Lechmere validity

[GUT]

Amazing how willing you are to change people’s words to try and support an totally unsupportable argument.

[GUT]

Glad to see your bowing out if all you can do is twist words andcresortvto 8nsults.

[GUT]

"Correcting"? What you said, and it is on print in post 229 on this thread, is "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

So it is not as if you "have only ever said" that the disagreement "isn´t inconsistent" with innocence. Is it, Gut? Maybe that was what you meant to say, but it seems that something stood in the way of it coming out correctly.

I think this post is an appropriate send-off to you and the ones with whom you take side on a reoccurring basis, like for example Dr Strange, who in his post comments on this matter like this: "Gut wrote, "I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent with innocence". And therein lies the problem, you alter what people write.

Of course, being consistent with innocence means being in line with innocence, and therefore the expression as such is normally used to point to how innocence is suggested. Now, Dr Strange wants to claim that I am tampering with the truth for pointing that out, while he has no problems at all claiming that it is proven that Jonas Mizen either lied or misled the inquest. One has to ask oneself how he can put these two things together and add it up to a reason to say that I am the one making factually questionable statements...

I really could not have hoped for a more clear example of what is going on and who are the ones altering what has been said and/or written.

This, Gut, is the precise reason why I am by and large bowing out of any further discussion with the knee-jerk naysayers in this case - because of the combination of posting factually questionable material, followed up by a subsequent refusal to admit to having done so.

It will be nice not to engage with you gentlemen in the future other than when I choose to. I have made my point and you have helped me prove it, and that will have to suffice for me. I have little doubt that more of the same will be presented along the exact same lines, but I have chosen to let it go uncommented by me to as large as degree as I find possible. Life is too short to spend it on such matters. I look forward to discussing with other posters, less set on inflaming and more on debating factually.

Before you pass comment on this post, please read again: "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

Now that I leave this discussion, let me take the opportunity to say that I don´t regard you personally as the worst culprit in the misrepresentation business, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are others who have made much more far-reaching efforts in that department. I actually think you have quite a few interesting and worthwhile things to say every now and then. I only used your post because it tells us that regardless of that, it always comes with a risk to say things like this - and not admitting to it in retrospect only make things worse.

Whatever comment you may choose to make about all of this, you - and not least Dr Strange - will find that it goes unanswered by me. Now you know why.

Maybe you struggle with English consistent with and not inconsistent with may be taken as the same thing but are far removed from good indicator of.

[GUT]

"Correcting"? What you said, and it is on print in post 229 on this thread, is "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

So it is not as if you "have only ever said" that the disagreement "isn´t inconsistent" with innocence. Is it, Gut? Maybe that was what you meant to say, but it seems that something stood in the way of it coming out correctly.

I think this post is an appropriate send-off to you and the ones with whom you take side on a reoccurring basis, like for example Dr Strange, who in his post comments on this matter like this: "Gut wrote, "I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent with innocence". And therein lies the problem, you alter what people write.

Of course, being consistent with innocence means being in line with innocence, and therefore the expression as such is normally used to point to how innocence is suggested. Now, Dr Strange wants to claim that I am tampering with the truth for pointing that out, while he has no problems at all claiming that it is proven that Jonas Mizen either lied or misled the inquest. One has to ask oneself how he can put these two things together and add it up to a reason to say that I am the one making factually questionable statements...

I really could not have hoped for a more clear example of what is going on and who are the ones altering what has been said and/or written.

This, Gut, is the precise reason why I am by and large bowing out of any further discussion with the knee-jerk naysayers in this case - because of the combination of posting factually questionable material, followed up by a subsequent refusal to admit to having done so.

It will be nice not to engage with you gentlemen in the future other than when I choose to. I have made my point and you have helped me prove it, and that will have to suffice for me. I have little doubt that more of the same will be presented along the exact same lines, but I have chosen to let it go uncommented by me to as large as degree as I find possible. Life is too short to spend it on such matters. I look forward to discussing with other posters, less set on inflaming and more on debating factually.

Before you pass comment on this post, please read again: "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

Now that I leave this discussion, let me take the opportunity to say that I don´t regard you personally as the worst culprit in the misrepresentation business, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are others who have made much more far-reaching efforts in that department. I actually think you have quite a few interesting and worthwhile things to say every now and then. I only used your post because it tells us that regardless of that, it always comes with a risk to say things like this - and not admitting to it in retrospect only make things worse.

Whatever comment you may choose to make about all of this, you - and not least Dr Strange - will find that it goes unanswered by me. Now you know why.

Which you chose to change to “good indicator of innocence don’t you get the difference between not inconsistent with innocence, consistent with innocence and a good indicator of innocence, glad to see you are sending us off rather than continuing to twist what we say.

[Fisherman]

Thank you for correcting that. I have only ever said that the disagreement isn’t inconsistent with innocence, if we prove Cross lied it is a question mark, but if the possibility is open that Mizen got it wrong, on purpose or otherwise, it cannot be inconsistent with innocence, it is one reason I try to keep out of Cross threads now, because what you say us so often misunderstood or misrepresented.

"Correcting"? What you said, and it is on print in post 229 on this thread, is "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

So it is not as if you "have only ever said" that the disagreement "isn´t inconsistent" with innocence. Is it, Gut? Maybe that was what you meant to say, but it seems that something stood in the way of it coming out correctly.

I think this post is an appropriate send-off to you and the ones with whom you take side on a reoccurring basis, like for example Dr Strange, who in his post comments on this matter like this: "Gut wrote, "I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent with innocence". And therein lies the problem, you alter what people write.

Of course, being consistent with innocence means being in line with innocence, and therefore the expression as such is normally used to point to how innocence is suggested. Now, Dr Strange wants to claim that I am tampering with the truth for pointing that out, while he has no problems at all claiming that it is proven that Jonas Mizen either lied or misled the inquest. One has to ask oneself how he can put these two things together and add it up to a reason to say that I am the one making factually questionable statements...

I really could not have hoped for a more clear example of what is going on and who are the ones altering what has been said and/or written.

This, Gut, is the precise reason why I am by and large bowing out of any further discussion with the knee-jerk naysayers in this case - because of the combination of posting factually questionable material, followed up by a subsequent refusal to admit to having done so.

It will be nice not to engage with you gentlemen in the future other than when I choose to. I have made my point and you have helped me prove it, and that will have to suffice for me. I have little doubt that more of the same will be presented along the exact same lines, but I have chosen to let it go uncommented by me to as large as degree as I find possible. Life is too short to spend it on such matters. I look forward to discussing with other posters, less set on inflaming and more on debating factually.

Before you pass comment on this post, please read again: "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

Now that I leave this discussion, let me take the opportunity to say that I don´t regard you personally as the worst culprit in the misrepresentation business, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are others who have made much more far-reaching efforts in that department. I actually think you have quite a few interesting and worthwhile things to say every now and then. I only used your post because it tells us that regardless of that, it always comes with a risk to say things like this - and not admitting to it in retrospect only make things worse.

Whatever comment you may choose to make about all of this, you - and not least Dr Strange - will find that it goes unanswered by me. Now you know why.

[GUT]

>>On this thread it has (among other things) been stated that:

- the theory about how the carman may have lied to Mizen is something that I have personally "made up". (Patrick S)<<

Surely by it's very definition a theory is "made up" by someone, I don't get the problem?

theory/ˈθɪəri/noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something
(my emphasis)




>>- experts in a documentary will always adjust to what the ones presenting a theory in that documentary claims or suggests. (same source)<<

Interestingly, I've just finished reading David Canter's, "Mapping Murder" in which he says much the same thing.




>>- when a theory involves layers of speculation, that promotes/invites dishonesty. (Steve)<<

In the field of jtr researcher alone, dozens of books published "solving" the case, prove this statement to be true.




>>- disagreeing with a PC the way Lechmere did is consistent with innocence. (Gut)<<

But, Gut never said that did he? In reply to your question,

"Do you still think that disagreeing with a PC is a good indicator of innocence, by the way...?"

Gut wrote,

"I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent with innocence"

And therein lies the problem, you alter what people write. Which brings us to ...




>>- it is a proven thing that Jonas Mizen was either a liar or a misleader. (Dr Strange)<<

Of course, I have never written that here or anywhere else, EVER!

In fact, you have already admitted in post #359 that you were wrong in claiming this. Yet here you are stating it again.



>>The reason I mention this is because I intend to avoid debating with people who express these kinds of things in the future. Not because they need no correction but because correcting them is a waste of time.<<

Sadly, as just demonstrated you DO need to correct your mistakes and you Do need to apologize to the readers of this thread for your abusive and/or incorrect posts.

Now, would you like to discuss the case rather than yourself?

Thank you for correcting that. I have only ever said that the disagreement isn’t inconsistent with innocence, if we prove Cross lied it is a question mark, but if the possibility is open that Mizen got it wrong, on purpose or otherwise, it cannot be inconsistent with innocence, it is one reason I try to keep out of Cross threads now, because what you say us so often misunderstood or misrepresented.

[drstrange169]

>>On this thread it has (among other things) been stated that:

- the theory about how the carman may have lied to Mizen is something that I have personally "made up". (Patrick S)<<

Surely by it's very definition a theory is "made up" by someone, I don't get the problem?

theory/ˈθɪəri/noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something
(my emphasis)




>>- experts in a documentary will always adjust to what the ones presenting a theory in that documentary claims or suggests. (same source)<<

Interestingly, I've just finished reading David Canter's, "Mapping Murder" in which he says much the same thing.




>>- when a theory involves layers of speculation, that promotes/invites dishonesty. (Steve)<<

In the field of jtr researcher alone, dozens of books published "solving" the case, prove this statement to be true.




>>- disagreeing with a PC the way Lechmere did is consistent with innocence. (Gut)<<

But, Gut never said that did he? In reply to your question,

"Do you still think that disagreeing with a PC is a good indicator of innocence, by the way...?"

Gut wrote,

"I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent with innocence"

And therein lies the problem, you alter what people write. Which brings us to ...




>>- it is a proven thing that Jonas Mizen was either a liar or a misleader. (Dr Strange)<<

Of course, I have never written that here or anywhere else, EVER!

In fact, you have already admitted in post #359 that you were wrong in claiming this. Yet here you are stating it again.



>>The reason I mention this is because I intend to avoid debating with people who express these kinds of things in the future. Not because they need no correction but because correcting them is a waste of time.<<

Sadly, as just demonstrated you DO need to correct your mistakes and you Do need to apologize to the readers of this thread for your abusive and/or incorrect posts.

Now, would you like to discuss the case rather than yourself?

[John G]

Thanks for that, John. Have you preordered Grays book yet? I have - I am intrigued to see who he casts in the killer´s role.

No problem, Christer. Haven't yet pre ordered it yet, but I'll definitely purchase the book when published. Identifying a single killer will, undoubtedly, be sufficient in itself to guarantee the book will be controversial! Frankly, I can't make a convincing case for C5 suspect, or even a convincing case that the C5 were killed by the same hand, let alone including the Torso murders into the mix!

[Fisherman]

Of course, I should have said, "cart before horse". Getting my idiom mixed up! For the record, Christer, we often disagree but I don't think you're dishonest. Passions are clearly running high on this thread, but any suggestion to the contrary are clearly unfortunate.

Thanks for that, John. Have you preordered Grays book yet? I have - I am intrigued to see who he casts in the killer´s role.

[John G]

Nobody who presents a theory based on the evidence should be described as "making things up", John - it is indecent to do so. Whether it is a horse before the cart book or not is something we will find out soon, but I would point out that bolstering a theory you have with facts is not putting the horse before the cart - it is exactly what it seems, bolstering a theory you have by facts. I find that totally uncontroversial and as it should be.

Of course, I should have said, "cart before horse". Getting my idiom mixed up! For the record, Christer, we often disagree but I don't think you're dishonest. Passions are clearly running high on this thread, but any suggestion to the contrary are clearly unfortunate.

[Fisherman]

I don't think Drew Gray will make anything up but, although I reserve judgment, I fear that it maybe another horse before cart book, i.e instead of looking at the facts and seeing where they lead, you start with a theory and then attempt to mould the facts around the theory.

Dr Rubenhold is another social historian who's written a "Ripper" book, and I note that it has faced significant criticism.

As I say, I reserve judgment.

Nobody who presents a theory based on the evidence should be described as "making things up", John - it is indecent to do so. Whether it is a horse before the cart book or not is something we will find out soon, but I would point out that bolstering a theory you have with facts is not putting the horse before the cart - it is exactly what it seems, bolstering a theory you have by facts. I find that totally uncontroversial and as it should be.

[John G]

I don't think Drew Gray will make anything up but, although I reserve judgment, I fear that it maybe another horse before cart book, i.e instead of looking at the facts and seeing where they lead, you start with a theory and then attempt to mould the facts around the theory.

Dr Rubenhold is another social historian who's written a "Ripper" book, and I note that it has faced significant criticism.

As I say, I reserve judgment.

[Fisherman]

On this thread it has (among other things) been stated that:

- the theory about how the carman may have lied to Mizen is something that I have personally "made up". (Patrick S)

- experts in a documentary will always adjust to what the ones presenting a theory in that documentary claims or suggests. (same source)

- when a theory involves layers of speculation, that promotes/invites dishonesty. (Steve)

- disagreeing with a PC the way Lechmere did is consistent with innocence. (Gut)

- it is a proven thing that Jonas Mizen was either a liar or a misleader. (Dr Strange)

The reason I mention this is because I intend to avoid debating with people who express these kinds of things in the future. Not because they need no correction but because correcting them is a waste of time.

This is not to say that I am not going to partake in the debate forthwith. I will, arguably beginning with the upcoming book by Drew Gray, since it makes a case I believe must be made - the one of a common originator in the two murder series of the Ripper and the Torso killer. I bank upon how many debaters of an entirely different ilk than the ones mentioned above will participate, mainly because no other issue at hand has such an importance for our overall understanding of the events in victorian London.

I hope Mr Gray is anticipating that it will be claimed that his theory is something he quite simply has made up, and that whatever experts he may or may not have employed are of no interest at all since they will all have been told to agree with himself about whatever he may say in the book. Equally, I hope he is prepared for having his honesty questioned if he presents a thinking that involved more than one layer of speculation, that it will be claimed that whatever detail he chooses to point to that cannot be conclusively proven to point to guilt will instead be described out here as being "consistent with innocence" and that he is prepared for having it claimed that those he believe are the good guys of the drama will all be pointed out was liars and/or misleaders if they have - accidentally, unimportantly or not - left something out of their respective testimonies.

My prediction is that he is not likely to become a frequent poster on these boards. The fewest are, when it comes to Charles Lechmere. It is as if those who do not produce the kind of breakthrough thinking elucidated above avoid the company offered on many - or most - of the Lechmere threads.

Myself, I will not avoid the threads. Whenever I find it of importance to parttake, I will. But I will be choosy when it comes to who I find it worthwhile discussing with. My favorite opponents would be those who disagree with me and who are able to intelligibly express logically based criticism in a friendly manner.

I look forward to that.

[JeffHamm]

Explains it, I have measured from eastern side of queen Ann to eastern side of Thomas, and western side of QA to Thomas. I agree it's more problematic to argue they pass while he is in cross street, but not impossible.
I still prefer that he is north of the bend in QA, coming south. If he is in Elizabeth Place or still going north, it means he arrives so long after the carmen leave, Mizen should be there first, and his not.

Just finished the last draft of the book in the last 30 mins, just a bit of tiding up, and checking of all the hyperlinks to do.


Steve

Hi all,

Also, Queen Anne from Buck's Row to Cross is not perpendicular, but on an angle. That means the view from Buck's Row won't extend to Cross Street in all likelihood, so PC Neil could be roughly only half way to Cross Street and the Car Men, if they just glance up to see, could miss him. And they will then pass Thomas before PC Neil rounds the corner from Cross onto Thomas, and they proceed west (on the assumption that's the beat of course). It's awfully tight I know, but looking for the limit here.

And we've estimated around 3 minutes for the carmen to get to PC Mizen at an above average walking speed. They don't really sound like they conveyed an emergency, so at best PC Mizen will proceed at an average walking speed I would think, meaning he takes more than that to get there (say 3:30). Add a bit of time for the conversation, and possibly for him to knock up the last few houses, and PC Mizen's journey easily could be more in the 5 minute range (that's only an extra 1 min 30 sec after the car men first meet him after all). That gives PC Neil a bit more time to be in a more easily missed part of his northern beat.

While the exact details can only be guessed at, it's these northern bits of Thomas, Cross, and Queen Anne that make missing PC Neil less mysterious. Prior to this, I thought he was just coming up from Whitechappel, into Buck's Row, and straight to Nichols, which meant Cross/Lechmere and Paul had to pretty much get to PC Mizen before PC Neil rounds the corner from Whitechappel. With him in those upper streets, that relieves a lot of the "how could that happen" feel about it.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I didn't measure from the middle of the road, but from the most easterlly point of Q. Ann Street to the most westerly point of Thomas Street, as the carmen had to pass both streets without being steen by Neil. In other words, my measurement includes the width of both streets.

All the best,
Frank

Explains it, I have measured from eastern side of queen Ann to eastern side of Thomas, and western side of QA to Thomas. I agree it's more problematic to argue they pass while he is in cross street, but not impossible.
I still prefer that he is north of the bend in QA, coming south. If he is in Elizabeth Place or still going north, it means he arrives so long after the carmen leave, Mizen should be there first, and his not.

Just finished the last draft of the book in the last 30 mins, just a bit of tiding up, and checking of all the hyperlinks to do.


Steve