Jack the........ Police Officer??

[curious]

as I said, you somehow manage to repress any urge to advice the same things to those who support Kosminski - although you have heard his name innumerably more times than you have heard Lechmereīs.

In conclusion, the latter name tires and annoys you very much more, and you find it called upon to advice those who research Lechmere to get rid of their suspect and get a life.
Kosminski, yes, Tumblety, of course, Grainger, by all means, Druitt, feel welcome, Lechmere, get a life.

Have you ever considered that perhaps the attitude and the manner in which the presenter expresses his/her views is what make the difference?

[Fisherman]

Have you ever considered that perhaps the attitude and the manner in which the presenter expresses his/her views is what make the difference?

Yes, many times. I have also consider that the attitude with which a theory is met, and the manner in which this is expressed, is what governs how the discussion goes to a very large extent.

In the instance at hand, the discussion took a turn that made it useful to make a comparison with what we know about Lechmere, and so I did just that. I did it in a very unemotioinal and positive manner, with the best of intentions - only to have it met with the statement by Mr Evans that he felt he got Lechmere rammed down his throat, and that some suspect-guided posters ought to get rid of their suspects and "get a life".

I could say that I donīt know what you make of all this. But that would not be true, for I DO know what you make of it. You just made that clear.

In the end, it seems that many, many posters prefer to have a brawl instead of an unaffected discussion about Charles Lechmere - that is if there must be any discussion at all. Preferably to some, there should be no further Lechmere discussion at all, it would seem. We are to say as little as possible, in as low a voice as possible, while the TRUE Ripperological discussion concerns itself with suspects having no real evidence pointing to them at all.

So Lechmere makes the "serious" Ripperologists very nervous (they will laugh this off, of course!), and they want him off the table.

Itīs not going to happen, Curious. And if that means that I must walk through a hailstorm of abuse, then walk I will. And I will probably fire away verbally at times myself. And that will quite probably result in the same thing happening that just happened - somebody will say that I need to realize that it is my bad matters that acidifies the situtation, and that I am the one inflaming the discussion. And the fact that I have just been told to get rid of my suspect and get a life does not have any bearing at all on that - it was a justifiable thing to say, and you, Curious, you have nothing whatsoever to complaint about THAT. You want MY manners to improve!

Donīt get me wrong now - I am not whining. I knew this would come along the moment I put my money on Lechmere. I am putting things into perspective, thatīs all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Cross is a convoluted theory.

It relies on personal interpretation and is not, on the whole, a sound theory at all.

In fact it doesn't stand to reason from the point Paul comes across Cross. Man on the No11 bus and all that.

We are given implausible explanations as counter to obvious discrepancies rather than acknowledgement that there are issues which cannot be addressed reasonably.

The 'lady doth' springs to mind.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Maybe it needs to spring to mind on another thread, Monty. You are of course wrong, and I will be happy to prove it to you on the appropriate thread. Just ask.

Fisherman

[Monty]

Christer,

To claim you will prove 'it' to me is just a silly statement, as we both know the theory is built on interpretation rather than fact.

Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

There is no comprehensive damning evidence against Cross. All of that can be reasonably explain.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Christer,

To claim you will prove 'it' to me is just a silly statement, as we both know the theory is built on interpretation rather than fact.

Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

There is no comprehensive damning evidence against Cross. All of that can be reasonably explain.

Monty

... and thatīs the way it goes. Fuzzy talk about how the theroy is not a sound one, faulty statements that we donīt admit that there may be alternative explanations to the details, and you constantly duck out of discussing the matter in depth.

Smoke and mirrors.

... so I will set up the Monty and Fisherman Lechmere thread, and on it, I will answer whatever questions you have and make it very clear that you have nothing to go on.

See you there!

Fisherman

[Monty]

No Christer,

We discussed the issues nigh on a year ago. Over and over and over.

I asked questions then and was either provided with unreasonable answers or my question misinterpreted to avoid an honest response.

You provided nothing then, so what makes you think you can now?

Monty

[Fisherman]

No Christer,

We discussed the issues nigh on a year ago. Over and over and over.

I asked questions then and was either provided with unreasonable answers or my question misinterpreted to avoid an honest response.

You provided nothing then, so what makes you think you can now?

Monty

Unless you ask, how would you know? Come on, the thread is there now, and all shall be revealed. All, Monty!

Which is why I suspect you want nothing to do with such a thread.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

Yes, many times. I have also consider that the attitude with which a theory is met, and the manner in which this is expressed, is what governs how the discussion goes to a very large extent.

And the fact that I have just been told to get rid of my suspect and get a life does not have any bearing at all on that - it was a justifiable thing to say, and you, Curious, you have nothing whatsoever to complaint about THAT. You want MY manners to improve!

Donīt get me wrong now - I am not whining. I knew this would come along the moment I put my money on Lechmere. I am putting things into perspective, thatīs all.

The best,
Fisherman

Good morning,
Well, at least you seem to have considered possibilities. However, in your inimitable way, you arrived at the conclusion anyone who has read the boards knew you would. Your answer made me chuckle.

I doubt that putting your money on Lechmere is the problem.

curious

[Fisherman]

Good morning,
Well, at least you seem to have considered possibilities. However, in your inimitable way, you arrived at the conclusion anyone who has read the boards knew you would. Your answer made me chuckle.

I doubt that putting your money on Lechmere is the problem.

curious

Ah - Iīm glad I gave you a nice chuckle, Curious. Perhaps now you can go back on the thread, see what I said and see what Mr Evans said, and then explain why you thought it was a good idea to speak of MY bad manners?

Then I can have my chuckle. And weīll be good.

Somehow I donīt think you will go about it this way. I wonder why ...?

Fisherman

[Monty]

I did ask Christer,

We all asked straight questions. And received convoluted replies.

You may wish to prove Santayana correct, I already know he is.

Monty
:-)

[Fisherman]

I did ask Christer,

We all asked straight questions. And received convoluted replies.

You may wish to prove Santayana correct, I already know he is.

Monty
:-)

Thereīs a NEW thread for this, Monty. Go there!

... but first, letīs go through the accustomed charade again! I ask you what "convoluted" answers I have given, and you donīt give a straight answer, but instead say that this has been gone over before and you all know how convoluted I was.

Then, after you have once again ducked out, we can move to the Monty and Fisherman thread, where everything can be asked - but wonīt be, where all the answers are at hand - but wonīt be asked for and where the disussion can be put straight - but wonīt be.

The reason? Because people are chicken **** scared of the Lechmere theory, and prefer to try the character assasination method instead of a real discussion. The evidence lies in how many people has the guts to go to the new thread and put straightforward questions. Letīs see, shall we?

Until somebody does, Iīm through with this waste of time.

Over and out,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Actually Monty my dear fellow, I don't recall you posing questions or engaging in debate on Cross/Lechmere issues. You posted on the relevant thread sometimes but not really as part of an exchange of ideas.

The hypocrisy one sees in this field is remarkable.
The cases against Druitt, Kosminsky and Tumblety (to name just three) have massive doses of implausible conjecture running through them like the lettering in a stick of Blackpool rock (Skegness if you prefer).
But it is almost regarded as being rude to point this out.

But they are mentioned as suspects in official sources so they are supposedly more credible? Like it is even half way reasonable to conclude that the police were onto the right man?
The case against Lechmere differs from most others (although it is probably most similar to Hutchinson) as it is the unnoticed local man who features in the investigation but whose behaviour on the crime scene and an examination of that is what largely (but not totally) informs the case.
This is different territory for most 'Ripperologists' - hence the frequent non plussedness encountered. And the raw antagonism from one or two of those who have spent so long examining the overall case from a different perspective.

[Monty]

Your memory is either poor, or selective Ed,

And I agree, there's implausible conjecture in the majority of suspect ripperology, I do not dispute that.

However, contemporary suspects in official files hold some credence as we do not know the full reasons why they were suspected, just that those who were closer to the case than anyone today suspected them. And that is why respect should be paid to their feedback. Not necessarily agreed and most certainly should be questioned.

Does that mean we should place their suspect in higher regard? Absolutely not. Does it make Kosminski a more viable suspect? No. It means suspects at the time were of interest at the time. As Cross does not fit into that category it is clear his actions did not raise suspicions at that time.

Now you, and Christer, can claim Ripperologists are scared of anything new, or are too set in there ways, the same blether Marriott comes out with to fan the flames and draw attention to whatever tinpot theory he is peddling this week, however it doesn't address the issues many have with this Cross theory.

You state the Swanson maginalia shouldn't be accepted until proven kosher yet expect others to swallow the use of the name Cross is an act of guilt.

Now that's hypocrisy.

Monty


Ps Christer, I gave up discussing the Cross theory with you around 9 months ago, have you only just realised that? Mainly due to your incapacity for reasoned debate.

I'm not Chicken **** scared, more bored. However, there is a responsibility to the reader for a balanced presentation of the facts and evidence, not twisted information. So I chip in as I want, when I want.

I'm afraid you will have to deal with that.

[curious]

Somehow I donīt think you will go about it this way. I wonder why ...?

Fisherman

Because when someone will never, ever get it, continuing to attempt a discussion is the biggest waste of time on the planet.

There's a big difference between the art of persuasion and using a sledge hammer to try to beat someone into submission.

People have a a few choices. They can get frustrated and irritated, or they can realize it's a complete and total waste of time, chuckle about how things never change, and move on to something productive and peaceful.

It's the latter choice for me.

Enjoy your Sunday. :-)

curious