The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"You do not have conclusion based on complete fact."

I have a lot of conclusions, Monty. If the one you refer to is Lechmere=the Ripper, then I must say that I have never concluded this. What I have concluded is that he has a lot going for him as the killer, and then I have said that I BELIEVE him to be the killer. That is no conclusion, it is my best guess.

" You present an idea, give it your interpretation and state that it stands. You provide no alternative (so I, and others, have to) and claim this theory is the only logical conclusion."

Yes, yes, yes/no, yes/no, and no.

I do present an idea. That´s yes number one.

I do give it an interpretation - yes number two.

I state that it stands? Well, my view stands, but others are perfectly welcome to offer different views. Besides, I have on more than one occasion said that if evidence surfaces that make my suggestions invalid, I´ll be the first to admit this. So it´s yes/no on that one.

I offer no alternative? Well, I DID for example offer the alternative take on the scam, that Lechmere may have lied to be in time for work. And I have stated that he may have worn working clothes to the inquest since he did not want to worry his wife. But more often than not, I go with the theory that he was the killer, and I do so because I find that is the best interpretation of the evidence. So it´s one more yes/no here.

I claim that my theory is the only logical solution? When did I do THAT? I have claimed and will claim again that I think that my solution is the MORE logical one and the one that fits best together with the facts. But that does not mean that it is the only logical one - which is why I have never claimed this. So you end up with an emphatic no here, Monty. And you really should avoid that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Howerver Ruby,

You cite an actual case. For every one of those admissable piece of evidence you mention there is 1000s of similar actions on an hourly basis, all perfectly innocent.

All I am requesting is that a balanced case be presented. This shouldn't be a problem. However for every 'guilty' act there is a reasonable explanation.

No matter how many times Christer, Lechmere, whoever stamp their feet....reason remains.

Monty

[Rubyretro]

As it should be. If you are going to profess someones guilt then you'd better be certain you have the evidence to support that accusation.

Its only right.

Monty

But there is a weight of evidence, Monty..

Of course, it has already been said that each bit of evidence could also point to something innocent.

I refer you back to my post #1244...

The incidents referred to in that post were admissible in Court as evidence.

[Observer]

Hmmm, either you are being ironic or a hypocrate......cannot decide which.

Monty

Both Monty !

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

You forgot to say 'In my Opinion'. Tsk Tsk.

Again no need. Your posts amply imply that you consider your opinions to be taken as fact. Oh all right, In my opinion of course.

No, it's not the end of the story. It will be the end of the story if the Cross Fans don't come up with something new though - simply because a speculative theory cannot endure indefinitely or even for very long without progression. I'd be as happy as anybody else to see fresh information here. I keep waiting for it to appear.

Here's a starter

See the analogy Ruby intimated in post #1244, which I notice you did not address.

You are free to express your opinion Observer, of course. As are we all.

The only sensible sentences you have posted in a long while

Observer

[Monty]

You really can't see that you consider your opinion as the be all and end all of the matter can you?



You don't need to, your posts reveal this trait.



Your lowly opinion only. So you and the others carry the day. End of story eh? See where I'm going?



Then learn to accept posts like my own

Observer

Hmmm, either you are being ironic or a hypocrate......cannot decide which.

Monty

[Monty]

I would entirely agree with you Monty, as long as we are really discussing 'ill considered answers to turn a scenario one sided'.

For me, you are talking about Van Gogh, and Toulouse Lautrec, etc

If we are talking about considered answers then the easiest job is that of the detractor, rather than the person doing all the work and then making the results public..

No, it stands for all suspects.

As it should be. If you are going to profess someones guilt then you'd better be certain you have the evidence to support that accusation.

Its only right.

Monty

[Sally]

You really can't see that you consider your opinion as the be all and end all of the matter can you?

HAHAHA! I CAN! You are totally right, Observer - I am completely correct and everybody else is wrong, no matter how logical and rational their counterarguments may be. I have no proof of this, naturally, but never mind -if I just persist in saying 'I am right' all the time, eventually it'll become a fact?

No? That's not how it works?

You don't need to, your posts reveal this trait.

You forgot to say 'In my Opinion'. Tsk Tsk.

Your lowly opinion only. So you and the others carry the day. End of story eh? See where I'm going?

No, it's not the end of the story. It will be the end of the story if the Cross Fans don't come up with something new though - simply because a speculative theory cannot endure indefinitely or even for very long without progression. I'd be as happy as anybody else to see fresh information here. I keep waiting for it to appear.

Then learn to accept posts like my own

You are free to express your opinion Observer, of course. As are we all.

[Observer]

Hardly. I'm not the one who claims to have the answers.

You really can't see that you consider your opinion as the be all and end all of the matter can you?

Semantics. I have never said or suggested that my opinion is fact.

You don't need to, your posts reveal this trait.

Well, there isn't, is there? As has been ably demonstrated throughout this thread by others.

Your lowly opinion only. So you and the others carry the day. End of story eh? See where I'm going?

I'm sorry that you object, Observer, but I'm afraid at the end of the day I'll word my posts as I wish - everybody else does.

Then learn to accept posts like my own

Observer

[Rubyretro]

I would say some would spout any ill considered answer to turn a scenario one sided, whereas others will point out the alternative Ruby.

I would entirely agree with you Monty, as long as we are really discussing 'ill considered answers to turn a scenario one sided'.

For me, you are talking about Van Gogh, and Toulouse Lautrec, etc

If we are talking about considered answers then the easiest job is that of the detractor, rather than the person doing all the work and then making the results public..

[Monty]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;233246]

I would say that the hard part is mooting possible answers, and the easy part is taking pot shots at them..(especially if you are are prejudiced from the off).

I would say some would spout any ill considered answer to turn a scenario one sided, whereas others will point out the alternative Ruby.

Monty

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hardly. I'm not the one who claims to have the answers.

I would say that the hard part is mooting possible answers, and the easy part is taking pot shots at them..(especially if you are are prejudiced from the off).

[Sally]

Again you are setting yourself up as sole arbitrator of what is and what isn't.

Hardly. I'm not the one who claims to have the answers.

Earlier on in this thread you stated that the thread is pointless, not "I think the thread is pointless". At least two other posters agreed with me that the thread was not pointless.

Semantics. I have never said or suggested that my opinion is fact.

Again, we have

"I mean evidence that any of the actions taken by him which are being portrayed here as signs of his guilt were anything of the kind"

Well, there isn't, is there? As has been ably demonstrated throughout this thread by others.

Certain posters believe that the opposite is the case, you really should word your posts appropriately. In short I believe that you are a know all.

I'm sorry that you object, Observer, but I'm afraid at the end of the day I'll word my posts as I wish - everybody else does.

[Monty]

Monty
Please accept my apology for being mistaken about your mistake.
However - I have seen no evidence that anything either I or Fisherman have postulated is fundamentally incredible or pie in the sky obvious nonsense.

I very much doubt any 'reasonable man' would claim it either.
Nor has anything non factual been passed off as a fact.
However it is human nature for an exponent of a theory to talk enthusiastically about it.
I have to say that you have countered this theory - several times now already - by putting forward hasty counter claims based on faulty evidence and statements that are counter to the historical record.

Lechmere,

Apology accepted. However I fully acknowledge I wasn’t clear so you aren’t entirely to blame.

Nothing non factual has been passed off as fact?

“I can say that it is a fact that Lechmere stated a time (3.20 or 3.30) for the departure from his home that would - if he walked at normal walking pace and made no stops - have taken him past Browns Stable Yard somewhere around 3.26-3.37.”

That is a fact?

Is my counter claim that Christer cannot possibly know Cross’s normal walking pace and therefore conclude Cross’s arrival time in Bucks Row faulty?

You can say what you wish Lechmere, it doesn’t alter the fact this theory is built on a shaky base.

Monty

[Observer]

Not only a know all Ruby, arrogant with it.

"It is because there is no evidence of guilt - and no, Team Lechmere, this doesn't mean guilty of being the Ripper (duh) -"

Regards

Observer