be right! I'm allowing for the possibility I could be wrong, because the information is not sufficient to draw firm conclusions.

I almost feel like we're having a breakthrough here! I suspect you'll go on the wrong path about what that means, but still, well done.

Point D)
You had just said I cannot speculate, and now you ask me to speculate? Do you not recognize how self-contradictory you're being? However, if you wish to see various ideas I've considered, you are more than welcome to view the simulations I've put together. I examine the idea that Eddowes and JtR entered from any of the 3 possible entrances to Mitre Square, and in the end, point out that any of those 3 are physically possible and could fit with the information we have, so I cannot rule any of them out (please see Point A and how your comprehension about what I, and others are doing, is lacking).

I accept that Eddowes could have entered the square from any of the three entrances and could have entered at any time, but no one came forward to say that they were the couple seen by Lawende,

Isn't that exactly what Lawende and Leve did?

and as I have stated the general consensus seems to be that the couple seen were the killer and Eddowes. So I say again that if they were the couple we have no time to show when they went into the square, and even you must accept that the later they moved off the less time the killer would have had with the victim.

We don't know when they moved off. We aren't even sure what time it was when Lawende and co saw them. According to Lawende it was around 1:35, according to Leve it was 1:33 or 1:34. What we can estimate is how much time is unaccounted for, and the unaccounted for time is sufficient. So if (and I don't know if they were, but if they were) Eddowes and JtR were the CPC, then they must have moved off at a point in time that gave JtR enough time to do what he did. You can't say "if I say they moved off much later, and now create the situation where they don't have enough time" and use that as proof they didn't have enough time, then that would be an invalid investigative approach. You need to see if there is enough time, and there is, and that is all we know. Enough time was potentially available, so you cannot say it wasn't used. I can't say I know when they moved, but I can say there was enough time available, and therefore it is possible it was used. (notice, at no point have I phrased that as a certainty - because the information we have doesn't allow certainties, and you're theory requires a certainty - a certainty of error which is not demonstrable, only reached at by assuming things we do not know).

But of course, those who want to prop up the organ removal at the crime scene have and in order to make the time fit suggest that it was 1.35 am the time when they were seen and moved off, 2-4 mins later makes the removal of the organs impossible time-wise bearing in mind Pc Harvey arriving on the outskirts of the square and who the killer would see him coming down Church Passage and would have made a quick exit.

And there you go, forgetting Leve's 1:33 time that you have to consider. And there you go tossing out 2-4 minutes that you cannot prove were used by the CPC (or anyone else), you just make that up in order to create the illusion of information.

Our information is that the CPC were seen somewhere between 1:33 and 1:35, after which we do not know what they did. What we do know, is that PC Harvey later patrols Church Passage around 1:41 or 1:42. So there is somewhere between as much as 9 minutes, or as few as 6 minutes, unaccounted for. The walk would take them about 20 seconds, so there's as little as 5m 40 seconds to as much as 8m 40 seconds available. Medical testimony is for as little as 3 minutes to around 5 minutes. Even the longest estimated required fits in the smallest window available, so that means you cannot assume there wasn't the time available because there was. You can create out of thin air things like your 2-4 minute waiting period, but that is just something you're making up, it is not in the evidence anywhere - it's only in your head.

Not forgetting a witness apparently identified the clothing of Eddowes as the clothing worn by the female seen with the man. Now I accept that this is not the best evidence but the police of the day clearly accepted it so that evidence has to taken on face value and not dismissed in favour of the killer and Eddowes entering the square from another entrance

No, but it's also not great evidence, so I've considered multiple possible scenerios. I slightly favour going with the CPC as being Eddowes and JtR, only because we have so little else to work with. But it's not a great ID, in fact, it is worse than Long's id of Chapman. At least she was sure the face's matched. Regardless, I've examined various alternatives because I don't say any of them have to be right, rather I say "actually, any of these could be right", because, and this is getting a bit redundant, the information we have is not sufficient to draw firm conclusions. Yet again, you draw the firm conclusion things are wrong - and that is your mistake.

Point E)
If you view the simulations you will see that PC Watkin's testimony, as given does not necessarily create an impossible time line. As such, while all evidence must be viewed with caution, what the simulations show is that PC Watkins' testimony is not demonstrably wrong, therefore, you cannot claim that his information must be incorrect.

This is what it means to say the information is insufficient to draw firm conclusions, it may be wrong but it may be right - you bank on it being wrong, which means the only one of us making an error is you because it may be right. If it is wrong, though, then you have nothing to build upon because there are may ways for things to be wrong and you speculate a theory for which there is no actual evidence, making it even more unsafe than one which builds upon the evidence as stated because the information we do have may be correct. Simply because we do not know for sure if it is correct does not automatically mean it is wrong, something you seem not to comprehend.- Jeff


When you assess and evaluate all the facts and evidence you finish up with the balance of probabilities and that balance swings in favour of the couple seen were Eddowes and the killer, and the timings to determine if the killer had the time to do all that he is alleged to have done must create a doubt

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As the simulations show, the unaccounted for time is sufficient. It does not prove it had to happen that way (which I say in the simulations, which I say in most of my posts), but it shows that there is no basis for concluding it couldn't have happened. As such, your claims that it couldn't have happened are demonstratably false. It could have - but we do not have enough information to know it did happen just like that. Because the information we have is not sufficient to draw firm conclusion. But it is also not possible to draw a firm conclusion that it is wrong - and you require it to be wrong, and therein lies your error.

I really think there's a glimmer of hope that you are finally starting to comprehend the difference between presenting something that fits with the information we have is not the same as saying that proves this is how things had to be. That one can present something as a "best working hypothesis" based upon fitting information that is insufficient to draw firm conclusions, and how that is not the same as saying "this must be the only explanation". Listing something as a better hypothesis than another does not require proving either is demonstrably wrong either. Rather, if one accounts for more of the information (particularly if it can survive some of the information being wrong; i.e. if Long is wrong that still doesn't change the story we get from the others all that much, if at all), and the alternative requires that information be wrong (even though it could be right), then the alternative is the more unsafe.

Your theory falls into that group - it requires too much to have to be wrong when none of it can be shown to be incorrect. Therefore, your theory is not as good an explanation - too much remains unsubstantiated, and too much of the information we have has to be wrong despite the fact it could be right.

And again, just in case you've forgotten, or made an invalid assumption, nowhere have I said that the "best working hypothesis" must be right.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't say the evidence IS correct, what I do is say "If the evidence is correct, does it result in constructing an impossible story?", and I also point out that by "correct" means to properly include the margins of error associated with the witness' statements - whether that be someone stating the time or a doctor estimating the ToD. In the end, the story that gets created by the information we have does not result in an impossible to occur set of events. Therefore, the possibility remains that the information we have is correct. And I have on numerous occasions added the point that I am not claiming that proves it is correct, it only proves that it could be, which is very different. What it does mean is we cannot safely say the information is incorrect - sure it might be, but it might not be. That is what "the information is not sufficient to draw firm conclusions" means. You do not seem to comprehend this, but I'm hoping if I spell it out again it will flick a switch and you will get it. I'm "on the fence" because the information does not clearly say which side to get down on.

You base your theory on the requirement that the information is wrong. That is unsafe because you cannot show the information is wrong, you only point out what I keep saying, that it "might be", but treating "Might be wrong" as "must be wrong" is just as blinkered as someone claiming "might be right" is the same as "must be right"!

I'm only saying that given the information might be right, and given we have no good reason to dismiss anything, then the best current explanation is what the evidence states. Otherwise, we have to go making up stuff completely - and that will almost certainly end up being wrong.

No one is making stuff up what is being suggested is that there may be another explanation to consider

And all the modern medical experts can say is what everyone has been saying for ages ; the information is not sufficient to be certain. You're theory, though, has no information to back it at all, that, by definition, makes it less acceptable, and less likely to be true. That is why people are not buying your organ thieves - it has no evidence at all, it is mere speculation that requires the information we have to be wrong and that is no more certain that the information is correct. So you're theory, which requires the information to be wrong is unsafe

It has to be considered having regard to what we know about the illicit trade in organs from the LVP in Whitechapel at mortuaries with mortuary attendants being complicit in this illegal trade.

If you presented it as simply, "Well, if we speculate that all of this information is wrong, then who knows, maybe someone stole the organs at the mortuary?" then people might go, "Well, maybe, but that's an awful lot of information that all has to be wrong in the first place, and so far, all of it might even be right for as much as we know. And if any of it is right, than that whole line of speculation fails. But of course, if we accept your initial speculation that all this stuff is wrong, then sure, why not, because by that point we know nothing so any old story could be the one. Hey, I've got one ..."

What information has to be wrong? the killer simply murders and mutilates the victims at the crime scene, the bodies are then taken to the mortuaries where they are left for many hours in that time the organs are easily removed from Chapman and Eddowes due to the fact that out of all the victims they were the only 2 whose abdomens were ripped open in such a way that organs could be removed unnoticed before the post mortem.

It has been suggested that organ harvesting was part of the motive behind the murders yet we see no attempt made to remove organs from any of the other victims at the crime scenes. Do you not think that strange? and please do come back and say he might have been disturbed. If the killer was intent of harvesting organs he would have gone with the victims to a place of his choosing so that he was able to accomplish his goal, not in a street where he was likely to be disturbed.

You've almost got it there. You see I used the word "appears", and that should answer your question. Bingo! You see how I am phrasing things to ensure I'm not saying my assessment "HAS" to be right! I'm allowing for the possibility I could be wrong, because the information is not sufficient to draw firm conclusions.

But you are saying my assessment isn't right

I almost feel like we're having a breakthrough here! I suspect you'll go on the wrong path about what that means, but still, well done.

Isn't that exactly what Lawende and Leve did?

We don't know when they moved off. We aren't even sure what time it was when Lawende and co saw them. According to Lawende it was around 1:35, according to Leve it was 1:33 or 1:34. What we can estimate is how much time is unaccounted for, and the unaccounted for time is sufficient. So if (and I don't know if they were, but if they were) Eddowes and JtR were the CPC, then they must have moved off at a point in time that gave JtR enough time to do what he did. You can't say "if I say they moved off much later, and now create the situation where they don't have enough time" and use that as proof they didn't have enough time, then that would be an invalid investigative approach. You need to see if there is enough time, and there is, and that is all we know. Enough time was potentially available, so you cannot say it wasn't used. I can't say I know when they moved, but I can say there was enough time available, and therefore it is possible it was used. (notice, at no point have I phrased that as a certainty - because the information we have doesn't allow certainties, and you're theory requires a certainty - a certainty of error which is not demonstrable, only reached at by assuming things we do not know).

And there you go, forgetting Leve's 1:33 time that you have to consider. And there you go tossing out 2-4 minutes that you cannot prove were used by the CPC (or anyone else), you just make that up in order to create the illusion of information.

Well, you have finally hit the nail on the head the timings of the witnesses are inconsistent with each other and that includes the police officers that being said how can it be firmly suggested and readily accepted that the killer had the time at the crime scene to do all that he is alleged to have done? The answer is it can't and all the good work that you have done on these matters is not worth the time and effort you have put in, because the timings cannot be proved conclusively.

Our information is that the CPC were seen somewhere between 1:33 and 1:35, after which we do not know what they did. What we do know, is that PC Harvey later patrols Church Passage around 1:41 or 1:42. So there is somewhere between as much as 9 minutes, or as few as 6 minutes, unaccounted for. The walk would take them about 20 seconds, so there's as little as 5m 40 seconds to as much as 8m 40 seconds available. Medical testimony is for as little as 3 minutes to around 5 minutes. Even the longest estimated required fits in the smallest window available, so that means you cannot assume there wasn't the time available because there was. You can create out of thin air things like your 2-4 minute waiting period, but that is just something you're making up, it is not in the evidence anywhere - it's only in your head.

The issue of how long before they moved into the square is important the longer they delayed the less time the killer had with the victim

You cannot calculate 9 mins as you suggest because we do not know how long they stood talking before moving into the square and all the juggling with times and calculations is not going to change that to the point where anyone can say the killer had sufficient time to do all that he is alleged to have done because they were seen standing not walking.

No, but it's also not great evidence, so I've considered multiple possible scenarios. I slightly favour going with the CPC as being Eddowes and JtR, only because we have so little else to work with. But it's not a great ID, in fact, it is worse than Long's id of Chapman. At least she was sure the face's matched. Regardless, I've examined various alternatives because I don't say any of them have to be right, rather I say "actually, any of these could be right", because, and this is getting a bit redundant, the information we have is not sufficient to draw firm conclusions. Yet again, you draw the firm conclusion things are wrong - and that is your mistake.

I have said many times that much of the witness testimony in these murders is unsafe and have gone to great lengths to show the reasons why it is unsafe to rely on yet researchers still quote witness statements as reliable evidence.

As the simulations show, the unaccounted for time is sufficient. It does not prove it had to happen that way (which I say in the simulations, which I say in most of my posts), but it shows that there is no basis for concluding it couldn't have happened. As such, your claims that it couldn't have happened are demonstratably false. It could have - but we do not have enough information to know it did happen just like that. Because the information we have is not sufficient to draw firm conclusion. But it is also not possible to draw a firm conclusion that it is wrong - and you require it to be wrong, and therein lies your error.

The simulations are just simulations the hard reality is that a simulation can show what the designer of that simulation wants it to show

I really think there's a glimmer of hope that you are finally starting to comprehend the difference between presenting something that fits with the information we have is not the same as saying that proves this is how things had to be. That one can present something as a "best working hypothesis" based upon fitting information that is insufficient to draw firm conclusions, and how that is not the same as saying "this must be the only explanation". Listing something as a better hypothesis than another does not require proving either is demonstrably wrong either. Rather, if one accounts for more of the information (particularly if it can survive some of the information being wrong; i.e. if Long is wrong that still doesn't change the story we get from the others all that much, if at all), and the alternative requires that information be wrong (even though it could be right), then the alternative is the more unsafe.

I have no hidden agenda in my cold cases review of this case. I simply have assessed and evaluated all the evidence which is as stated most of which is unsafe, that's not always as a fact that the witness were lying its a case of ambiguities arising in the testimony which were never explained on or clarified because the coroners inquest was only to determine a cause of death and to identify the perpetrator

Your theory falls into that group - it requires too much to have to be wrong when none of it can be shown to be incorrect. Therefore, your theory is not as good an explanation - too much remains unsubstantiated, and too much of the information we have has to be wrong despite the fact it could be right.

And again, just in case you've forgotten, or made an invalid assumption, nowhere have I said that the "best working hypothesis" must be right.

- Jeff

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suggest an alternative to the old accepted theory based on years of research, and my consultation and the opinions given by modern-day medical experts who are much better informed than you and I and the Victorian doctors

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And yet with the Chapman murder you’re quite happy to chuck out 3 perfectly decent witnesses on the strength of one of those Victorian doctors.

[Trevor Marriott]

And yet with the Chapman murder you’re quite happy to chuck out 3 perfectly decent witnesses on the strength of one of those Victorian doctors.

I am not happy to chuck any witnesses out, I have highlighted the discrepancies in the statements when assessed collectively

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk