Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
View Post
Others interpret events differently and this is the point that I was making. Why do you think that because you’ve interpreted events one way everyone should agree.
I have given an answer (as have others) to every point that you’ve made. Your ‘Polly Parrot’ point makes no sense because very obviously if you make the same points the responses are bound to be the same. We can’t rebut individual points in numerous ways just to avoid repetition.
Its the evidence the you ignore or seek to discredit when it suits you. We have a woman seen by two Police Officers wearing an apron. She is murdered and a part of that apron is found elsewhere. Not one single person mentions that there might have been a piece missing from the whole apron. The apron piece, according to the Doctor that saw it, looked as though something had been wiped on it. The Police (again, who were there at the time) were under no doubt that the killer deposited it in Goulston Street. Then you turn up, desperate to be the one to come up with a new theory, and read between lines, discredit inconvenient witnesses, then put in some huge conjecture whilst condemning others for doing the same.
And you keep ‘Polly Parroting’ the Marriott Defence, that we’re all defending the old established theories (which is pretty vacuous) when the truth is that you have your own agenda. It’s self promotion - trying to convince people that you’ve found something new. Let’s be honest Trevor. I’m just a bloke with an interest in the case. It doesn’t bother me what ideas are or aren’t correct. I simply read and form an opinion. But you, at least in part, make a living from this……
So who has the incentive to defend a lost cause at all costs? It ‘ain’t me.
Comment