Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Robert St Devil 10 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 1 hour and 6 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Paddy 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (13 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: Police Orders 1st October 1888 - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: J Division Fixed Point Whitechapel Station? - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:48 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,942
Default

Off topic, Trevor.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:52 AM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
As I said, I don´t have an agenda.
You are 100 percent wrong. You can only claim you don't have an agenda if you can state unequivocally that you have no interest or intention of convincing anyone that Lechmere was the Ripper. Do you have no interest whatsoever in convincing anyone Lechmere was the Ripper?

You seem to think that having an agenda is only a negative thing and can only be achieved by nefarious means. That's not true. You have an agenda. Period. It's to promote your suspect.



See what I mean? My opinion is irrelevant, because I supposedly have such a clouded judgment that I am unfit to plead.
That is the whole crux of the matter, Ally. That is a preconception if ever I saw one.

No, your opinion is irrelevant in this matter, because your opinion doesn't override the rules of the board which state that just because YOU think your suspect has value and ought to be discussed on every thread you can wedge him in on, everyone else ought to agree and follow along.

Quote:

[b]Does the same apply to any other suspect? Is it off limits to speak of Kosminski when somebody discusses mental incapacity on behalf of Hyams?
IT depends on context. If four people are happily having a discussion on Hyams on a Hyams thread and a Kosminiski-suspect pusher comes in and says Kosminski fits much better and one person and he starts arguing and derails the entire conversation for everyone else, then they've hijacked the thread, which is why the rule has been made. Because just because someone feels like their suspect can be wedged in to every given topic in any given circumstance doesn't mean they ought to be. Derailing other threads to push your suspect is hijacking. It's annoying to the other people who were having the conversation about Hyams and don't want to have another blasted pointless conversation about Kosminski and yet have to suffer through another interminable argument because of some zealot who has to stick his two cents in about his suspect every time he sees an opportunity. That's why there's a rule against it.



Quote:
[b]How does that differ from them ramming THEIR versions down MY throat?

I guess you can ask yourself, how many times does someone show up on a Lechmere thread trying to push an alternate suspect vs how many times you show up on an alternate thread to push Lechmere to answer that question?
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:00 AM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Off topic, Trevor.
And a perfect example of theory bias hijacking.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:15 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally View Post
And a perfect example of theory bias hijacking.
I hope that post was not directed at me? Because if it was I totally disagree, as I am entitled to do so, and the content of my post is relevant to what was being discussed in Sams post which I referred to.

In fact it was not theory based. I was stating a medical fact which cannot be ignored and what can be deduced from that fact.

Its a fact that some will choose to ignore because it goes against what they believe, but it is something that cannot be ignored.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:27 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I am going to interject here and say that the hysterectomies performed on both Chapman and Eddowes were performed in two different ways using two different methods.

.. and both performed in different conditions
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:29 AM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

No actually it is a perfect example of hijacking because: This thread is not about minutia of cuts or medical slicings. It was only mentioned as an example in a broader topic. Gareth was only giving a medical example as part of an illustration of an overall point of a broader topic that has nothing at all to do with who or how anything was sliced and diced. You seized on one small part of an argument to shove in and promote something that's near and dear to your pet theory: the ridiculous idea of rogue morgue attendants or students or whatever carving up the victims after the fact.

Hijacking a thread because of theory bias. Seeing one small part, where you could wedge in with your pet theory.

Thank you, for this fine illustrative opportunity.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:37 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally View Post
No actually it is a perfect example of hijacking because: This thread is not about minutia of cuts or medical slicings. It was only mentioned as an example in a broader topic. Gareth was only giving a medical example as part of an illustration of an overall point of a broader topic that has nothing at all to do with who or how anything was sliced and diced. You seized on one small part of an argument to shove in and promote something that's near and dear to your pet theory: the ridiculous idea of rogue morgue attendants or students or whatever carving up the victims after the fact.

Hijacking a thread because of theory bias. Seeing one small part, where you could wedge in with your pet theory.

Thank you, for this fine illustrative opportunity.
#

Anything that will go to prove, or disprove, any previously accepted theory is a valuable asset no matter where, or how, or by whom it is introduced.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:04 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,942
Default

Trevor, I was responding specifically to illustrative points made by Fisherman, in a discussion about how we approach the evidence. This discussion is about "methodology" in general, not about the murders themselves, nor about any specific suspect, or suspects as the case may be.

Ally summed it up perfectly in her post immediately above.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:20 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Ally: You are 100 percent wrong. You can only claim you don't have an agenda if you can state unequivocally that you have no interest or intention of convincing anyone that Lechmere was the Ripper. Do you have no interest whatsoever in convincing anyone Lechmere was the Ripper?

You seem to think that having an agenda is only a negative thing and can only be achieved by nefarious means. That's not true. You have an agenda. Period. It's to promote your suspect.

I can only disagree. I know quite well that having an agenda is not necessarily a bad thing, but conversely when we speak of people having agendas, we more often than not mean something less than flattering. No doubt, you will realize this. And that is why I say that I have a conviction - that Lechmere was probably the killer.

If I have an agenda, then that is pointing to how too little research has been put into the Lechmere case over the years, and to change that. If others agree that I have a good case, then so much the better.

I have spent my whole professional life as a journalist, fourteen of those years as a newspaper researcher. I am probably a lot more aware of how to evaluate sources than most people out here, and I have never once been criticized in my job for having misused sources.
That does not mean that I cannot have lost my touch entirely and gone ballistic over the Lechmere issue, but I somehow doubt it. And - as I have repeatedly said - anybody who can prove the reverse is welcome to try and do so. I was a decent boxer in my youth, but I dislike fighting shadows - get the cards on the table and give me a fair chance to have my say.

See what I mean? My opinion is irrelevant, because I supposedly have such a clouded judgment that I am unfit to plead.
That is the whole crux of the matter, Ally. That is a preconception if ever I saw one.

No, your opinion is irrelevant in this matter, because your opinion doesn't override the rules of the board which state that just because YOU think your suspect has value and ought to be discussed on every thread you can wedge him in on, everyone else ought to agree and follow along.

But that´s factually wrong again. I never expected people out here to agree, far from it. And I don´t "wedge" Lechmere in on threads, I introduce him. The wording "wedge" is typical of how people who argue a case use dramatic, negative wordings so as to strengthen their case. Whether an opinion that is not in line with the rules of the board is irrelevant is another matter, Galileo was not in line with the rules of his day, but I don´t think what he had to say was irrelevant...

IT depends on context. If four people are happily having a discussion on Hyams on a Hyams thread and a Kosminiski-suspect pusher comes in and says Kosminski fits much better and one person and he starts arguing and derails the entire conversation for everyone else, then they've hijacked the thread, which is why the rule has been made. Because just because someone feels like their suspect can be wedged in to every given topic in any given circumstance doesn't mean they ought to be. Derailing other threads to push your suspect is hijacking. It's annoying to the other people who were having the conversation about Hyams and don't want to have another blasted pointless conversation about Kosminski and yet have to suffer through another interminable argument because of some zealot who has to stick his two cents in about his suspect every time he sees an opportunity. That's why there's a rule against it.

Of course, that is once again painting me in the worst light possible - and again, I would like to see any examples of me doing this before there can be a verdict of guilty on my behalf. It may be of interest in this context that I have consistently told posters who have brought Lechmere up on the torso/Ripper threads that I do not wish to discuss Lechmere on that score, but instead just look at how the Ripper and the torso man compare. That kind of swears against the assertions that I "wedge" Lechmere in wherever and whenever I can.

Is this going to be a trial without evidence? Or will somebody exemplify my supposedly vile behaviour?

I guess you can ask yourself, how many times does someone show up on a Lechmere thread trying to push an alternate suspect vs how many times you show up on an alternate thread to push Lechmere to answer that question?

I did not know that this was quantified, actually. Is it? And how?

Last edited by Fisherman : 12-07-2017 at 08:23 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:58 AM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman

See what I mean? My opinion is irrelevant, because I supposedly have such a clouded judgment that I am unfit to plead.
That is the whole crux of the matter, Ally. That is a preconception if ever I saw one.

Well I can't say whether your opinion is clouded on Lechmere but I can say your opinion is clouded on this argument because you are so busy having the argument you THINK we're having that you aren't actually arguing the points I am making. I have merely replied to your exact words on this exact thread. What you, YOURSELF have stated. You stated you put in Lechmere whereever you think he fits and of course, because you think he was Jack the Ripper, I imagine you think he fits in quite a lot of places don't you? That's against the rules of the board and that's what I said. You asked about Kosminski as an example. I gave an example of how the rules would be interpreted.

Quote:
And I don´t "wedge" Lechmere in on threads, I introduce him. The wording "wedge" is typical of how people who argue a case use dramatic, negative wordings so as to strengthen their case. Whether an opinion that is not in line with the rules of the board is irrelevant is another matter, Galileo was not in line with the rules of his day, but I don´t think what he had to say was irrelevant..
And your choice of the word "introduce" is typical of people who want to "introduce" me to their Lord and Savior. You see it as a positive thing. Others see it as intrusive and unwelcome. It's about perspective. Not everyone wants to be saved. And please just don't draw comparisons of your situation to Galileo, because that amount of ego, I just can't...no...
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.

Last edited by Ally : 12-07-2017 at 09:26 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.