Not to be trusted

[Sam Flynn]

Hi sam
Sorry to hear your not feeling well.
If you don’t mind me asking is it serious?

And I hope you are feeling better soon! : )

Thanks, Abby. I'll keep you posted

[Fisherman]

I don't think it was very gracious, perhaps we should read the exchange again:








So is that gracious - let alone acknowledgement of your mistake? "I realize that I alone are to blame for it, but nevertheless."

Considering what I interpret as a joking remark to me:

(emphasis added)

perhaps I was too kind in my initial assesment that you actually acknowledged Elamarna's point.

Relevant? Well, considering your high standards for others, certain proverbs about stones and glass houses or pots and kettles come to mind:



As for my original post:

I don't think it will do much good to try to explain, if you are indeed (somewhat surprisingly) unable to understand my post's relevance, since the quote, in my opinion, speaks for itself.
But in brief: the remark, which you so vehemently perceive as belittling, is in my opinion similar in tone and content to remarks you yourself make about others.

And look who gives belittling a try himself! ""Surprisingly unable to understand"...?

So let´s see - you think that I should not be rude to people because we should not, and to emphasize that, you decided to be rude, is that it?

Your example with Steve is a really bad one. To begin with, I wrote "disbaility/unwillingness", allowing for both possibilities, and to carry on, the issue it was about was something I could prove wrong - there is no data telling us that Paul overheard what Lechmere told Mizen.

In the exchange between Gareth and me, it has been claimed that the primary reason that I don´t see the differences spoken about the way Gareth does, is that I "have an agenda to follow". That, Kattrup, is something that cannot be proven. It is an accusation flung out with no underlying facts at all to support it.

As for the pot calling the kettle black, we are not discussing what I say and do here - we are discussing what Gareth has said. If I should overstep the line the way that he has done, I would expect to be taken to task for it, and rightfully so.

Just as I would expect you to be taken to task for implying that I would be in some way daft for not being fully certain about what you tried to say in your former post. Which, by the way, just happened.

[Fisherman]

What I find worse of all is the constant attempt of some posters to take every thread, every issue every comment back to their suspect.

Say it right out, Gut. Don´t mumble. The worst that can happen is that somebody will disagree with you.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: So quote things, then - don't interpret and assert your interpretation as if it were truth. Nobody told you that your "views were tainted".

Actually, somebody did - you. Albeit not in those exact words. You said that if it was not for my agenda, I would reason differently. But not in those words. You told me that your view was the one I would accept, had it not been for my agenda. But not in those words. You told me that the primary reason that I did not acknowledge the differences built into the discussion we had was that I had an agenda to follow. But not in those exact words.
Can you see how it works? And do you understand why I think it is extremely unflattering not to stand by what you say?

Your agenda is that all roads must lead to Lechmere, even to the extent of injecting him into unrelated threads so that you can go off on your hobby-horse again.

That´s a blatant lie, I´m afraid. I have no such agenda. I have no agenda at all. I have a conviction, and it will show, inevitably. When I mention Lechmere, it is because I think he applies to the discussion, and he very often do so. If you claim I "inject him" into unrelated threads, then please exemplify, and I will tell you how and why Lechmere applies to the discussion. Then again, you don´t want to hear his name, so it may prove a painful exercise.
He was only just injected to THIS thread - by you. Certainly not by me.
This is another example where you take it upon yourself to state how I think, why I say what I say, what my "agenda" is - and it is not for you to decide.

Every time it happens, you can expect to be hauled over the coals for it, and rightfully so. It is something that will not be tolerated, and for very good reasons.

It's not "ridiculous" and it's not "semantics" to insist that we stick to the facts, rather than presenting beliefs and opinions as if they were facts.Nobody's ducking or running. I'm not well and I have neither the time, energy nor inclination to waste on such things.

But you DO have thetime, energy and inclination to present beliefs and opinions as if they were facts! That is what this whole thread is about!! You claimed it as a fact that the primary reason that I did not agree with you over the differences involved in the cases we discussed is that I have an agenda to pursue. If that is a fact, then you can prove it. That is how facts are established.

And I do not want it to be established as a fact that my "agenda" detracts from my ability to form a viable thinking about the case.

I have asked the question half a dozen times now, and I still lack the answer: WHERE IS THE PROOF FOR YOUR ACCUSATION?

Provide it or admit that you can´t, Gareth. It is simple enough, and either measure will effectively put an end to the discussion.

[Kattrup]

And look who gives belittling a try himself! ""Surprisingly unable to understand"...?

Would you kindly point out where I stated that?


Far from you being too daft to understand, I implied the opposite - which you might of course also find rude.
Namely that in my opinion (as I stated), the quote I supplied speaks for itself and I was therefore somewhat surprised to see that you did not see the same meaning.

Your example with Steve is a really bad one.

Well, I thought it was a fine example of you denigrating another poster in much the same manner as you believe Sam Flynn did you.

Whether the issue discussed at the time can be proven to your satisfaction or not is immaterial.


At any rate, there's no real benefit to discussing this.

Have a nice day

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: So quote things, then - don't interpret and assert your interpretation as if it were truth. Nobody told you that your "views were tainted".

Actually, somebody did - you. Albeit not in those exact words. You said that if it was not for my agenda, I would reason differently. But not in those words. You told me that your view was the one I would accept, had it not been for my agenda. But not in those words. You told me that the primary reason that I did not acknowledge the differences built into the discussion we had was that I had an agenda to follow. But not in those exact words.

Not in those exact words - exactly my point. Neither I, nor anybody else, has told you that "your views" (plural) are "tainted". Individual posts might reveal an agenda at work, but that in no way means that ALL your views fall under that category. On the contrary, you often make good points, so your claim that you've been "told" that your views (plural) are tainted is both inaccurate and exaggerated.

Individual points of detail/interpretation are another matter. If I or anybody else feels that those points of detail are in error and/or distorted/generalised to fit a preconceived conclusion, why shouldn't that be pointed out? It might not even be a case of error, distortion or generalisation, but merely one of not agreeing with someone's interpretation of an agreed fact(s); there's nothing wrong with that, either.

Everyone's opinion and interpretation is open to challenge, and yours are no different from anybody else's in that regard.

[GUT]

Say it right out, Gut. Don´t mumble. The worst that can happen is that somebody will disagree with you.

Don’t think I could have put it much clearer than I did.

[Fisherman]

Kattrup: Would you kindly point out where I stated that?

Yes, of course:
"I don't think it will do much good to try to explain, if you are indeed (somewhat surprisingly) unable to understand my post's relevance, since the quote, in my opinion, speaks for itself."

It read to me as if it would be surprising if somebody did not understand what you meant.

Far from you being too daft to understand, I implied the opposite - which you might of course also find rude.

Yes, it can be read that way too. Maybe you can see now why I think you are unclear at times?

Namely that in my opinion (as I stated), the quote I supplied speaks for itself and I was therefore somewhat surprised to see that you did not see the same meaning.

If you have to explain things in retrospect, you may need to polish on your phrasing, Kattrup. But thanks for the vote of confidence - a rare thing indeed!

Well, I thought it was a fine example of you denigrating another poster in much the same manner as you believe Sam Flynn did you.

And I showed you why they were two very different things.

Whether the issue discussed at the time can be proven to your satisfaction or not is immaterial.

No, it is never immaterial if you can prove that you are right or wrong. Especially not in cases like these.

At any rate, there's no real benefit to discussing this.

I disagree. Whenever somebody introduces a voodoo element of detracting from another posters overall credibility, there is a dire need to discuss it. The thread as such is therefore one that is necessary, but one I would have hoped was NOT necessary.

[Fisherman]

Don’t think I could have put it much clearer than I did.

Yes, you could - you could have told us who you are thinking of.

By the way, can you see the irony of telling us that you dislike people introducing what you find unrelated topics into thread about other things - and then you go introducing that exact topic into this thread, which is about whether people with suspects are to be trusted or not...

It´s one of those whooops things, I guess.

[Fisherman]

Not in those exact words - exactly my point. Neither I, nor anybody else, has told you that "your views" (plural) are "tainted". Individual posts might reveal an agenda at work, but that in no way means that ALL your views fall under that category. On the contrary, you often make good points, so your claim that you've been "told" that your views (plural) are tainted is both inaccurate and exaggerated.

Individual points of detail/interpretation are another matter. If I or anybody else feels that those points of detail are in error and/or distorted/generalised to fit a preconceived conclusion, why shouldn't that be pointed out? It might not even be a case of error, distortion or generalisation, but merely one of not agreeing with someone's interpretation of an agreed fact(s); there's nothing wrong with that, either.

Everyone's opinion and interpretation is open to challenge, and yours are no different from anybody else's in that regard.

Did I ever say that errors should not be pointed out? I think not.
Did I ever say that I am different in this regard? I think not.
That is just smoke and mirrors, nothing else. And I am growing more and more tired about your unwillingness to answer the one question of REAL interest here:
Either you have proof to offer for what you said, or you must admit that you don´t. That is what you need when you say that people make their calls on account of "preconceived notions".
Stop wriggling and answer that, please.

[Ally]

As for the pot calling the kettle black, we are not discussing what I say and do here - we are discussing what Gareth has said.

Except apparently, what Gareth has said that you so completely object to is that you have an agenda that clouds your arguments, and therefore your own words will have to be discussed in order to determine whether Gareth is in fact right.

Your agenda is that all roads must lead to Lechmere, even to the extent of injecting him into unrelated threads so that you can go off on your hobby-horse again.

That´s a blatant lie, I´m afraid. I have no such agenda. I have no agenda at all. I have a conviction, and it will show, inevitably. When I mention Lechmere, it is because I think he applies to the discussion, and he very often do so.

Whether YOU call that an agenda or whether YOU think that interjecting your suspect into every single thread is perfectly valid is irrelevant. The rules of the board disagree with you. It's called hijacking a thread by means of theory bias. So the rules of the board don't support your claim. Just because you think Lechmere is the be all and end all to everything doesn't mean he is. You have an agenda.

So basically, you just proved yourself wrong in your own argument?

[Fisherman]

Ally: Except apparently, what Gareth has said that you so completely object to is that you have an agenda that clouds your arguments, and therefore your own words will have to be discussed in order to determine whether Gareth is in fact right.

Yes, whether I have an "agenda" or not and whether it clouds my judgement or not should be judged by what I say and nothing else.
To begin with, I don´t think it is fair to say that I have an agenda - it is not something that will always be present with somebody who has a suspect. I have a conviction. Those are not the same things.
When you have a suspect, you will be either right or wrong. If I am right about Lechmere, then I have a great advantage when it comes to seeing the value of an argument. If I am wrong about him, I have an equally great disadvantage.
That, however, has nothing at all to with the question whether I can think in an unbiased way.

The argument I and Gareth are having is based on different takes on the differences built into the Ripper and torso cases.

I say that we can only go on how the flaps from the abdomen were described as large flaps in both cases. Gareth says that the flaps MUST have been thin and narrow, since his dictionary implies this.

He "interprets", whereas I do not. Who of us allows our "agendas" to colour our respective takes?

I say that all we can say is that uteri were cut out in both series. Gareth says that there were different reasons for it.

He "interprets", whereas I do not. Who of us allows our "agendas" to colour our respective takes?

Supposedly, according to Gareth, if I had not been prejudiced by that agenda of mine, I would have been more likely to go along with what he thinks. But I would not. I do not want to overstretch the information that is there and start making interpretations that cannot be based in the facts. Nevertheless, it seems I am the one who allows my "agenda" to rule my thinking. I find that very wrong.

Whether YOU call that an agenda or whether YOU think that interjecting your suspect into every single thread is perfectly valid is irrelevant. The rules of the board disagree with you. It's called hijacking a thread by means of theory bias. So the rules of the board don't support your claim. Just because you think Lechmere is the be all and end all to everything doesn't mean he is. You have an agenda.

If something has a bearing on a thread, I don´t think it can possibly be hijacking it to bring it into the discussion. When I mention Lechmere in a thread that was not created to discuss him specifically, I do so because I find he has a bearing on the matter discussed. I am quite happy to demonstrate this if anybody can offer an example where they think I spoke about Lechmere with no connection at all to the thread topic.

Furthermore, I don´t think that Lechmere is the "all and end all" to everything - I think he was the Ripper. Those are two different things. Plus, of course, your saying that I interject my suspect into "every single thread" is demonstrably not true.

So basically, you just proved yourself wrong in your own argument?

I really don´t think so, no. I think that the notion that people with suspects should be regarded as less able to make viable calls is wrong, and I think I have made a very fair case for why I find that this is so. I trust I am allowed to make that stance.

[Ally]

Again... and this is where your agenda clouds your thinking.... your opinion is irrelevant. You thinking that your suspect is relevant to every single topic on the subject of JTR is only because you think your suspect was JTR. It is literally no different than a Christian trying to tell you what Jesus thinks you ought to do or say on every subject under the sun because... Jesus. Or a Muslim, or any other fervent believer. Everybody thinks that their god is the one true god.

When you bring Lechmere up, on non-Lechmere threads, it's hijacking and it's against the rules. It doesn't matter that you really, really think it's relevant. You think it's relevant..because your suspect bias is clouding your thinking. Everyone else who doesn't fall to their knees and worship at the altar of Lechmere, has a different opinion and sees it as you attempting to force your "religion" down their throats. And that is why thread hijacking with suspect bias is against the rules. Because it's annoying to the non-believers.

[Michael W Richards]

Although this is a Vendetta thread Id like to chime in Fisherman. Far too often we see a cart before the horse usually based on little more than availability and a dysfunctional mind. I would hope that you would agree that any argument you might make here has an end game attached to it because youre trying to lead the evidence, not being led by it. That's why you often feel against the current, and frankly, defensive.

I happen to disagree with some basic premises you have about these murders, I have my own prejudice's too. But I do think when debating these ideas that you have to step back from a feeling of ownership and consider once again that in reality there is no evidence trail leading to anyone here.

Ive spoken with you, and with Gareth, for many years now. Back to around 2005 I believe. And I know civility is an important component in any conversation to both of you, and the rest of us.....my own past indiscretions left there for the moment , and for this point. No-one is, or should be, berating anyone else for whatever position they wish to defend, as long as the quality of the information being used is as close to impeccable as possible. Just recognize that any preconceived final line taints ones objectivity.

[Sam Flynn]

I say that we can only go on how the flaps from the abdomen were described as large flaps in both cases. Gareth says that the flaps MUST have been thin and narrow, since his dictionary implies this.

He "interprets", whereas I do not. Who of us allows our "agendas" to colour our respective takes?

Or course you're interpreting in that instance, every much as I am, if not more so.

I've pointed out - correctly - that Hebbert uses the word "slips of flesh" and that the dictionary shows that "slips" is a synonym for "strips". I've also pointed out - correctly - that, whereas Hebbert describes two such slips being removed from the torso victim, there were three flaps of flesh removed from the abdomens of both Chapman and Kelly. I've also pointed out - again, correctly - that in the latter case the three flaps removed were so huge that they completely laid open Kelly's abdomen, which is evident from both Bond's report and the Miller's Court photographs. This was demonstrably not the case with Elizabeth Jackson.

My interpretation, therefore, is that the wounds described in the case of the torso victim were demonstrably lesser than those inflicted upon Mary Kelly. I'd submit that my interpretation is closer to the facts than your interpretation, which seeks to minimise the difference between the Ripper and Torso cases, and to "big-up" certain aspects of the latter so that they more closely resemble the Ripper murders than a dispassionate reading of the evidence permits.

I say that all we can say is that uteri were cut out in both series. Gareth says that there were different reasons for it.

He "interprets", whereas I do not. Who of us allows our "agendas" to colour our respective takes?

No, again you're interpreting as much as I am, if not more so.

The reason I've suggested that there was a different reason at work in the case of Jackson is that she was carrying a baby, and the fact that the (two slips of) flesh that were cut from her abdomen might indicate that the killer's aim was to gain access to her gravid uterus so that the baby might be removed. That is an entirely reasonable "interpretation", which is fully congruent with the facts of the Jackson case.

Indeed, it's not entirely clear that her womb was removed at all but, even if it were, we can't escape the fact that her baby had been taken out and disposed of. This is another demonstrable difference between this (single) Torso murder and the Ripper series, for which the bland statement that "uteri were cut out in both series" would appear to be a generalisation designed to minimise the discrepancies to the extent that it might appear more likely that the same suspect was responsible for both.