Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    How can you possibly claim to know that he’d selected the location for depositing the rag in advance?


    Anyone can view # 91 of this thread and see what I actually wrote:

    But I think he had selected the building in advance.

    You are alleging that I have claimed to know something when all I wrote was that I think so.

    The question I think anyone viewing this forum from outside would be asking is why I am constantly being accused of making out that my opinions are facts.

    I said I think something and you say I'm claiming to know it.




    Please see my reply above.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


      Please see my reply above.
      “People who want to absolve themselves of guilt do not begin a sentence in a self-accusatory way.”

      “The reason he left the message where he did was that he could authenticate the message by leaving it next to an item of clothing that could definitely be connected to the victim.”

      “A doctor couldn't have written the message in Goulston Street because he would have known how to spell.”

      “I can assure you that the jacket worn by the suspect seen by Lawende was commonly worn by sailors”

      “It is obvious that Druitt did not torture animals.”

      …….

      A two minute search got me the above 5 examples.

      And by the way……you STILL haven’t provided the evidence for the fourth or conceded that you were wrong. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes.



      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        “People who want to absolve themselves of guilt do not begin a sentence in a self-accusatory way.”

        “The reason he left the message where he did was that he could authenticate the message by leaving it next to an item of clothing that could definitely be connected to the victim.”

        “A doctor couldn't have written the message in Goulston Street because he would have known how to spell.”

        “I can assure you that the jacket worn by the suspect seen by Lawende was commonly worn by sailors”

        “It is obvious that Druitt did not torture animals.”

        …….

        A two minute search got me the above 5 examples.

        And by the way……you STILL haven’t provided the evidence for the fourth or conceded that you were wrong. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes.





        Before I respond to your # 107, will you please respond directly to my # 106:


        How can you possibly claim to know that he’d selected the location for depositing the rag in advance?

        (Pontius2000)


        Anyone can view # 91 of this thread and see what I actually wrote:

        But I think he had selected the building in advance.

        You are alleging that I have claimed to know something when all I wrote was that I think so.

        The question I think anyone viewing this forum from outside would be asking is why I am constantly being accused of making out that my opinions are facts.

        I said I think something and you say I'm claiming to know it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



          Before I respond to your # 107, will you please respond directly to my # 106:


          How can you possibly claim to know that he’d selected the location for depositing the rag in advance?

          (Pontius2000)


          Anyone can view # 91 of this thread and see what I actually wrote:

          But I think he had selected the building in advance.

          You are alleging that I have claimed to know something when all I wrote was that I think so.

          The question I think anyone viewing this forum from outside would be asking is why I am constantly being accused of making out that my opinions are facts.

          I said I think something and you say I'm claiming to know it.

          The reason that I and others have mentioned your claiming of opinion as if they are facts is because you have a tendency to present your opinions as fact. You post examples with an unwarranted level of confidence.

          Like this one:

          “The point of cutting the apron in two was to identify the author of the graffiti as the murderer​.”

          ….

          On the issue of post #91 although you did indeed say “I think…” you certainly didn’t in post #80 where you said:

          “The second is that he wanted to target a building whose residents were predominantly Jewish.”

          As you seemed to have no doubt in that post I made the assumption that this was your thinking on the subject. I certainly should have quoted from post #80 in my post #99 though.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


            You post examples with an unwarranted level of confidence.

            Is that an opinion of yours, an assumption, a supposition, or a fact?


            Please see my reply above.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



              Please see my reply above.
              This is a waste of time PI.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                How unusual that I have to disagree with you yet again. Halse would have seen the uniform officer from some distance bearing in mind the uniform officer would have had his lamp shining as he was checking his property. At that time of the morning, the street was deserted and therefore the sound of footsteps would have carried some distance alerting both to the sounds of each other, and your matter of seconds is way out.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                I am citing the record of the inquest as reported in The Daily Telegraph.

                Alfred Long was definite that he passed the building at about 2:20 and that the piece of apron was not there at that time.

                He also said that the apron was white, which may be significant, as it may have been easier to notice than a dark-coloured apron.

                If he was so negligent as some here have suggested as either not to have gone down Goulston Street or to have gone down it but not noticed the apron, why was he nevertheless able to find it before anyone else did?

                From Daniel Halse's testimony:

                At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.


                [Coroner] Did the writing have the appearance of having been recently done? - Yes. It was written with white chalk on a black facia.
                Mr. Crawford: Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written? - It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing...



                There have been so many posts here suggesting that someone other than the murderer may have written the message, and curiously Daniel Halse's testimony seems to have been forgotten.

                He passed by the building at about 2:20 and did not notice either a white apron or white chalk writing on a black background, even though it was visible from the street.

                Alfred Long testified that he didn't notice them either.

                Alfred Long then noticed both at about 2.55 and when Halse saw the writing, it looked fresh to him.

                That is, in my opinion, a very strong case for arguing that the writing and apron were not there at 2.20 and were left there some time between 2.20 and 2.55 - by the same person.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  This is a waste of time PI.

                  You keep complaining that I state opinions as if they are facts, but when it is pointed out that you do the same, you announce that it would be a waste of time to reply.

                  You wrote:

                  You post examples with an unwarranted level of confidence.

                  Is that your opinion or a fact?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                    You keep complaining that I state opinions as if they are facts, but when it is pointed out that you do the same, you announce that it would be a waste of time to reply.

                    You wrote:

                    You post examples with an unwarranted level of confidence.

                    Is that your opinion or a fact?
                    Its a fact. You are too confident in your inferences.

                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post




                      I am citing the record of the inquest as reported in The Daily Telegraph.

                      Alfred Long was definite that he passed the building at about 2:20 and that the piece of apron was not there at that time.

                      He also said that the apron was white, which may be significant, as it may have been easier to notice than a dark-coloured apron.

                      If he was so negligent as some here have suggested as either not to have gone down Goulston Street or to have gone down it but not noticed the apron, why was he nevertheless able to find it before anyone else did?

                      From Daniel Halse's testimony:

                      At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.


                      [Coroner] Did the writing have the appearance of having been recently done? - Yes. It was written with white chalk on a black facia.
                      Mr. Crawford: Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written? - It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing...



                      There have been so many posts here suggesting that someone other than the murderer may have written the message, and curiously Daniel Halse's testimony seems to have been forgotten.

                      He passed by the building at about 2:20 and did not notice either a white apron or white chalk writing on a black background, even though it was visible from the street.

                      Alfred Long testified that he didn't notice them either.

                      Alfred Long then noticed both at about 2.55 and when Halse saw the writing, it looked fresh to him.

                      That is, in my opinion, a very strong case for arguing that the writing and apron were not there at 2.20 and were left there some time between 2.20 and 2.55 - by the same person.
                      And it might not have been there. But it might have been. We have many examples of Police Officers who were less than diligent in their duties.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        And it might not have been there. But it might have been. We have many examples of Police Officers who were less than diligent in their duties.
                        and the evidence some of them gave at the inquests is about as reliable as a chocolate teapot

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Its a fact. You are too confident in your inferences.

                          You can state opinions as facts, but I cannot?

                          Then you are in a very privileged position.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                            You can state opinions as facts, but I cannot?

                            Then you are in a very privileged position.
                            This is just wordplay PI. You’ve clearly made interpretations which you’ve presented as if they were facts. I’ve simply pointed out that you’ve done so. And because they are in black and white I can honestly state them as facts. I don’t see what the issue is.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Its a fact. You are too confident in your inferences.

                              To say that someone is overconfident is an opinion, not a fact.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                                To say that someone is overconfident is an opinion, not a fact.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X