Lack of Threads

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: Well why ask then? To answer I was forced into making it my business.

No, John, you made it your business the second you wrote that you believed you know what people out on the boards think of me. I had nothing to do with making it your business. I you had not brought it up, so much the better - but unfortunately, you did.

Considering how long you have been posting on the site, reading posts etc I would have thought you'd have a fair idea about what people on the site thought of you. Obviously I was wrong on that point.

No, you were not. I was not asking what people think of me, I was asking what YOU think people think of me.

I suggest getting back to the subject of the thread.

I would have suggested never to leave it - but never got the chance. Of course we should return to the subject of the thread, and - if I may suggest it - never again use the board space for things like this.

[John Wheat]

There is no difference in how you make it your business to guess on peoples behalf what they think of me. I think it is unsound, quite simply.

Well why ask then? To answer I was forced into making it my business. Considering how long you have been posting on the site, reading posts etc I would have thought you'd have a fair idea about what people on the site thought of you. Obviously I was wrong on that point. I suggest getting back to the subject of the thread.

Cheers John

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=GUT;380345]

Long ago.

In fact if Pierre gave us a name now, I'd want a lot more before I even looked at the name.

The one thing he has convinced me if, it that he knows very little in spite of his claimed brilliance in almost any field that comes up.

I bet it's Van Gogh. Or Le Pétomane the french flatulist. Tell me it's him Pierre!

Columbo

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

Other policemen were raked over the coals, like for example Alfred Long and Abberline/Spratling when admitting that they had not spoken to more than a fraction of the Bucks Row dwellers.
Mizen was not reprimanded in any way.

Why would Mizens superiors not trust their own man, who had certainly taken down the events of the night in his notebook and who was therefore likely to have gotten it right?

If there is the certainty that Mizen has clearly said or, better still, wrote down that he met two people instead of one, and that Lechmere indeed and literally told him that there was a policemen waiting for him, instead than just Mizen somehow getting that this must have been the case, i would like to know it. But, at least for me, to say that the certainty is there because the police did not reprimand him, is not enough.

[Fisherman]

Well you did ask twice Fisherman. Its just the impression I get. I never said people dislike you. I just said it probably wouldn't be positive there is a difference.

Cheers John

There is no difference in how you make it your business to guess on peoples behalf what they think of me. I think it is unsound, quite simply.

[John Wheat]

So you could be wrong, eh? You are simply guessing away, is that it? And that does not stop you from concluding that people dislike me...?

That´s very interesting. And quite revealing. Thank you, John.

Well you did ask twice Fisherman. Its just the impression I get. I never said people dislike you. I just said it probably wouldn't be positive there is a difference.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Frankly, i think that the depositions of all the characters involved in that night are way too much convoluted to take for granted that some are more believable than others for whatever reason. I would rather think that if the police apparently did not consider Lechmere (or Paul, for what matters) as a solid suspect, it's possibly because they were not sure that Mizen was to be completely trusted in remembering exactly what happened and what was told.

Other policemen were raked over the coals, like for example Alfred Long and Abberline/Spratling when admitting that they had not spoken to more than a fraction of the Bucks Row dwellers.
Mizen was not reprimanded in any way.

Why would Mizens superiors not trust their own man, who had certainly taken down the events of the night in his notebook and who was therefore likely to have gotten it right?

I am not saying that you are wrong - on the contrary, if they had believed a 100 per cent that Mizen must have gotten it right, they would probably have delved deeper into the carmans story. But I think the view that Mizen would somehow feel that he had to cover his behind is nonsense. He did nothing wrong, and he was never reprimanded, end of.

Whether or not we can "take for granted" that some of the actors in the drama were more truthful than others is an open question. I am actually not saying that we must trust a seasoned PC with an excellent service record over a carman who did not present himself by the name he otherwise used in official contexts. I could, and I would have a fair point, but I don´t. I am instead pointing to how there is a long chain of anomalies connected to Charles Lechmere that seems to point to him lying about his role.

If these matters had all been crystal clear, the case would have been closed. As it is, the door must be kept ajar, but Lechmere nevertheless remains the best bid there is for the killers role.

And that is to an extent due to how he was found alone with a freshly killed victim, which was what I tried to explain to you in my last, long post. For some reason, you seemingly chose to avoid that topic?

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

This post is a good starting point for a pedagogical exercise...

Frankly, i think that the depositions of all the characters involved in that night are way too much convoluted to take for granted that some are more believable than others for whatever reason. I would rather think that if the police apparently did not consider Lechmere (or Paul, for what matters) as a solid suspect, it's possibly because they were not sure that Mizen was to be completely trusted in remembering exactly what happened and what was told.

[Fisherman]

To be honest Fisherman l doubt the majority of people on this site would be particularly positive about what they think of you. I could of course be wrong and I'd put money on many thinking you were misguided.

Cheers John

So you could be wrong, eh? You are simply guessing away, is that it? And that does not stop you from concluding that people dislike me...?

That´s very interesting. And quite revealing. Thank you, John.

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;380344]

Dear Colombo,

My understand is that Pierre is still waiting on one piece of data, which will close the case, and in his words:

"the small field of ripperology may be destroyed."


However I believe we were in a similar position when he first posted


"There is only some very sparse data I need for this and it is probably not impossible to find".


Unfortunately if it is some sort of joke, it stopped being funny long ago, did it not?

So I guess we will be waiting for some considerable time to see if he publishes a name. by which time most will have lost interest, if they have not already done so.


cheers

Steve

Long ago.

In fact if Pierre gave us a name now, I'd want a lot more before I even looked at the name.

The one thing he has convinced me if, it that he knows very little in spite of his claimed brilliance in almost any field that comes up.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Columbo;380332]

Comments in red above. You should know these things as a historian. by the way what happened to your suspect you never produced? I take that was an April Fool's joke?

Columbo

Dear Colombo,

My understand is that Pierre is still waiting on one piece of data, which will close the case, and in his words:

"the small field of ripperology may be destroyed."


However I believe we were in a similar position when he first posted


"There is only some very sparse data I need for this and it is probably not impossible to find".


Unfortunately if it is some sort of joke, it stopped being funny long ago, did it not?

So I guess we will be waiting for some considerable time to see if he publishes a name. by which time most will have lost interest, if they have not already done so.


cheers

Steve

[John Wheat]

John Wheat!

You have not answered my question relating to your claim "as for the surrounding World the majority of this site well I'm sure you know what they think of you."

What is it people think of me? I would like you to expand on this! Sounds fascinating...

To be honest Fisherman l doubt the majority of people on this site would be particularly positive about what they think of you. I could of course be wrong and I'd put money on many thinking you were misguided.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

You're right on that John, and the ones who would be the unhappiest are the ones making money off this case.

Personally if anyone could be proven conclusively of being the Ripper I would jump for joy and then read the threads disputing it. That would be interesting!

Columbo

To Columbo

Yes I think many of those that have profited from the case would not be pleased. I also think those that favour the multiple murderers theories would also be annoyed. However there would of course be a number of people that would be pleased the case had been solved. I hope that on this site the majority would be pleased but I really don't know if that would actually be the case.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

John Wheat!

You have not answered my question relating to your claim "as for the surrounding World the majority of this site well I'm sure you know what they think of you."

What is it people think of me? I would like you to expand on this! Sounds fascinating...

[Fisherman]

Pierre:

there where at least five murders:
X X X X X

You only have sparse data for:
X

So how come you say Lechmere killed:
X X X X X

A/ I do not say that Lechmere killed anybody - I say that he is the best bid there is for the Nichols murder and the probable killer.

B/ I am also saying that if we identify somebody as the best suspect for the murder of any of the women involved in the Ripper series, then that suspect must by way of extension also be the best bid for all the Ripper murders.

C/ I am also pointing out that Lechmere had geographical ties to all the Ripper murder sites.