Marriot live in kent

[Stephen Thomas]

So what exactly is Trevor's theory?

Presumably that would have been the point of his talk.

[Whitechurch]

57 Heinz Variety

[Donald Souden]

Stephen,

So what exactly is Trevor's theory?

I hate to dignify the nonsense Trev spouts, but the main tenets are:
1) Borrowing from Edward Kinight Larkins, he believes the murders were committed by a merchant seaman and, latterly, has fixed upon Carl Feigenbaum.

2) The Ripper did not remove any organs; they were extracted by others in the morgue.

3) The Ripper did not tear Kate's apron or deposit it in Goulston Street; she did that herself to use the piece excised as an emergency sanitary napkin.

Most of his arguments have been refuted over at Casebook by its members, including Stewart and Paul. And the third point should have finis written to it by an article, "The (PC) Long and Short of It," in the latest issue of New Independent Review.

Don.

[Howard Brown]

Just to let you folks know, I have asked Trevor if he would like to participate in this discussion ( I asked him if he wanted to register for that purpose).

That offer also goes for anyone else who might wish to offer support for any of Trevor's claims.

[Howard Brown]

Trevor has joined...

[Trevor Marriott]

Originally Posted by How Brown

Trevor has joined...

First of all I would like to thank Howard for inviting me to participate in this discussion. I will say that it is not my intention to actively take part in any further discussion on this topic save for replying in full to the posts which have been made.

I wil first deal with Jeff Leahy who earlier in the week gave notice of intent that he would be attending the show. Knowing how Jeff leahy thinks and what motivates him it was quiet clear from the outset that his intention was to come along and report back on the show and all the failings which he could note.

I didnt have a problem with that its all part and parcel of presenting a show like this in the public domain. So with that in mind I was going to make damm sure that I gave him no grouunds for any adverse publicty. However when you are doing a 2 hour plus show without the use of notes there are likely to be times when there are minor mistakes.

As he reported the show was a success and the audience went away a lot wiser with regards to this mystery than when the came into the theatre. All today I have been receiving e mails from persons who attended showing their thanks and appreciation.

Then lo and behold Jeff Leahy produces his report which he posts on here. Havinbg read his report clearly he has mis construed and mis interpreted many aspects of the show and what was said.

As a result I replied to him pointing out the misgiving and errors in his report. and in fact making him aware of facts which clearly he was not au-fait with. I also invited him to reply to me wih regards to several points he mentioned but having blown him and his report out of the water I am not surprised he didnt reply.

Having taken the time to reply to him, I fully expected him to post my repy on here as he has done in the past but no what do we get nothing instead we get members of the "hit" squad posting deflamatory and derrogative remarks about myself and my work again based on an innacurate report compiled by Leahy. I do take exception to this and in no unceratin terms wrote to one of these and asked them to desist.

Since Leahys posting the snowball has got bigger due to the rest all wanting to chip in with there own defamatory and derrogative remarks. All opening their mouths without engaging their brains first as normal.

What really amazes me about these people is the fact that they are all so quick to dismiss other peoples work and they constantly champion their own theories and views yet produce absolutley nothing in the way of evidence or corroboration to support these now outdated theories
they cling to. The fact is these sad people will not accept change or anything that resembles the truth.

As far as last nights show is concerned I am happy with the content and the way it was presented. I have no plans to change this format for the rest of the shows I wil be doing around the country for the remainder of this year. I simply present the facts and the evidence or lack of it and the results of my investigation and then it is a matter for the audience to accept or reject all of it or some of it.

For far to long now the public have been misled with regards to the facts they have had rammed down their throats via books films and documentaries that the canonical five were the only victims and that the killer stopped after Mary Kelly and the fact that Aaron Kosminski and Tumblety are prime suspects. They need to be made aware that perhaps there was more than one killer and that not even the canonical five may not have all been killed by the same hand. They need to be told that these original accepted facts are unreliable un proven.

I thank you all for you time and patience and hopefully your understanding in this matter and that this will now be the end of this tirrade of verbal abuse. Should it continue on the scale of today I will take action against those persons.

For anyone wanting to see the show. The next show will be on February 24th at The Princess Theatre Clacton on Sea Essex at 7. 30pm there are still a few tickets left all are welcome.

[Howard Brown]

Thank you Trevor.

I think it best that any of our follow up posts focus squarely on any of the points Trevor made or stands by.

Thank you.

[Monty]

Nowt but ill will come of this How, and I say that as a friend.

So it begins.

"What really amazes me about these people is the fact that they are all so quick to dismiss other peoples work and they constantly champion their own theories and views yet produce absolutley nothing in the way of evidence or corroboration to support these now outdated theories
they cling to. The fact is these sad people will not accept change or anything that resembles the truth."

This is out and out hypocrasy. You have done nothing but dimiss other peoples work whilst consistantly championing your own.

You dismiss evidence and fact as worthless, you have provided very little yourself and have insulted, bullied and cajouled. Then have the cheek to state others have done it to you.

You have merely reaped what you have sown.

Monty

[Donald Souden]

Monty wrote: You dismiss evidence and fact as worthless, you have provided very little yourself . . .

That is spot on. Certainly in regard to the apron Marriott has offered nothing but opinion, and badly informed opinion at that.

Don.

[Trevor Marriott]

Monty
If anyone was going to keep the pot boiling I knew it would have to be you, you cant resist the opportunity can you

Originally Posted by Monty

Nowt but ill will come of this How, and I say that as a friend.

So it begins.

"What really amazes me about these people is the fact that they are all so quick to dismiss other peoples work and they constantly champion their own theories and views yet produce absolutley nothing in the way of evidence or corroboration to support these now outdated theories
they cling to. The fact is these sad people will not accept change or anything that resembles the truth."

This is out and out hypocrasy. You have done nothing but dimiss other peoples work whilst consistantly championing your own.

If I have dismissed other peoples work it was because I personally felt that it needed dismissing due to many factors which mainly was because there was no substance or corroboration to it. At least with mine I do provide corroboration

I have the right to challenge what the likes of you champion. Equally you and the others have the right to challenge and dismiss mine.

But I say again if you are going to dismiss mine outright put you money where your mouth is as far as your own personal beleifs are concerned. You know the saying "put up or shut up" clearly you cant do that can you ? Because you like so many are happy to stick with the old accepted theories despite all the proof there is which casts a major doubt about them.

You dismiss evidence and fact as worthless, you have provided very little yourself and have insulted, bullied and cajouled. Then have the cheek to state others have done it to you.

I know what is evidence and the different types and what is not. I would have expected you to know that also clearly you dont.

All I can say is you keep those blinkers on and I guess its time for your new pair of rose tinted spectacles

You have merely reaped what you have sown.

Monty