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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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]

I obviously touched a nerve. Advice here is free. Do you have to accept it? Of course you don't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course they are, and I stated mine. Do people get worn down and tired of the constant and repetitive trailing out of the opinion of others? Of course they do. Do they have to read it? Of course they don't. And I rarely do, but when I find I am assailed by the repeat of exactly the same ideas and opinions I have read in the past, more than once, I can't resist making acerbic comments. Live with it.

Touched a nerve? No really. I would rather say you surprised me a bit, since you normally donīt resort to these "acerbic comments".

"Get rid of your suspect and get a life". Thatīs not the kind of stuff you built your reputation on, exactly. And, 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.

I concur with much of what you otherwise say:
Nobody has to accept the advice handed out here. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Nobody has to read the threads they dislike. And you rarely read the Lechmere threads, I concur with that too - it is obvious, even.

As for your advice to "live with it", regarding you "acerbic comments", that is precisely what I am doing. And that is because you force me to. If they were not there, that particular problem would not be there either. If it was as acceptable to promote Lechmere as Kosminski, Tumblety, Grainger, Druitt etcetera, you would probably not work up the gastric acid that results in the acerbic comments in the first place.

Thanks for the exchange,
Fisherman

[Ben]

So long as they have no evidence to the contrary the police will treat all witnesses equally.

No, Jon.

That is not the case. That has never, ever been the case.

A competent investigator will assess evidence on other important factors besides the issue of corroboration, or lack thereof. Is it convincing? Does it add up? Was it provided in a statement form and/or at the inquest? You can't seriously be arguing that all evidence must be accorded an equal degree of believability regardless of content and provenance?

As her claim to see Blotchy was not confirmed by anyone else, and, as her testimony conflicts with that given by Prater, and, that she actually contradicts herself within her own statement - clearly Cox's statement is nothing close to "reliable".

But I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated any of that. What you've been calling "contradictions" are demonstrably nothing of the sort. No evidence that she "contradicts herself within her own statement". No reason to consider Prater's testimony more reliable, and certainly no reason to discard Blotchy simply because nobody else saw him enter Kelly's room. Abby's position is entirely sustained by the evidence.

As for your accusation that I'm "emotional" and the "schoolyard bully", I'd be grateful if you could direct me to "bullying" parts of my first post addressed to you on this thread - #85. All I did was stress the importance of other factors, besides the issue of "corroboration", that may determine the police treatment of witness accounts, and I did so politely. But you responded with:

"I hope you are not trying to take us down this dead-end path again. Your false premise is totally exposed."

Which, besides being wrong, is quite a haughtily dismissive and annoying thing to say.

Less of that, and I'm sure we can keep Hutchy hostilities down to a minimum.

Have a great weekend yourself.

[Robert]

Hi Mike

It's this :

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=278486#post278486

You are the lucky winner!

[The Good Michael]

Mike, did you see my PM?

Yes Robert. I'm not sure what it refers to. I will email Joe however. Thanks. I should have responded.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Look, the police took Cox seriously as a witness - this is an unarguable reality.

Yes they did, along with Maxwell, Malcolm (Stride), Hutchinson, Kennedy, etc. Whomever offered their statement to the police, it was taken down. So long as they have no evidence to the contrary the police will treat all witnesses equally.

But I'm more interested in your reasons for dismissing her evidence.

I'm not dismissing her evidence. At this late date we are in no position to say whether Cox told the complete truth or, was confused as to the times. All we can do is compare what she said with the statements of others, and make note of contradictions.

The only reason we ended up talking about Cox was because it was claimed by Abby that Cox's evidence was more reliable.
As her claim to see Blotchy was not confirmed by anyone else, and, as her testimony conflicts with that given by Prater, and, that she actually contradicts herself within her own statement - clearly Cox's statement is nothing close to "reliable".

Damn it, Jon, you got me there! Since you've clearly seen right through me, and figured out that I'm just a mad Hutchinson zealot, you'd better keep bickering with me then, and give me the excuse I crave to "make another issue about his credibility".

Many a true word spoken in jest, eh?
How often have you tried to stifle a discussion by saying how you cannot tolerate what is being said (my last count was to three different members), that certain opinions expressed "drive you up the wall" (so to speak).

It might be worth pointing out that a message board like this is not the place for anyone who cannot control their emotions. The schoolyard bully attitude only serves to alienate members from the discussion. So if we could retire the Mad Anti-Hutchinson Zealot from future discussions and at the same time pay more attention to 'what' is being discussed rather than the 'why' it is being discussed (ie; not every argument has an agenda), then I'm sure the atmosphere on some Casebook threads would improve measurably.

Have a great weekend.

[Robert]

Mike, did you see my PM?

[The Good Michael]

I obviously touched a nerve. Advice here is free. Do you have to accept it? Of course you don't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course they are, and I stated mine. Do people get worn down and tired of the constant and repetitive trailing out of the opinion of others? Of course they do. Do they have to read it? Of course they don't. And I rarely do, but when I find I am assailed by the repeat of exactly the same ideas and opinions I have read in the past, more than once, I can't resist making acerbic comments. Live with it.

This is why I hardly post anymore... only when something irritates me. Inevitably, it is the folks always popping up to support their pet theories that drive me to that. Not their fault. Really it is mine for letting nonsense get the better of me.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Advice

I obviously touched a nerve. Advice here is free. Do you have to accept it? Of course you don't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course they are, and I stated mine. Do people get worn down and tired of the constant and repetitive trailing out of the opinion of others? Of course they do. Do they have to read it? Of course they don't. And I rarely do, but when I find I am assailed by the repeat of exactly the same ideas and opinions I have read in the past, more than once, I can't resist making acerbic comments. Live with it.

[Ben]

I'm saying much the same as Christer has said, and what the police knew to be true. That streetwalkers are among the most unreliable of witnesses.

Look, the police took Cox seriously as a witness - this is an unarguable reality. For the Dew-gooders out there, reflect that old Walter gave her evidence the thumbs up, even going so far as to venture an opinion that her Blotchy suspect was the actual ripper. He had obviously remembered that while the Astrak-hunt was off (for reasons undisclosed to him), a sustained interest in Cox's evidence meant that Blotchy-bothering was still encouraged.

But I'm more interested in your reasons for dismissing her evidence. In addition to mentioning a couple of "contradictions" that were nothing of the sort, you've decided to throw out her evidence because you say she represents the "lowest of the low", but you didn't specify in what sense, and nor did you explain why having a lowly social status means we should trust her less.

Incidentally, unless we wish to engage in some rather silly pedantry, she was simply saying that she popped in and out of her home "around 1.00am" to warm her hands, but heard nothing afterwards because she wasn't there. Not a contradiction at all. Similarly, her failure to hear a cry that was heard by Prater and Lewis is perfectly explained by the other two being physically a lot closer to Kelly at the time.

Hutchinson's name will be used periodically in this case, but your sole intent is to jump right in there and make another issue about his credibility. This is what you enjoy, and it does not go unnoticed.

Busted!

Damn it, Jon, you got me there! Since you've clearly seen right through me, and figured out that I'm just a mad Hutchinson zealot, you'd better keep bickering with me then, and give me the excuse I crave to "make another issue about his credibility".