'it was nice' Observation

[Adam Went]

Chris:

I was under the impression from your previous post to which I was answering that you were merely asking what exactly my theories about Mortimer were, not about that particular press report in particular, hence why I pointed you back to the article.

When it comes down to it, there is conflicting evidence about what happened in Berner Street that night. People can reconstruct different timetables to try to reconcile the differences, and they will all have their virtues and their deficiencies. But unless some new evidence emerges, no one is going to be proved right about this, and no one is going to be proved wrong. It will all remain just a matter of opinion.

In almost any other circumstance I would agree with you here, but in the case of Berner Street and, for the benefit of our debate, Fanny Mortimer, I disagree. It is difficult to conclusively "prove" anything, BUT we are lucky enough to have such a plethora of witnesses to the minutes preceding Liz Stride's murder, along with the aforementioned press reports, and other such information, that if we piece everything together in a sensible, logical fashion, then I believe we can, beyond all reasonable doubt, build a solid timeline of the events in Berner Street and therefore use that as a measuring stick for Mortimer's testimony - THAT is what i've done before and what I intend to do more thoroughly in the future, and THAT is how i've come to the conclusions I have about her testimony.

It really isn't all that complicated. Honestly.

So, with Tom proving himself to be more mouse than man, are you prepared to become my opponent debater in article format? Or do I have to debate with myself?

Maria:

Indeed we have discussed all of this on JTR Forums before, along with Chris Phillips, which is why I was more than a little perplexed by some of the comments that have been made here.

Tracy:

All I want to say is....LOL!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

Adam

What you're saying, in effect, is that if you leave out Mortimer, you can build a "solid timeline of the events," and then when you use that as a yardstick for what Mortimer is reported as saying you find that it doesn't fit, and you conclude that it's unreliable.

I'm afraid that logic is completely circular.

Thanks for your offer of a debate in article format, but I think our approaches are so radically different that it would be frustrating for both of us. Maybe one of the other members of Maria's menage a quatre would oblige?

[Tom_Wescott]

So, with Tom proving himself to be more mouse than man,

You'd think a kid your age would know his cartoons. Tom was the cat and JERRY was the mouse.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

You'd think a kid your age would know his cartoons. Tom was the cat and JERRY was the mouse.

Psst..... everything's opposite down-under Tom!

Jon

[mariab]

I think I would sooner marry Maria than accuse Wolf Vanderlinden of being illogical. I could survive the marriage for AT LEAST a few years.

Tom either just proved that he's got the biggest balls in the world, or that he's a glouton for punishment. And that he's not a “misogynist“ (sic).

But I thought my ménage à quattre (as Chris Phillips so sweetly and elegantly put it) was going to move to Salt Lake City to live on Jeff Leahy's boat, where we'll be celebrating Mr. Leahy's birthday TWICE a DAY* there, every day. On second thought, I don't think they have bodies of water in Salt Lake City, though it's well-known that they've got the most amazing powder in the US (for riding). But my ménage à quattre would chose to live in a boat even on land!

* This is a reference to a recent incident at the JTRForums.

everything's opposite down-under.

LOL, this totally cracked me up. Though not ALL things are opposite Down Under. For instance, a right wave would still be a right wave in Oz (such as legendary Bell's) and ditto for a left wave (such as legendary Kirra).
For a surfer to insult Oz would be the equivalent of a Catholic disrespecting the Vatican. Probably a sketchy metaphor, but still...

And to Adam:
Just in case you need to ever look it up again as a reference for quoting, Adam, the discussion with Chris et al about Ms. Mortimer was in the casebook WVC thread. Incidentally, you won't find any posts by Chris in the JTRForums.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Bridewell.

"it can’t be proved to be genuine and there is evidence to prove that it was a fake".
Sorry, Wolf, but this is illogical. It can't, at this time be proved genuine, but nor can it be "proved" to be a fake.

If you read what I have posted earlier you may find that the medical opinions on the kidney prove that it couldn’t have come from the body of Catherine Eddowes. The kidney, therefore, was a fake. As the only evidence which might possibly prove that the letter was genuine was the kidney, and it was a fake, and as the letter states that the kidney DID come from Eddowes’ body, which it didn’t, and as there is the suggestion that the letter might have been sent from person or persons within the Vigilance Committee, then there is evidence to prove it was a fake if you want to believe that evidence.

If it had been proved that it was a fake there would no longer be debate as to its authenticity and this forum would not be running. The matter has yet to be proved one way or the other.

I laughed out loud when I read this then looked to see how many posts you have – 15. Buddy, are you in for a big surprise if you think that things that have been either proved or disproved are then automatically accepted by everyone on these boards and aren’t ever discussed or debated again. There will always be someone who ignores the evidence and post that “The matter has yet to be proved one way or the other.”

Wolf.

[tji]

where we'll be celebrating Mr. Leahy's birthday TWICE a DAY*
*This is a reference to a recent incident at the JTRForums.

I think you mean twice a year Maria


And to Adam:
Incidentally, you won't find any posts by Chris in the JTRForums.[/QUOTE]

No s**t, Sherlock can see your researching skills haven't been wasted....The fact that Adam and Chris have been around a lot longer than both of us makes me think Adam would be aware of this Maria, you think?!

Tj

[Wickerman]

The kidney, therefore, was a fake.

This is one of those instances where "fake" is a poor choice of words. The From Hell Letter c/w Kidney was a fraud, not a fake.

The kidney was real enough.


I know that you know that Wolf, ... just having fun.

All the best, Jon S.

[mariab]

Maria:
Indeed we have discussed all of this on JTR Forums before, along with Chris Phillips

And I mean twice a DAY. Upped the ante.

[tji]

I am confused? is anyone else confused??? are you answering my post or Adam's or just randomly quoting people before answering posts?


Tj

[Tom_Wescott]

Of course you won't since Caz is right and you can't argue with her.

In all fairness to Maria, Caz usually IS right, which makes debating with her very
frustrating.

Psst..... everything's opposite down-under Tom!

So the boys have innies and the girls have outies? That explains much.

I laughed out loud when I read this then looked to see how many posts you have – 15. Buddy, are you in for a big surprise if you think that things that have been either proved or disproved are then automatically accepted by everyone on these boards and aren’t ever discussed or debated again. There will always be someone who ignores the evidence and post that “The matter has yet to be proved one way or the other.”

No kidding. The most recent example would be the Le Grand/Grainger thread at the forums.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Chris:

Surely the testimony of a multitude of witnesses must far outweigh the reliability of the testimony of one witnesses who essentially claimed she saw nothing? I think both you and Tom, even after all this time, are still somewhat missing the point about the Mortimer "saga".

Sorry to hear you aren't interested in doing a point/counter-point piece - if you change your mind, you know where to find me. Meantime, if anybody else wants to take up the challenge, don't be afraid - I am a nice guy, most of the time.

Tom:

Indeed you're right. And like the show, Tom never wins.

Tracy:

I have a sneaking suspicion that Maria might have blocked you, LOL!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

Surely the testimony of a multitude of witnesses must far outweigh the reliability of the testimony of one witnesses who essentially claimed she saw nothing?

I'm sure that you could go through the same procedure with other witnesses. Construct a timeline by ignoring what X says. Compare the result with what X says. Contradiction. Therefore X must be unreliable.

It's a circular argument. It just results from the fact that the evidence is contradictory. The procedure is bound to discredit the evidence of the person you choose to exclude in the first place.

And obviously the fact that Mortimer "claimed she saw nothing" is no indication of the reliability of her evidence. If one man claims he saw nothing and another claims he saw something, do you automatically believe the second one?

[tji]

Tracy:

I have a sneaking suspicion that Maria might have blocked you, LOL!


Nah can't be it Adam, why would she want to do such a thing?

Seriously though I think I am missing something, because the twice a day comment doesn't make much sense in answer to your quote does it? so if it isn't in answer to your quote but does answer my comment about the twice yearly post then she hasn't blocked me.....if she is answering my post why quote you...see my confusion?

Tj

[Chris]

Tracy:

I have a sneaking suspicion that Maria might have blocked you, LOL!

Not only that, but I have it on good authority that you're not going to be invited to the wedding now.