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

[Fisherman]

That is simply a lie Christer,

An out and out lie.

Monty

Could you be a bit more specific? I have no wish to lie about anybody or anyone. But I need to see what it is you refer to before I can apologize/negate/comment/clarify or whatever my reaction will be.

The post of mine closest to yours chronographically speaking is the one where I say that nobody debates the Lechmere issue. Is that the one you refer to? Or is it something else?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

That is simply a lie Christer,

An out and out lie.

Monty

[Wickerman]

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.

Could it be that you are attempting to attain a level of recognition that simply does not exist?
None of those suspects excel in any way, none can be viewed as 'superior', the best you may achieve is to equal their level - but how far in the future that point may be is hard to determine.

[Fisherman]

...and of course, nobody debates the Lechmere issue.

MAJOR surprise.

Fisherman

[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

Your first paragraph has a lot going for it.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I chip in as I want, when I want.

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

I deal with whatever comes my way. Always did, always will.

And nothing ever does from you.

So basically, itīs easy.

By the way, Edward is correct. Search the threads as you may, you wonīt find three pertinent questions about Lechmere, posed by you. You will, however, find heaps of other things from your pen.

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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