Official Integrity (Off-Topic Discussion moved from Suspect thread)

[Monty]

sigh,

Monty:

You never stated Eddowes was stone cold sober, I never stated that she was blind drunk. So essentially we agree, no?

Youre side stepping the point.

Her "conversation" consisted almost entirely of asking when she could be released and saying good night, and her answering of questions included giving a very false name. I hardly think that's any measuring stick for one's sobriety.

Again, she was lucid, gave pertinent answers and engaged. Hardly the incapable drunk unable to look after herself, as you portrayed.

Researchers have not given up on the case, they just go underground to avoid the inane, thoughtless and average which seems to be accepted as the norm at this present moment.

Monty

[Steven Russell]

*
The offer is still open for you, or Monty, or anybody else to write an opposing letter back to the Review. I certainly welcome the challenge and i'm sure Don would as well.

Cheers,
Adam.

That's not a bad idea, Adam. There's no point in all of us doing it though. Any volunteers? Monty, Maria, Ally, anyone else?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Ally]

You're still referring to my age? My god, haven't you got some new material by now? I'm very disappointed. It was the butt of your jokes 6, 7, 8 years ago, I begin to wonder how long I can stay so young for!

Just to clarify, for anyone who was unsure, I am NOT Peter Pan.

You've entirely missed the point and made it blatantly clear that you've not even read the column in question or the discussion which followed, as I alluded to in my previous post.....being that i'm not particularly interested in repeating my theories verbatim, and being that this very discussion stemmed from exactly that column, I can only point you in that direction again and in the meantime, leave my response to you at that.

Actually I was referring to the fact that you still think like a teenager which is irrelevant to your age. And I did not miss the point and I don't need to read your column. I am responding to your statements on this thread, that is all I am responding to, and your statements are ludicrous, inaccurate and evidence of poor thinking.

I don't need to read a column to make that determination. Your summary here is pretty indicative that reading an entire column about your theory would be a complete waste of time, considering how ludicrous your conclusion appears to be.

It would be about as a tremendous waste of my time as reading an entire column Vincent Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper. Some things you don't need to read in their entirety to call balls, and " it was irresponsible for the police to release eddowes in *the middle of Jack's reign* is exactly one such thing.

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Again, she was lucid, gave pertinent answers and engaged. Hardly the incapable drunk unable to look after herself, as you portrayed.

I'll gladly recind everything i've said about Eddowes and the police force that night if you can find one quote from me anywhere on any discussion in any forum or conversation, or in any piece written in regards to this subject where I have referred to Eddowes as an "incapable drunk" when she was released from Bishopsgate.

Either you are incredibly stupid or you just like to twist my words, because i've made it blatantly clear more times than I care to count that it is not the case at all - my belief is that she was merely still under the influence of alcohol to some degree which would, in turn, have affected her judgement. Not that she was still a hopeless drunk as she was when arrested.

Steven:

That's not a bad idea, Adam. There's no point in all of us doing it though. Any volunteers? Monty, Maria, Ally, anyone else?

That hasn't seemed to stop anybody on this thread from all having a crack, but I digress. If somebody wants to do it, they're welcome to it. I'd rather debate it in such a format than waste time on a discussion like this one when i've really not the time nor the motivation to do so.

Ally:

So you're judging an entire column based on a few throwaway comments on a message board? LOL. (Oops, that's a bit teenagerish, eh?)

Clearly you have no understanding at all, because you see Ally, the whole idea of the column when I undertook to contribute it in every issue of the Review was to use the space to explore "grey areas" of the case which deserve attention but rarely get it. I've no problem with stirring up a bit of controversy in the process if necessary, and that column has certainly achieved its main objective which was to get people talking.....wow, it's certainly achieved that in spades, so I guess I should thank you for that as well.

Some might agree with it, many might disagree with it, but it's there in the magazine for anybody who cares enough to read it. Since you don't, that's 'nuff said.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Monty:

Again, she was lucid, gave pertinent answers and engaged. Hardly the incapable drunk unable to look after herself, as you portrayed.

I'll gladly recind everything i've said about Eddowes and the police force that night if you can find one quote from me anywhere on any discussion in any forum or conversation, or in any piece written in regards to this subject where I have referred to Eddowes as an "incapable drunk" when she was released from Bishopsgate.

Either you are incredibly stupid or you just like to twist my words, because i've made it blatantly clear more times than I care to count that it is not the case at all - my belief is that she was merely still under the influence of alcohol to some degree which would, in turn, have affected her judgement. Not that she was still a hopeless drunk as she was when arrested.

Posted by Adam Went on JTR Forums (New Independent Review) - 26th September 2011 @ 7.05am

Thinking back to high school, Monty (which wasn't all that long ago) it was compulsory that we all took part in a First Aid course, and gained our certificates in that - an element of which included learning the tables for intoxication and the amount of time it took for alcohol to leave the system and how best to treat drunks and so on. While I can't claim it to be a medical opinion as such, it assisted greatly in the understanding of how alcohol leaves the system which I outlined in the column, and which, given the time that had elapsed between arrest and release, verses the condition of Catherine when she was arrested, leaves little - in fact, I would say no doubt that she was still considerably under the influence of alcohol at 1 AM.

Now, you may call me stoopid, but this ol dumbass has just chewed your ass kid.

Next time be certain of the results before you issue a challange like that again in the future.

After all, we wouldnt want you looking incredibly stupid now.

Now start rescinding.

Monty

[Ally]

So you're judging an entire column based on a few throwaway comments on a message board? LOL. (Oops, that's a bit teenagerish, eh?)

A "few throwaway comments"? You've been arguing this for days, in multiple messages and becoming increasingly incoherent. That's hardly "a few throwaway comments". You do understand that words have actual meanings and you can't just throw a whole bunch of them randomly together and then say "that's not what I meant", right?

Clearly you have no understanding at all, because you see Ally, the whole idea of the column when I undertook to contribute it in every issue of the Review was to use the space to explore "grey areas" of the case which deserve attention but rarely get it. I've no problem with stirring up a bit of controversy in the process if necessary, and that column has certainly achieved its main objective which was to get people talking.....wow, it's certainly achieved that in spades, so I guess I should thank you for that as well.

I don't really care what your intentions were in the column. And while I appreciate the enthusiasm with which you are now trying to whore it, the fact of the matter is, you have made statements on the message boards that are NOT supported by fact, that are completely inane and do yourself and your writings no credit. The way to get people to be interested in your writing and actually reading what you write is to make those ideas seem credible and worthy of the time someone might spend on them. So far you are failing miserably.

[Adam Went]

Monty:

You really do make this far too easy for me.

Monty, old mate, I asked for a quote of myself saying that Eddowes was an "incapable drunk". Now, I know English is (clearly) not your forte, so i'll explain this in the simplest terms I can muster for you....."incapable drunk" does not mean the same thing as "considerably under the influence".

Incapable drunk would mean she was still in the same condition she was in at the time she was taken into custody. That is of course not the case, and for anybody who cares to look is absolutely not what i've ever tried to say.

Considerably under the influence means that she was still affected by the alcohol in her system, but not to the extent that she had been a few hours earlier. Basically, then, she is in an improved condition, but her judgement is still impaired by the remaining alcohol in her system.

Absorbtion of alcohol can also depend on one's metabolism, state of health and even their height and weight. The fact that Kate was a small woman in her 40's, not without medical concerns, also does not help her case for being able to recover from a binge session in almost the blink of an eye.

Now, once again, I would very much appreciate it if you would stop twisting my words and trying to make them into something they're not and never have been.

Ally:

I'm pleased that you're concerned for my sake about my writings and the path they are headed down, when you've not read the writings to make that judgement.

All well and good to come on here and huff and puff, as is your wont, but since you're concerned for me, let me return the favour by suggesting to you that it does you no credit to continue such contributions to this thread using the 'grasp-at-straws' method, when it would be oh so easy to make so much more of a valuable input.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

You are obviously in denial Adam,

Its a trait with you when confronted with conflicting evidence, as in the Mortimer case for example, its where your immaturity shines.

Your words are there for all to see, and whilst you accuse me of word twisting, you do exactly that only a few paragraphs perviously.

Its clear Adam, your inferrence was clear, that you claimed Eddowes was not in a fit state to be released and accused the Police of being neglegent. This with no evidence other than your opinion.

And its that which brings us back full circle to the hub of the matter, which was you have done exactly the same as Macnaghten. Yet you condemned the latter.

Smacks of hypocrasy, I have to say. I hope you won't be so quick to point the finger in the future, I hope lesson learned.

Over n out.

Monty

[Ally]

I've figured it out, and I've been doing a discredit to teenagers. Apparently Adam hasn't even matured that far. He says something, then when it's proven he's wrong, he sticks his fingers in his ears, throws himself on the floor while drumming his heels and shrieking, "No, no, no!!!" Once again, my apologies to teenagers, I have badly slandered you.


I think that pretty much puts a cap in Adam's "the police were negligent in releasing Eddowes" hogwash. He apparently confused police officers with Captain Third Eye and the Psychic Squad. Put down the comic books, for your own good!

[jason_c]

Adam,
Your stance on this issue is ridiculous. Firstly, as I believe Monty has said, Kate was judged to be able to look after herself and let go. This does not mean that she was stone cold sober. It probably meant she was able to find her way home without assistance and was no longer a danger to herself. Four and a half hours' good kip or even just rest can work wonders for the old lucidity. And, as has been said, Kate was well able to converse with the officer when she left Bishopsgate.

Why was it a stupid idea to release a woman onto the streets at 1am? Would you have released a man? How about a little scrawny guy? How about a large-boned, fit young woman?

"...especially so when at about the same moment Liz Stride is being killed walking distance anyway [sic]."

I see. So the chaps at Bishopsgate were psychics as well as coppers were they? "Just a minute, guv. Don't let 'er go yet... I'm 'avin' one of me visions." It had been a fair while since the Chapman killing, remember.

She WAS fit to be released and would have been alive to tell the tale the next day had she not met the fiend, an event which could not have been forseen by anyone.

I find your views on this matter not only objectionable but extremely naive.

I have read your column as you know, and I believe I was one of its earliest critics (on the other site). I stand by my earlier judgement that it was pretty much utter hogwash (although nicely written).

Best wishes,
Steve.

Sorry, I just spat some coffee out at my monitor as I read this.

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Can you please explain to me (or anybody else for that matter) how "incredibly drunk" and "considerably under the influence" mean exactly the same thing?

I mean, English was always my best subject at school and I am undertaking a university degree in Journalism, so I should be qualified enough to state that they are NOT one and the same....

I'm tired of correcting your deliberately misleading statements, only to have you repeat the same thing a few posts later or on a different topic. Are you that thick or just that annoying?

Its clear Adam, your inferrence was clear, that you claimed Eddowes was not in a fit state to be released and accused the Police of being neglegent. This with no evidence other than your opinion.

Then again, you've got it somewhere close to the truth of the matter here, thank you!

Smacks of hypocrasy, I have to say. I hope you won't be so quick to point the finger in the future, I hope lesson learned.

Well, until the next issue of Review anyway.... who's turn will it be next time? Wait and see.

By the way, incase you weren't aware, i'm far from being the only one who discredits Macnaghten entirely.

Ally:

Are you still here? What is it, Ally? Are you lonely? Bored?
It really is quite sad to see somebody like yourself lurking on threads like these, wallowing in your own obsoleteness.

Jason:

Hey! How do we know R.J. Lees wasn't at Bishopsgate?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

That a serious question Adam?

That degree was money well spent.

Give it up, its over. Judging the responses made here, and the lack of support for your views, you should realise that you are now holed up in a Berlin bunker with no hope. Almost to a man and woman they disagree with you.

Now, history dictates that when you resort to very personal insults it means you have no substance to debate with.

So contrary to what you believe, I'm very pleased when you insult me.

It shows you have nothing.

Monty

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Well I think it was money well spent. When you're apparently a pre-teenager, and can still have a better understanding of the English language than a man of your vintage, Monty, then surely the career path has already been decided upon.

Perhaps our entire disagreement simply comes down to a misunderstaning over our great lanugage, eh!?

Give it up, its over. Judging the responses made here, and the lack of support for your views, you should realise that you are now holed up in a Berlin bunker with no hope. Almost to a man and woman they disagree with you.

So because 3 or 4 people don't share my views, I should throw it all in, eh? Well, to be honest, I thought about it, but then I realised that such a move would suit you and make you happy, so I decided against it.

By the way, I can assure you that there is plenty of support for that theory and others I have put out there in the past, it's just that some people prefer to converse about it privately so as to avoid the nonsense from people like yourself. Understandable.

Now, history dictates that when you resort to very personal insults it means you have no substance to debate with.

So what you're saying, then, is that your friend Ally has nothing to debate with either?

Maybe we should leave it at that, Monty, it's evident that an agreement isn't coming any time soon.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

No sense, no pain eh?

Sure, the masses support you. Rather than publically support you they do so in private. This to avoid bad ol Monty. Cos I'm a nasty man.

Nothing to do with the fact your arguement is weak and your posting is embarassing, no, its cos they are scared of me.

That's right, there's nothing to debate. That's what I said. Your point was shown to be mere opinion and baseless.

Everyone can see this discourse is over, apart from you. Who, for some perverse reason, seems to enjoy this beating.

However, I do not. You are incapable of defending yourself any longer, so I lay down my gloves and leave you to have the last inevitable word.

Knock yerself out.

Monty

[Ally]

Adam,

You know, I appreciate you enjoy your role as board fool, but get a grip. It is a poor man (and I use the term in the general sense) who when called on his BS goes "I know you are but what am I" and "I'm rubber, your glue". You made statements that were NOT factual. I called you on them and rather than attempting any reasonable debate, you fronted and put up a wall of bullsht and now you are trying to claim that *I * am the one who is starting this?

If you don't even attempt to have a grown up discussion about your ludicrous theories, why should anyone much less me, take you seriously? I have long stated I will argue anything with anyone who does it sensibly, but when you act like a gibbering moron, which appears to be all you are capable of, then I will treat you like the immature boy you seem determined to present yourself as.

Cheers.