Tweet
Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
View Post
And before you complain, which you will because it’s your hobby, it’s not against Forum rules to respond to posts that weren’t originally aimed at you. So I’ll respond.
You also alleged that I 'piled assumption upon assumption' but, as I responded, in some detail, I had in fact made reasonable deductions and explained how I arrived at them.
And I’ve pointed out numerous times that there is no issue with anyone making deductions/interpretations. The issues arise when a single poster assumes that they are infallible and throws a fit every time someone disagrees and posits an alternative deduction/interpretation. Most things in this case have more than one possible interpretation and you shouldn’t expect every other poster to accept yours as some kind of benchmark.
You claimed there are 'multiple possible explanations' for the murderer's cutting of the apron in two, other than the one I gave, but when I asked you whether you could provide a more plausible explanation than mine, you made no reply.
Its not a case of being ‘more plausible.’ Again it’s a case of possible alternatives. The suggestion that the killer, acknowledging that he wouldn’t have time for any clean up in Mitre Square, took away a piece of cloth so that he could check himself over and then clean up away from the crime scene, is both plausible and possible. No less plausible than your preferred explanation. It’s also possible that he might have cut himself in Mitre Square and used the cloth to wrap a wound. Maybe he took it as some kind of souvenir, intending to give it so some woman as a handkerchief so that he could gain some kind of thrill. But when he got near to a light he saw that it was covered in blood and faeces so he threw it away. Who knows. There are alternatives but none can be verified.
Any outside observer reading our exchange would doubtless conclude that a strange game is being played on this forum.
And it’s only started since you began posting.
In addition to being accused routinely of making assumptions instead of deductions from the evidence, I am being accused of making statements for which I have no evidence and - by implication - for which there is no evidence.
Correct. You have no evidence about the coat and yet rather than admit this you continue to wriggle.
Yet, time and again, I am proven right.
Perhaps you should try and get control of that ego?
You weren’t right about the coat. You weren’t right when you accused me of saying 8 things that were said by someone else.
Any such observer would rightly conclude that all the assumptions are being made by my critics - and that those assumptions are demonstrably unfounded, as your silence confirmed.
And of course this is why you have so many people rushing to agree with you…….don’t you? Oh….no you don’t. Not a single person.
As for your comments above:
Joseph Lawende was considered by the police to be an important and reliable witness and royally treated by them.
And that’s why the Police began looking for a sailor. Oh…..hold on…..no they didn’t did they?
His description of the suspect was evidently considered valuable, or else it would not have been withheld at the inquest.
Of course it was valued. It was hardly cctv footage though. We all know that witnesses can be fallible on identification, especially at night under a gas lamp by a man who was paying little attention.
I suggest your point about poor lighting is not valid: Lawende could judge the colour of the man's moustache, the colour and pattern of his jacket, the colour of his neckerchief, and the colour of his cap.
This is woeful reasoning. He ‘judged’ the colour but we have no way of verifying if he was correct or not. Think about it. And, despite your refusal to accept the fact, lighting affects our perception of colour.
It is hardly believable that the man was bathed in light while the woman, who had her hand on his chest, was enveloped in gloom.
You do realise that this was 1888 don’t you. Have you ever stood near a gas lamp. It’s hardly a lighthouse.
There was not a big enough time gap for someone else to have murdered Eddowes.
This is simply untrue. The man could have moved on at 1.35 and Eddowes could have entered Church Passage to pass through Mitre Square where she meets her killer coming from the opposite direction.
We had Trevor Marriott yesterday questioning whether the murderer had time to excise Eddowes' kidney, so how could Eddowes have parted from the man she was so obviously interested in, found another man, and that man still have had time to excise her kidney - and yes, I do believe that all the excisions were done by the murderer.
See above. She could still have met her killer at 1.35 or 1.36. If the man walked away as soon as Lawende passed Kate could have met her killer 20 seconds later. We simply don’t know despite your assumptions and leaps of faith.
The police themselves did acknowledge at the time the lack of time for someone other than the man seen by Lawende to have committed the murder.
If they did (and I can’t recall this fact being stated explicitly - though it might have been) it doesn’t mean that they can’t have been wrong unless they took the same ‘infallibility pills’ that you do.
As I stated previously, I believe the murderer was living in accommodation in Spitalfields throughout the period in which the murders occurred and did not take his trophies back to a family, wife, relatives, friends or colleagues.
And you might be correct but it’s not correct just because you’ve said it. He might not have lived in Spitalfields. Any suggestion that this isn’t possible is simply wrong.
My reading of the arrival and departure dates of ships convinced me beyond any doubt that the murderer could not have been coming and going on any ships.
) and, to take the time to write it he must have wanted it to be seen, so why so small? What is the difficulty factor of writing in chalk on a brick wall in cursive in the dark with the capitals only 3/4" high. Sounds more like a daylight task which wasn't washed off because it was too small for most people to notice?
Comment