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

[Monty]

"Nope, Caz - we cannot "safely" say this. People who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward."

Obviously this stands the same for Cross, and is one of the major flaws in that theory.

Monty, just throwing it in there, as the majority here have the inability (or the rudeness) to stay on topic.

Monty

[Fisherman]

"Nope, Caz - we cannot "safely" say this. People who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward."

Obviously this stands the same for Cross, and is one of the major flaws in that theory.

Monty, just throwing it in there, as the majority here have the inability (or the rudeness) to stay on topic.

Monty

If it was an overall truth that ONLY people who knew themselves to be innocent come forward after a murder, you would be having a point, Monty.

But since both you and me know that people who are NOT innocent sometimes come forward after a murder, either for baconsaving purposes or for the sheer kick of it, you of course have no point at all.

It goes without saying that for every lying killer that presents himself to the police, there will be hundreds of innocent witnesses, telling the police what they know without reflecting about this simultaneousy putting them on a spot where a crime has been committed.

But I´m happy to see that this fallacious argument of yours is what you present as one of the "major flaws" of the Lechmere theory. There´s a "wow"-factor to it, and it kind of tells the rest of the story alongside. We all know that another of the "major flaws" you have mentioned is your contention that a killer would not be able to stay on the murder spot to bluff his way out.

Amazing points, both of them.

Back to the police impersonating Jack now, yes ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Twisty turny Fish,

Condemned by your own argument

Fallacious....so you DO know the meaning of the word. What am I saying?, of course you do.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Twisty turny Fish,

Condemned by your own argument

Fallacious....so you DO know the meaning of the word. What am I saying?, of course you do.

Monty

Twisty? Turny?

No, that´s what you engage in here.

It´s all incredibly easy. Answer these two questions:

1. Is it normal that people who witness a crime turn to the police regardless if it puts themselves in the picture as having been present at a crime scene?

2. Are there any examples of criminals - killers included - have turned to the police, posing as innocent witnesses?

Once you provide the answers to these two extremely simple questions - and I feel very certain that you will do so, as you normally do - you will (together with the rest of the boards) find out just who is twisting around here.

All the best,
Fisherman
waiting

[Monty]

I think the rest of the boards are fully fait with your methods Fish,

No, I'm afraid you can't wriggle off the hook here. You stated, quite clearly to Caz, that "people who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward."

Cross came forward.

Yes...it is that simple.

Monty

[Fisherman]

I think the rest of the boards are fully fait with your methods Fish,

No, I'm afraid you can't wriggle off the hook here. You stated, quite clearly to Caz, that "people who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward."

Cross came forward.

Yes...it is that simple.

Monty

So, no answer to my questions. As anticipated, actually.

Yes, I stated that "people who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward."

It was and is completely true. I of course stand by it. Furthermore, onehundred per cent of the people out here know it is true.

It is however false to lead on that I would have said that this guarantees the innocence of all who approach the police, thereby meaning that Lechmere must have been innocent since he did. Onehundred per cent of the people out here know this too.

To claim that this would be what I did is therefore not true. Onehundred per cent of the people out here know this too. And I count you into that group of insightful people too.

It would therefore seem that you have other aims for your posts in this department. You are welcome to elaborate on it anytime, but I believe it is a fair bet that this will be of as much interest to you as it was to answer the two simple questions I posed. You wriggle instead, my dear Monty.

Most inappropriate.

Now, let´s do something more useful instead. Unless you want to pursue this hmmm ... strange business? For whatever reason?

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Advice

Advice to 'Trekkie-like' Ripperologists, get rid of your suspect and get a life.

[Fisherman]

Advice to 'Trekkie-like' Ripperologists, get rid of your suspect and get a life.

General advice: once anybody - no matter who - has somebody special in mind that he or she wishes to criticize, don´t be shy - name them, make your case and give them a fair chance to reply.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Seriously Fish,

Your questions, as ever, are loaded to support a suspect theory. You have been caught showing double standards.

There is no need to engage you in a debate as none is required. As I said, its quite simple.

I leave you to your verbal pontificating.

Now....beam me up please Stewart.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Seriously Fish,

Your questions, as ever, are loaded to support a suspect theory. You have been caught showing double standards.

There is no need to engage you in a debate as none is required. As I said, its quite simple.

I leave you to your verbal pontificating.

Now....beam me up please Stewart.

Monty

Seriously, Monty, it´s you that have been caught producing puerile thinking.

I will exemplify:

People will sometimes knock on your door, and they will normally have good intentions. They will not intend to pull a plastic bag over your head and hang you from a pipe in the ceiling, watching you suffocate and die.

So, Monty - does this mean that any suggestion that Dennis Rader could have deviated from the good guy pattern is "flawed", since it does not conform to the statistics?

Or do we need to accept that serial killers do not conform to the norm system of society just to keep you statistically happy?

You are normally looked upon as a front figure of Ripperology, Monty. And THIS is the kind of argument you pursue?? It´s flabbergasting. And I can´t help asking myself why? Why do you throw something forward that a four-year old can tear to shreds?

You actually reason that the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer is flawed by our knowledge, and I quote, that ""people who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward." Is that it?

Welcome to Kindergarten, everybody. Any four-year old taker?

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Your decision to stay away from further discussion of this particular issue does inspire some little hope in me. It´s a very wise thing to do on your behalf, I must say! DS.

[Sally]

'Never give up, Never surrender!'

[Monty]

Ah,

The insults. The personal insults you resort to when out manoeuvred.

Usually happens when one is desperate to deflect.

You misrepresent, as ever, to avoid the fact that you state an innocent would, most often, come forward. Just as Cross did. Therefore, Cross's actions coincide more with that of an innocent than the guilty.

Out classed by a has been with the mentality of a four year old.

You talk too much.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Ah,

The insults. The personal insults you resort to when out manoeuvred.

Usually happens when one is desperate to deflect.

You misrepresent, as ever, to avoid the fact that you state an innocent would, most often, come forward. Just as Cross did. Therefore, Cross's actions coincide more with that of an innocent than the guilty.

Out classed by a has been with the mentality of a four year old.

You talk too much.

Monty

Personal insults, Monty?

I follow the rules of the boards, and avoid personal insults. What I remarked upon was the quality of your reasoning, nothing else.

Moreover, I have already admitted that Lechmere´s actions are unusual statistically if he was the killer. Most people DO go to the police with the best of intentions.

But serial killers do not conform to "most people", do they?

And what you said was that I would somehow be "condemned by my own argument". That is totally untrue, unless we stipulate that ALL people do things the same way.

They don´t. And there goes your argument - boom!

So, Monty, nobody has insulted you personally, and you are still wrong. And you have done no outclassing, much as you would like to think so. You have instead tried to bang a square peg through a round hole by positing that the statistical "truth" must apply to all people, which it does not.

And I still wonder why you try to argue such a lost cause. Where is the quality of your argument? It does not even provide you with any opportunity to say that I have double standards (not that such a thing stopped you) - once you realize that the standards of ordinary people and serial killers differ, you should understand this.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

You still talking Fishman?

I deal in the man on the No11 bus.

This talk of 'ordinary people' and serial killers, and their standards, is mere waffle Christer.

I understand perfectly, you need to cover what you stated to Caz whilst supporting your contaictory accusation of Cross's actions at the SOC.

Your difficult position is clear.

Monty

[Fisherman]

You still talking Fishman?

I deal in the man on the No11 bus.

This talk of 'ordinary people' and serial killers, and their standards, is mere waffle Christer.

I understand perfectly, you need to cover what you stated to Caz whilst supporting your contaictory accusation of Cross's actions at the SOC.

Your difficult position is clear.

Monty

Yeah, yeah, "difficult position".

For a moment, I thought you were being serious.

That´s no good news for either of us.

The best,
Fisherman