Jack's Escape Route?

[FISHY1118]

I quote the serious points I made in # 316:


That's very far-fetched.

I wrote that Eddowes could hardly have been murdered by anyone other than the man seen with her by Lawende.

You responded:

Wrong . Clearly you dont know what your talking about if you believe this .


Anyone from outside this forum would likely wonder why my comment should receive such an aggressive response and also how, when I responded:


If it is so clear, why cannot you present a reasoned argument instead of merely issuing an insult?

you could possibly add:

I dont have to present an arguement its just a no brainer

which implies that there is no need to present arguments - only to ridicule and rubbish ones presented by one particular member - me.


You now write:

Eddowes leaves the man she was seen with by Lawende, [insert any 100 reasons /excuses that a whore and her john might not agree on]

That is not credible.

The woman had her hand on the man's chest.

She needed money.

There is no reason to suppose that they broke up.


You then write:

Eddowes walks back though dukes passage

There are two things wrong with what you have written: first, there was not a passage called Duke's Passage.

Secondly, if you mean Church Passage, you have no way of knowing that she had come from Mitre Square itself.

You are making an assumption which is unsupported by the evidence.

There is no reason to think that Eddowes would have gone to Mitre Square unless she were already in the company of a potential customer.


You then write:

arrive just at the corner next ot mitre street,

Again, there is no reason why Eddowes would have gone from Church Passage to the Mitre Street corner of Mitre Square if she had broken up with the man seen with her.


You then write:

where the killer attacks her and kills her then leaves via Mitre stree exit . Its not rocket science !

It isn't any kind of science, but pure speculation which runs counter to the evidence.

It assumes that the murderer is lying in wait at the Mitre Street corner of the Square for a victim who may never come.

It assumes that the murderer is unconcerned that while waiting there, Pc Watkins will be arriving roughly every 14 minutes and might wonder what the man is doing alone in Mitre Square in the early hours of the morning.

It assumes that if the man hangs around alone in the Square and arouses suspicion, he is unconcerned about being questioned or searched.


I am waiting to see whether the host of members - including Elamarna and Herlock Shomes - who have repeatedly accused me of making assumptions (when actually I had made reasonable deductions from evidence) are going to point out that you have made invalid 'assumption after assumption'.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



All you have offered to counter my reasoned arguments is five posts filled with ridicule and not one reasoned argument.

What is the purpose of this forum if instead of being a place where ideas are discussed and exchanged, it is simply a place to ridicule what you call 'newbies'?

Oh now were using pretty colors hmmm i little desperate but it to be expected i guess.

Again there was no need for any arguement, it was a silly comment to begin with one which i made my point in explaining to you . However you went off on some silly rant that proved nothing what you said about Lawende or anythnig that disproved that another person could have killed Eddowes .

Enough now, youve made yourself look even less credable than when you started that reckless comment by trying to defend it .

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's very far-fetched.

I wrote that Eddowes could hardly have been murdered by anyone other than the man seen with her by Lawende.

You responded:

Wrong . Clearly you dont know what your talking about if you believe this .


Anyone from outside this forum would likely wonder why my comment should receive such an aggressive response and also how, when I responded:


If it is so clear, why cannot you present a reasoned argument instead of merely issuing an insult?

you could possibly add:

I dont have to present an arguement its just a no brainer

which implies that there is no need to present arguments - only to ridicule and rubbish ones presented by one particular member - me.


You now write:

Eddowes leaves the man she was seen with by Lawende, [insert any 100 reasons /excuses that a whore and her john might not agree on]

That is not credible.

The woman had her hand on the man's chest.

She needed money.

There is no reason to suppose that they broke up.


You then write:

Eddowes walks back though dukes passage

There are two things wrong with what you have written: first, there was not a passage called Duke's Passage.

Secondly, if you mean Church Passage, you have no way of knowing that she had come from Mitre Square itself.

You are making an assumption which is unsupported by the evidence.

There is no reason to think that Eddowes would have gone to Mitre Square unless she were already in the company of a potential customer.


You then write:

arrive just at the corner next ot mitre street,

Again, there is no reason why Eddowes would have gone from Church Passage to the Mitre Street corner of Mitre Square if she had broken up with the man seen with her.


You then write:

where the killer attacks her and kills her then leaves via Mitre stree exit . Its not rocket science !

It isn't any kind of science, but pure speculation which runs counter to the evidence.

It assumes that the murderer is lying in wait at the Mitre Street corner of the Square for a victim who may never come.

It assumes that the murderer is unconcerned that while waiting there, Pc Watkins will be arriving roughly every 14 minutes and might wonder what the man is doing alone in Mitre Square in the early hours of the morning.

It assumes that if the man hangs around alone in the Square and arouses suspicion, he is unconcerned about being questioned or searched.


I am waiting to see whether the host of members - including Elamarna and Herlock Shomes - who have repeatedly accused me of making assumptions (when actually I had made reasonable deductions from evidence) are going to point out that you have made invalid 'assumption after assumption'.

The only comment that I’ll make on this point (again) is that we should be wary of being too confident that we can accurately reverse engineer what went on at any murder scene. We can’t know what the killer or victim where thinking or intending. It’s my opinion that the odds strongly favour than the man seen by Lawende and co was her killer but it can’t be impossible that, like Kelly with Hutchinson, the man that she spoke to might have been someone that she was acquainted with and so she tried to borrow money or persuade him into ‘business’ but he either wasn’t interested or he had no money. Then the killer approached her from the same direction the Lawende had walked? Maybe the killer had been watching and saw her encounter. Or maybe, after the man walked away she headed through Mitre Square via Church Passage where she ran into her killer who entered from one of the other two entrances?

We can’t know for certain but that Lawende’s men was the killer has to be a strong favourite as her killer imo.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well stop making your own silly flippant statemets like the Lawende one and you just might get taken a little more seriously , but for now just stop wasting my time .

I have not made any silly or flippant statements and you have not quoted any to support what you claim.

What makes you think you are going to be taken seriously when you have not made one serious comment since my post # 316 and have posted nothing but ridicule and flippant comments?

Are you aware that this forum is open to public scrutiny?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There was really no need to, you didnt have an arguement to start with after that silly comment .

I quote the serious points I made in # 316:


That's very far-fetched.

I wrote that Eddowes could hardly have been murdered by anyone other than the man seen with her by Lawende.

You responded:

Wrong . Clearly you dont know what your talking about if you believe this .


Anyone from outside this forum would likely wonder why my comment should receive such an aggressive response and also how, when I responded:


If it is so clear, why cannot you present a reasoned argument instead of merely issuing an insult?

you could possibly add:

I dont have to present an arguement its just a no brainer

which implies that there is no need to present arguments - only to ridicule and rubbish ones presented by one particular member - me.


You now write:

Eddowes leaves the man she was seen with by Lawende, [insert any 100 reasons /excuses that a whore and her john might not agree on]

That is not credible.

The woman had her hand on the man's chest.

She needed money.

There is no reason to suppose that they broke up.


You then write:

Eddowes walks back though dukes passage

There are two things wrong with what you have written: first, there was not a passage called Duke's Passage.

Secondly, if you mean Church Passage, you have no way of knowing that she had come from Mitre Square itself.

You are making an assumption which is unsupported by the evidence.

There is no reason to think that Eddowes would have gone to Mitre Square unless she were already in the company of a potential customer.


You then write:

arrive just at the corner next ot mitre street,

Again, there is no reason why Eddowes would have gone from Church Passage to the Mitre Street corner of Mitre Square if she had broken up with the man seen with her.


You then write:

where the killer attacks her and kills her then leaves via Mitre stree exit . Its not rocket science !

It isn't any kind of science, but pure speculation which runs counter to the evidence.

It assumes that the murderer is lying in wait at the Mitre Street corner of the Square for a victim who may never come.

It assumes that the murderer is unconcerned that while waiting there, Pc Watkins will be arriving roughly every 14 minutes and might wonder what the man is doing alone in Mitre Square in the early hours of the morning.

It assumes that if the man hangs around alone in the Square and arouses suspicion, he is unconcerned about being questioned or searched.


I am waiting to see whether the host of members - including Elamarna and Herlock Shomes - who have repeatedly accused me of making assumptions (when actually I had made reasonable deductions from evidence) are going to point out that you have made invalid 'assumption after assumption'.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



All you have offered to counter my reasoned arguments is five posts filled with ridicule and not one reasoned argument.

What is the purpose of this forum if instead of being a place where ideas are discussed and exchanged, it is simply a place to ridicule what you call 'newbies'?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You know full well as I do that the heart was not taken away

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Doctor just forgot about it then.

[FISHY1118]

You wrote: Its worth repeating for a good laugh i guess.

That is not a serious comment, but an entirely flippant one.

Well stop making your own silly flippant statemets like the Lawende one and you just might get taken a little more seriously , but for now just stop wasting my time .

[FISHY1118]

You just confirmed that you cannot counter my reasoned arguments with reason.

You resort entirely to ridicule.

There was really no need to, you didnt have an arguement to start with after that silly comment .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I just did .

You wrote: Its worth repeating for a good laugh i guess.

That is not a serious comment, but an entirely flippant one.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You didnt refute anything ,you just made a a silly statement to start with and you got caught out , no matter its a common newbi mistake , youll catch on . Or not.

You just confirmed that you cannot counter my reasoned arguments with reason.

You resort entirely to ridicule.

[FISHY1118]

Can't you think of something serious to say?

I just did .

[FISHY1118]

I don't think so.

And I think anyone reading our exchanges will note that whereas I presented an argument, point by point, refuting what you had written. what you have written amounts to nothing more than ridicule.

You didnt refute anything ,you just made a a silly statement to start with and you got caught out , no matter its a common newbi mistake , youll catch on . Or not.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

''she could hardly have been murdered by anyone other than the man seen with her by Lawende.''

Its worth repeating for a good laugh i guess.

Can't you think of something serious to say?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Other than the fact I made a mistake with church passage , you have seriously got to be kidding . Any wonder herlock is pulling his hair out with you . What nonsense you write .

I don't think so.

And I think anyone reading our exchanges will note that whereas I presented an argument, point by point, refuting what you had written. what you have written amounts to nothing more than ridicule.

[FISHY1118]

''she could hardly have been murdered by anyone other than the man seen with her by Lawende.''

Its worth repeating for a good laugh i guess.

[FISHY1118]

Other than the fact I made a mistake with church passage , you have seriously got to be kidding . Any wonder herlock is pulling his hair out with you . What nonsense you write .