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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

[QUOTE=Varqm;n800971]

?? You got lost then you lash out.You implied or your opinion is Long checked at 2:20, the graffito was not there.But your opinion does not matter because..
he did not check enough to know if the graffito was there or not ,that's what he clearly "said" on his testimony.
Your are kinda immature in you're reaction .No time for this

That is a completely inappropriate response.

You had written: You're opinion does not matter

and I drew attention to your lack of civility.

That does not amount to lashing out on my part nor make me kinda immature.

You say you have no time for this.

One question those viewing from outside this forum might ask is why the moderators are tolerating your obvious lack of civility.

[jmenges]

One question those viewing from outside this forum might ask is why the moderators are tolerating your obvious lack of civility.

Another question those moderating this forum might ask themselves is ”what makes you think the moderators know anything about the “obvious lack of civility” when you’ve not used the REPORT POST button?”

But it’s too late to answer that and gosh darn I was having a good day and you’ve gone and pissed me off.

Wait and see how much more of this we’re willing to tolerate.

JM

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Another question those moderating this forum might ask themselves is ”what makes you think the moderators know anything about the “obvious lack of civility” when you’ve not used the REPORT POST button?”

But it’s too late to answer that and gosh darn I was having a good day and you’ve gone and pissed me off.

Wait and see how much more of this we’re willing to tolerate.

JM

Am I to take it that you are the same moderator as the one with whom I exchanged email correspondence last month?

[jmenges]

No, that was Queen Mean.
Would you like to speak with her?

JM

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No, that was Queen Mean.
Would you like to speak with her?

JM

According to your Member List, there are six members whose name begins with Q or q.

None of them is called Queen Mean.

Am I to take it then that it was you with whom I had email correspondence last month?

[jmenges]

No, that was Queen Mean.
Would you like to speak with her?

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to your Member List, there are six members whose name begins with Q or q.

None of them is called Queen Mean.

Am I to take it then that it was you with whom I had email correspondence last month?

When Jon says Queen Mean he means Ally Ryder who is the site administrator. You won’t find a Queen Mean in the members list.

[c.d.]

When Jon says Queen Mean he means Ally Ryder who is the site administrator. You won’t find a Queen Mean in the members list.

Yo, P.I. Some friendly advice here. You probably don't want to get on Ally's bad side by airing your grievances. She ain't called "Queen Mean" for nothin'.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yo, P.I. Some friendly advice here. You probably don't want to get on Ally's bad side by airing your grievances. She ain't called "Queen Mean" for nothin'.

c.d.

Ditto.

[c.d.]

Ditto.

Great. Now we will probably both get banned.

c.d.

[Admin]

Say my name six times and, lo, I appear. No, actually I don't. See in order for me to appear, someone needs to actually summon me. By using the Report Post button.

Let's take this fun little ride, shall we?

One question those viewing from outside this forum might ask is why the moderators are tolerating your obvious lack of civility.

Let me answer that so no one is left wondering. We aren't playground nannies, monitoring toddlers on the swing set. We presume everyone here is an *adult* and wearing their big boy pants. If you play too hard, and get a metaphorically bloody nose, evaluate your gameplay, and make adjustments so as to make playtime more enjoyable.

"Lack of Civility" is not against the rules. You can be a right uncivil knob and remain within the rules. Have you READ the rules? Saying that one "has no time" for someone else's nonsense, is not against the rules. It's kind of a futile and empty statement, that's belied by the effort taken to type it out, but it's not against the rules. Which you would know, had you actually READ them. Which I am going to guess you haven't, because if you had, you would have seen the multiple times we stated something like this:

From Major Rules:

We cannot read every post. We rely on our members using the Report Post button to keep us in the loop.

From Reporting Posts and the Infraction System:

We rely on our members to assist us in policing the boards. We cannot be everywhere and we cannot read every post. Also, we presume to some extent that if no one is complaining, then there are no problems. If you see a post that violates one of the rules, please use the Report Post button.

In short, we have lives. Complex ones, with people we need to attend to who matter, people we actually love and like, and jobs, that we have to do and toilets we have to scrub and we don't have time to sit here and monitor your play, because you're incapable of doing it for your ownself. If you aren't adult enough to swim in the deep end, stay in the shallow end.

Now, had you actually done what you are directed to do in the rules, and followed the directions, this could have been handled in a less obnoxious manner. But you chose not to follow the very clear directions and instead decided to throw a public fit and call our moderation abilities into question, when clearly what is at fault here is your inability to read and follow simple instructions.

Were rules broken? I don't know. You know why? Because there have been no report posts, indicating that a rule was broken and I am certainly not going to read through that incessant droning of page after page of circular whinging to find out. In the future, if there's a rule violation, follow the directions, as outlined in the rules.


And one final reminder, for those who need to hear it.

From Major Rules: Don't argue with the Admin when asked/told to do something. If you dislike a decision that is made, accept it and move on.


Do not EVER throw a public tantrum on this board again, and blame us, for either your treatment, or reception, because you are incapable of following simple instructions. Don't continue this.

Great. Now we will probably both get banned.

c.d.

Now why would I ban y'all darlings, when you flatter me so.

[Fiver]

My post was a general reply appertaining to in particular the beat officers who gave evidence in this series of murders and the questions that are asked

"Were they where they said they were"?
"Did they do what they said they did"?
"Did they see what they said they saw"?
"Did they give false evidence to support a police theory"?
"Did they intentionally omit evidence to save their skin"?

There is a lot of conflicting inquest testimony given by officers, especially in the Eddowes murder

Most of these are good questions to ask of all witnesses, not just beat constables. At the same time, we need to remember that human perception and memory are both fallible. Which means people can give contradictory statements and not be lying, just one or more of them mistaken.

However, we can throw one of the questions out - "Did they give false evidence to support a police theory"?, There was no police theory, so obviously no one lied to support a theory that didn't exist.

So far, I haven't seen anything that shows any of the beat constables were not where they said they were, did not do what they said they did, or did not sees what they said they saw. I have seen no evidence that any beat constables deliberately omitted evidence, either.

If you have something that indicates deliberate deception on the part of any police, feel free to share it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Most of these are good questions to ask of all witnesses, not just beat constables. At the same time, we need to remember that human perception and memory are both fallible. Which means people can give contradictory statements and not be lying, just one or more of them mistaken.

However, we can throw one of the questions out - "Did they give false evidence to support a police theory"?, There was no police theory, so obviously no one lied to support a theory that didn't exist.

So far, I haven't seen anything that shows any of the beat constables were not where they said they were, did not do what they said they did, or did not sees what they said they saw. I have seen no evidence that any beat constables deliberately omitted evidence, either.

If you have something that indicates deliberate deception on the part of any police, feel free to share it.

There was a police theory in the Eddowes murder that being that the killer after murdering Eddowes removed the organs and then cut a piece of her apron taking it away with him and then deposited it in Goulston Street after writing the graffiti.

In this case, the evidence given by some of the officers at the inquest was in my opinion misleading to the inquest it would be wrong to say they deliberately lied to support a theory I think they were trying to be too helpful in supporting the police theory.

I think your quote that " human perception and memory are both fallible" applies relative to some of the police officer's inquest testimony

As to other officers involved in the other murders, we have to take on face value their inquest testimony but if any of their testimony could be proved to be false then that might change the whole picture of one some or all of these murders researchers should not be so quick to accept police officers statements just because they are police officers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

That the killer took away body parts and dropped a piece of apron in Goulston Street can’t really be called a ‘theory’ though can it? That’s like the police finding a decapitated body and saying that they have a ‘theory’ that the victim had her head cut off. Yes, we have to accept that humans are fallible. And yes we have to accept that people (including the police) are capable of lying but they usually require a reason for doing it. A Constable might have lied about how diligent he had been at any particular time (although we have no proper evidence for it in this case as far as I can see) like Harvey and Long. Perhaps Harvey didn’t actually go down Church Passage for example? We have no evidence for it though but what we can at least say was that he was dismissed from the Force less than six months later so maybe he was in the habit of neglecting his duties?

But I see nothing that suggests that the Police were untruthful in favour of a particular theory and logically why would they? It wouldn’t benefit them to exaggerate evidence in favour of a theory that might have ended up a wild goose chase.

So I wouldn’t say that we should just accept testimony at face value (especially from the Police) but we should be cautious about assuming it.

[Trevor Marriott]

That the killer took away body parts and dropped a piece of apron in Goulston Street can’t really be called a ‘theory’ though can it? That’s like the police finding a decapitated body and saying that they have a ‘theory’ that the victim had her head cut off. Yes, we have to accept that humans are fallible. And yes we have to accept that people (including the police) are capable of lying but they usually require a reason for doing it. A Constable might have lied about how diligent he had been at any particular time (although we have no proper evidence for it in this case as far as I can see) like Harvey and Long. Perhaps Harvey didn’t actually go down Church Passage for example? We have no evidence for it though but what we can at least say was that he was dismissed from the Force less than six months later so maybe he was in the habit of neglecting his duties?

But I see nothing that suggests that the Police were untruthful in favour of a particular theory and logically why would they? It wouldn’t benefit them to exaggerate evidence in favour of a theory that might have ended up a wild goose chase.

So I wouldn’t say that we should just accept testimony at face value (especially from the Police) but we should be cautious about assuming it.

The police case/theory in the case of Eddowes was based on how they interpreted the evidence that they had to work with, and how they rightly or wrongly assessed that evidence and built their case on that assessment which we now know as the old accepted theory which 130 years later may prove to have been wrong.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk