Favorite suspect/s?

[Elamarna]

This clinches the whole problem with your debating technique, Steve.

I have never claimed that I have proven that Paul was possibly out of earshot.

I have said that it cannot be ruled out that he was.

Contrary to that, YOU have claimed that he could NOT possibly have been, that he MUST have been within earshot.

And what do you do? YOU accuse ME for having gone too far!

It is beyond dumb. But I thank you for demonstrating it so very clearly.

The issue is that the possability you continually claim, does not exist.

"I have never claimed that I have proven that Paul was possibly out of earshot."

Are you suggesting its only a possability that it is a possability that Paul was out of earshop?

The truth of the debate remains that until the accounts of the two carmen can be challenged that they were togeather, by specific eidence from Mizen saying they are not, there logically can be no possability that were apart and Paul was out of of earshot.

Interesting comment about my debating technique, given that i am merely stating the actual evidence relating to the 3 participents it appears that there is a problem dealing with fact rather than pure speculation.

All the is being demonstrated is a total refusal to face up to the actual evidence on ypur behalf.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

My dear Fish, totally faulty reasoning.

For a totally faulty theory

[Elamarna]

But when it is stated that since Mizen never says they were apart at any time, they simply cannot have been so?

My dear fellow, it seems there is a basic lack of knowledge of how research works.

If something is not reported or recorded it is speculation in that there is no factual support for it.
However if that speculation is contrary to other evidence it fails as a possability unless the other evidence can be shown to be faulty. That is the basis for all serious research in any field.

Then that is a true argument?

No it is a false argument, when there is no actual evidence to supoort it

In the universe where I grew up, when a choice of two options is not decided by the sources, both options remain open.

The issue is that the sources in this case do support one option. There is no source which supports the view you propose.

The sources with Reference to Lechmere and Paul both support the view they are close together and both are within earshot.
The sources for Mizen, never say, as you openly acknowledged above, that the carmen are apart or that either is out of earshot at anytime. Therefore the options are decided by the sources. There is no dispute.

But maybe that is a false argument too?

No that argument is true if we have options which are both supported by the sources, here we do not.
We

I think that the boards could do without such shenanigans, Steve.

Once again, I am merely following tried, tested and universally accepted research methodology. Obviosly I cannot be held responsible for any failings of others in these areas.

Steve

[caz]

On the contrary caz. It seems to be some of the more “Barretts couldn’t have done it” defenders have gotten way too close to the subjects and have such an invested interest in it that it has clouded their judgment beyond repair.

I think I just proved my point, Abby.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The Barrett couldn’t have done it crowd is the worse example of confirmation bias I’ve ever seen. Probably brought on because they got too close, have too much invested in it, and have entrenched themselves so deeply that every possible twist and turn of the facts is put forth to argue against there opponents and hold tight. If friggen Vishnu came down from heaven they would come up with something else.

Can you not see, Abby, that what you say above applies with great hairy knobs on to the "Barretts must've done it" crew, except that they don't know the first thing about these people and what made them tick?

Not a shadow of proof that the diary is in Anne's handwriting or that Mike wrote a single word of the content, or that they had the means or opportunity, but they still must have done it. Melvin Harris didn't believe it, and he was the one who had all those sodding letters by Anne and Mike!! He'd have published examples years ago if he thought they proved anything. He was desperate to kill off the diary when he had his own suspect and ripper book to promote. Too much invested in it, did you say? Don't make me laugh.

It's so similar to the Lechmere theory, because if Nichols was dead before he first saw her, and if the diary was written even a day before Mike or Anne first saw it, both theories bite the dust and all the arguments under the sun can't change anything. The onus is on the believers to prove that Nichols was alive and the diary not yet written into the scrapbook when Lechmere encountered the former and the Barretts the latter.

That's just the way it is. Sorry.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Given that I was responding to Caz, I was defending the "Barretts could have done it" position against the accusation of confirmation bias.

Hi Gareth,

But the 'could have done it' argument relies on proving opportunity. As with Lechmere, he could not have done it if Nichols was already dead or dying before he first saw her. Exactly the same applies to the Barretts if the diary was already done and dusted before they first saw it.

It has nothing to do with my beliefs, it's what I see - namely, the stretching of evidence, sometimes to incredible lengths, in order to paint as sinister a picture as possible of what Cross said or did.

And you haven't seen anyone trying to paint as sinister a picture as possible of what the Barretts said and did? Are you absolutely sure about that?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Do you know how "they" works in English? It isn't necessary to use it before every verb in the same sentence. Thus "... walked on together until they met a policeman and told him what they had seen" and "... walked on together until they met a policeman and (they) told him what they had seen" means the same. The "they" in brackets is entirely optional, but it is fully implicit within the rules of English.

It's quite clear that they walked together, met a policeman together and, together, told him what they had seen. Paul himself confirms that he spoke with Mizen, and there's no reason at all to conclude that either man retreated into the background out of earshot while the other one spoke.

No, Gareth, to make it clear that they BOTH told him what they had seen, it would take the wording "they BOTH told him what they´d seen".

Once the word "both" is left out, we have no confirmation of your suggestion. And even if we had had that word present, we would still be faced with what you yourself speak of as truncated and faulty paper reports from the inquest, different papers reporting differently.

If you don´t like it, learn to live with it.

[Fisherman]

My dear Fish, totally faulty reasoning.

Mizen says he engaged with one man, true but at no point does he say Paul is not present or close by, within earshop. Such is certain inline with the statements of the two carmen, and very inline with the testimony of Lechmere.

There is no twisting of misreprentation on my part.

So again You are very, very wrong. And i am right.


Steve

If you are saying that Mizen at no points says "Paul was out of earshot", then you are correct.

If you think that proves that he WAS within earshot all the time, you are wrong.

And to boot, you ground your ideas on paper reports that vary a lot, one of them stating that Paul said that he sent Lechmere for a policeman.

And then Paul joined him, I suppose? Since they could not possibly have been apart?

Can I ask you a thing? Please don´t call me "dear Christer". It sounds hypocritical in my ears. I´m sure you are everybodys friend, but if you are, it equally applies that I´m sure you will do me this small favour.

[Fisherman]

The issue is that the possability you continually claim, does not exist.

"I have never claimed that I have proven that Paul was possibly out of earshot."

Are you suggesting its only a possability that it is a possability that Paul was out of earshop?

The truth of the debate remains that until the accounts of the two carmen can be challenged that they were togeather, by specific eidence from Mizen saying they are not, there logically can be no possability that were apart and Paul was out of of earshot.

Interesting comment about my debating technique, given that i am merely stating the actual evidence relating to the 3 participents it appears that there is a problem dealing with fact rather than pure speculation.

All the is being demonstrated is a total refusal to face up to the actual evidence on ypur behalf.


Steve

You were the one who produced the tortured meaning including "possibility". What I am saying, and what I will stand by, is that it cannot be proven that Paul was not out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

[Fisherman]

Once again, I am merely following tried, tested and universally accepted research methodology. Obviosly I cannot be held responsible for any failings of others in these areas.

Steve

Yawn, Sadly, saying that "I am merely doing everything perfectly right and along all the accepted guidelines" apparently only means that we can reach all the wrong conclusions that way. Others have tried that angle too, and ended up just as emptyhanded.

Go ahead and praise yourself, by all means, but don´t expect me to agree with the lacking conclusions you arrive at.

[Elamarna]

If you are saying that Mizen at no points says "Paul was out of earshot", then you are correct.

If you think that proves that he WAS within earshot all the time, you are wrong.


How utterly rediculious and tiedious that the arguments appear not to be read or understood
Given that we have reports which clearly say Paul was in earshot, and none to the contrary there is NO NEED to prove he was within earshot.
To propose a theory he was not within earshot, one needs to establish that the accounts of the carmen are faulty. Such has been done and i tend to think cannot be done, there is no such evidence.



And to boot, you ground your ideas on paper reports that vary a lot, one of them stating that Paul said that he sent Lechmere for a policeman.

And then Paul joined him, I suppose? Since they could not possibly have been apart?

yes there are inconsistences, particularly with the Lloyds account. However the inquest testimony of both Lechmere and Paul support that they went togeather. If we are about to give up on the sources in favour of imagination we are poor researchers
How about we disregard all of the Lloyds account, including the 3.45 timing?


Can I ask you a thing? Please don´t call me "dear Christer". It sounds hypocritical in my ears. I´m sure you are everybodys friend, but if you are, it equally applies that I´m sure you will do me this small favour.

Of course i will my dear fellow if it bothers you so much.


Steve

[Elamarna]

You were the one who produced the tortured meaning including "possibility". What I am saying, and what I will stand by, is that it cannot be proven that Paul was not out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

Such unfortunately is untrue until such time that the accounts of the carmen can be proved to be at fault.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yawn, Sadly, saying that "I am merely doing everything perfectly right and along all the accepted guidelines" apparently only means that we can reach all the wrong conclusions that way. Others have tried that angle too, and ended up just as emptyhanded.

Go ahead and praise yourself, by all means, but don´t expect me to agree with the lacking conclusions you arrive at.

Is this really suggestion that we replace serious research with personal feelings and gut feelings?
Of course if we do accept such methods then anything is possible, facts and truth are lost in favour of faith. Creationism is a prime example of such thinking.

Such does all research a great disservice.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

And you haven't seen anyone trying to paint as sinister a picture as possible of what the Barretts said and did? Are you absolutely sure about that?

I don't propose to discuss the diary on this thread, Caz.

[Kattrup]

Once again, I am merely following tried, tested and universally accepted research methodology. Obviosly I cannot be held responsible for any failings of others in these areas.

Steve

As usual, you’re absolutely correct, but as we’ve seen before, Fisherman’s posts show a complete lack of and disregard for methodology.

One reason why it’s perhaps best to just avoid Lechmere-threads: you’re arguing with someone who appears not to know or care what constitutes a valid argument.