'it was nice' Observation

[Adam Went]

Chris:

The whole point is that you haven't stated, either in your article or on this thread, that the "30 minute gap is more accurate than the 10 minute gap." You've stated that you prefer the report that says Mortimer claimed to have been at her door for nearly half an hour between 12.30 and 1.00, but you have said that can't be correct.

Again, I believe I have stated my theories surrounding Berner Street and Fanny Mortimer enough times by now for people to understand exactly what my point of view is. Again, it is a direct quote from Mortimer's own mouth that she was standing at her door for approximately half an hour, whereas the report you cited mentioning the 10 minute gap is not a quote but rather a reference from a reporter in the third person.

As I stated only a post or two ago, I believe Mortimer was indeed at her door for a period of approximately 30 minutes but that it was earlier in the night, around the same time as the other couple were in the area, and that she had returned indoors in time to hear, rather than see, the tramping of PC Smith at 12.30/35 AM.

There is no reason for her - none at all - to be taking any particular notice of what time it was. We don't even know whether she had a clock in her house (though one would think she did.) Further to that, it is just as much a telling fact that she saw no other witnesses apart from Goldstein during that half hour, as that none of the other witnesses during that half hour heard or saw anything of her.

And given that you apparently accept (or at least have accepted in the past) that she was at her door around 1 o'clock when Goldstein went past, I don't see how you could expect anyone to guess that you believed Mortimer was at her door for a different half-hour. In fact I still don't see how that's consistent with your new theory.

She goes to the door in order to shut the bolts before turning in for the night, takes a quick peek outside and spots Goldstein wandering down the street. So my theory goes anyway.

I don't pretend to claim that everything I said in AMOT is still what I believe and is still relevant to this discussion, because it's not. Like anybody with any theory, it evolves and changes the more one works on it and considers it. BUT the basics of my beliefs about Mortimer have never changed - it's unfortunate if you can't see that or have missed seeing that in the past, but it is the truth of the matter.

Now, Chris, as I said before, unless you're willing to debate with me on this fully and publicly as outlined before, there's nothing more of anything constructive which can be said here for the time being.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

Well, given that I stated in my article 15 months ago that Mortimer probably "confused her times" - given that I stated that her testimony about what happened in that crucial half hour is not to be taken seriously - and given the multitude of times that I have stated that I believe the 30 minute gap is more accurate than the 10 minute gap or similar gaps that others have suggested - how much does it really take for you to piece 2 and 2 together?

The whole point is that you haven't stated, either in your article or on this thread, that the "30 minute gap is more accurate than the 10 minute gap." You've stated that you prefer the report that says Mortimer claimed to have been at her door for nearly half an hour between 12.30 and 1.00, but you have said that can't be correct.

And given that you apparently accept (or at least have accepted in the past) that she was at her door around 1 o'clock when Goldstein went past, I don't see how you could expect anyone to guess that you believed Mortimer was at her door for a different half-hour. In fact I still don't see how that's consistent with your new theory.

[Adam Went]

Chris,

Well, given that I stated in my article 15 months ago that Mortimer probably "confused her times" - given that I stated that her testimony about what happened in that crucial half hour is not to be taken seriously - and given the multitude of times that I have stated that I believe the 30 minute gap is more accurate than the 10 minute gap or similar gaps that others have suggested - how much does it really take for you to piece 2 and 2 together? Do I really need to spell it out every single time as if I was explaining it to a primary school pupil?

I'm still sure that I must have said as much elsewhere much earlier, and will keep an eye out on old threads for exactly that....

In any case, the thread on JTR Forums has done the trick and, all being well, the debate will be underway shortly....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

I won't begin to try and fathom why you wouldn't be a member of JTR Forums, but I can assure you that i've stated that many, many times in many, many discussions both here on Casebook and in JTR Forums.....and possibly even in AMOT, not that I can remember now. It's a little disappointing that after all the effort, the message still isn't going through for some.

Adam

You may not remember what's in your article but, as I said, I went to the trouble of checking it, and what you say there is that there could be any number of explanations, including poor lighting, misreporting and so on. The closest you come to saying that you believe Mortimer stood at her door for a different half-hour is where you simply state that she may have "confused her times", which could mean almost anything (including that she stood there for only ten minutes!).

You've made a lot of posts on this thread about Mortimer, mostly consisting of personal stuff, challenges to debate, exhortations to read your article and so on. If you had stated this new theory about Mortimer standing outside her door for a different half-hour just once we should all have been aware of it. But you didn't. That's why the message didn't get through.

[Adam Went]

Chris:

I won't begin to try and fathom why you wouldn't be a member of JTR Forums, but I can assure you that i've stated that many, many times in many, many discussions both here on Casebook and in JTR Forums.....and possibly even in AMOT, not that I can remember now. It's a little disappointing that after all the effort, the message still isn't going through for some.

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

Thank you. I'm a musicologist myself, but were I born 7 years earlier, I would have been a Pro snowboarder. (Which would have probably taken all the fun out.)
Vive la différence indeed.

[Steven Russell]

Well, good luck to you, Maria. In some ways I envy you in that you seem to take great delight in the natural world. Music does it for me.

But vive la difference,
Steve.

[mariab]

"Abyssmal" is a lovely word, by the way. Shades of Jack London.

Jack London was a surfer, by the way. (Or at least, he tried, and ate sh*t in Hawaii. And wrote about it.)

But why do you believe a lump of rock worthy of respect?

Ugh!! Sacrilege! Too long to explain. Or I might try the short version: beautiful, magnificent, deadly, magical, irresistible pull on climbers...

[Steven Russell]

What I regretted about your post was the abyssmal lack of knowledge about and respect for K2, as well as the lack of respect for the hundreds of climbers who've lost their life there, many of them British.

I don't think my post displayed any lack of respect for anyone, Maria. Except perhaps yourself - as I implied earlier, it was deliberately sarcastic. They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and who am I to disagree?

"Abyssmal" is a lovely word, by the way. Shades of Jack London.

You are perfectly correct to conclude that I know absolutely nothing about K2. But why do you believe a lump of rock worthy of respect?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Chris]

For the 435,657th time, yes I do believe Mortimer was at her door for half an hour, but had confused the part about the time of it being 12.30 - 1 AM...

For all I know you may have said that repeatedly on jtrforums, but as I've told you I'm not a member of jtrforums, and I don't see all the posts there.

Certainly you didn't say it in your article, and you've haven't said it on this thread - I've just gone back and checked.

[Adam Went]

Wicker:

Are you talking about the Mortimer argument or posting a response to a JTR Forums post on Casebook?

Chris:

I raised it here because (1) there's just been a lengthy discussion of the same point here (admittedly it was off-topic, but you were the one who initiated the discussion) and (2) I'm not a member of jtrforums.

1.) I think you'll find it was Tom who got the ball rolling on this particular Mortimer discussion, not me. I only made a reference to her in a post.

2.) You poor soul.

What particularly surprised me was that having accused Tom Wescott of "twisting your words" by saying you'd argued that Mortimer was at the door for half an hour, you went on to say precisely that on jtrforums.

For the 435,657th time, yes I do believe Mortimer was at her door for half an hour, but had confused the part about the time of it being 12.30 - 1 AM, hence why she missed so many - in fact, all - of the other crucial witnesses, and they missed her. It was probably earlier in the night when the "second couple" were around, and her sighting of Goldstein was just by chance as she went to shut the bolts before going to bed.

You say I'm "probably" right that you only meant she claimed to have been there for half an hour. If you're not sure whether I'm right or not, I think other people can be forgiven for finding your theory a bit hard to understand.

I'm finding your comments a bit hard to understand. It is both my claim that she was at her door for half an hour (though not during the period of time she says) and her claim that she was at her door for half an hour (as she says that much as a direct quote in multiple newspaper reports, as opposed to a third person reference to some 10 minute gap.)

In any case, Chris, i've made the offer to join the debate in the pages of Ripperologist several times. You've signalled your lack of interest in being the opponent, and if that still remains the case, then we've got nothing further to discuss here.

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

Mallory did climb mountains.
I know precisely what you mean about getting to the top at all costs, Mr. Thomas. Incidentally, I don't see it like this. The idea of “conquering“ nature is as stupid as one can get. I personally see it as simply getting in contact with nature, allowing it to let you get acquainted with it, on its own terms.
By the way, after riding solid ice in the last couple days (due to the snow not being too deep on the glacier this year), the palms of my hands have obtained not only deep lacerations but also deeply internal bruises, which I bet won't come up to the surface for weeks, and which I'll be studying, trying to see if there are any parallels with the bruises on the C5. ;-)
And here endeth the mountaineering talk.

[Stephen Thomas]

I see where you're coming from, Mr. Thomas, but one can't underestimate the attraction of the great outdoors, and besides this, if we all chose to play it completely safely, there would be no astronauts, no people going on expeditions, no great athletes, not even cops. And most certainly no political dissidents. So no Livingston, no Mallory, no Columbus, no Mandela. Hell, not even inspector Abberline! ;-)

Good try, Maria, but the people you mention didn't climb mountains.

That's an occupation for idiots.

'Yes, I've had all my toes amputated but I did get close to the summit'.

[mariab]

last highkacking of this thread into mountaineering talk

I see where you're coming from, Mr. Thomas, but one can't underestimate the attraction of the great outdoors, and besides this, if we all chose to play it completely safely, there would be no astronauts, no people going on expeditions, no great athletes, not even cops. And most certainly no political dissidents. So no Livingston, no Mallory, no Columbus, no Mandela. Hell, not even inspector Abberline! ;-)

[Stephen Thomas]

What I regretted about your post was the abyssmal lack of knowledge about and respect for K2, as well as the lack of respect for the hundreds of climbers who've lost their life there, many of them British.

Serves 'em right. I've got no sympathy for those that dice with death and lose.