Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman
    I never said the two did not arrive at Corbetts Court together. I said that Paul may have walked ahead and Lechmere may have caught up.
    Yet more supposition to make it appear that Cross spoke to Mizen alone.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Robert View Post
      So Paul was part of the scam, and stood aside while Crossmere lied to Mizen. Then Paul gives a newspaper interview in which he places himself at centre stage. But that's OK as far as Paul's concerned, because he wasn't on oath to the journalist. And it was only a murder investigation - no big deal.
      You are not speaking under oath when you speak to a paper, I´m afraid. Nor do we know if the journalist was responsible for starring Paul.

      Leave it, Robert. It will get you nowhere.

      Comment


      • . t is common procedure to do it this way when presenting a case against somebody in a docu.
        Yes because they arent seeking to present a balanced view of the case setting out the points for and against CL. They are saying “we believe CL to be the ripper and this is why.”

        Noone is suggesting that all documentaries are impartial. Clearly they are not. The name thing was mentioned for example but no effort was made to show why its an irrelevant point.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          Yet more supposition to make it appear that Cross spoke to Mizen alone.
          I am not supposing it. Don´t make dimwitted statements like that. I am saying that it is one of many possibilities that this happened.

          Comment


          • Sorry, guys, off to (another) party now!

            You can use the time to sit down and convine each other how much more clever you are than I am, and make nice little jokes about me until I return.

            But if you do, prepare to have your naughty bums spanked.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              You are not speaking under oath when you speak to a paper, I´m afraid. Nor do we know if the journalist was responsible for starring Paul.

              Leave it, Robert. It will get you nowhere.
              Hes right Robert. It will get you nowhere
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Oh, I see, the journalist got it all wrong.

                It wasn't you, Fish, was it?

                Comment


                • Sorry, guys, off to (another) party now!

                  This time lay off the wine.

                  Comment


                  • . Sorry, guys, off to (another) party now!
                    On Fantasy Island i presume,
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      He can make a very fair judgment if the evidence warrants a trial, before the defence has presented it´s case.
                      It can only be fair if the briefing information he had to work with was accurate and comprehensive. We're all very aware of the divergent impressions we can get from different press reports, for example.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • .
                        I have very good reason to suggest that Paul may have been out of earshot.
                        I think youve mis-spoken there Fish. What you meant to say was “ I have a very good reason to need to believe that Paul may have been out of earshot.”

                        No problem. An easy mistake to make
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          I am not supposing it. Don´t make dimwitted statements like that. I am saying that it is one of many possibilities that this happened.
                          It's still a supposition, nonetheless, and one to which most people wouldn't give a second thought unless they wanted to paint Cross in a suspicious light.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            It can only be fair if the briefing information he had to work with was accurate and comprehensive. We're all very aware of the divergent impressions we can get from different press reports, for example.
                            I don't see how anyone could debate this very obvious and sensible point Gareth? How can so much weight be put on an opinion that has only heard one side of a debate. It might be acceptable form for a tv documentary but not for a serious debate on the topic as a whole. How much weight would Fish give if one of us placed the case for the defence to a barrister who concluded “ theres nothing here that points to his guilt?” Hed surely, and rightly, point out that it was a judgement based one-sided opinions only.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Im not a Barrister but how much weight would a judge and jury place on a suggestion that relies on “well its not completely impossible” to lend it legitimacy?
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                              Comment


                              • I feel like Captain Mainwaring listening to Jones's 'realms of fantasy' ideas.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X