The BIG Poll

[Herlock Sholmes]

By the way, have you managed to prove any of Richards Evidence is made up, or lies as you claimed .? Hmmmm no i didnt thinks so . But you just keepi slinging that mud and personal attacks .

Try reading the threads Fishy and not just picking bits that you like. It’s impossible to discuss the case with someone that hasn’t bothered to read anything on the subject and who hasn’t even followed the thread. Richard’s point have been rebutted. His claim that Thompson was living 100 metres from the site of the murders, at the time of the murders, has been proven untrue. Richard’s claim that Thompson was Smith’s suspect has been proven untrue. That Thompson carried knives has been shown to have been untrue. That Thompson was violent has been shown to have no basis in fact.

How have you missed these and others? Pay attention.

[Lewis C]

By the way, have you managed to prove any of Richards Evidence is made up, or lies as you claimed .? Hmmmm no i didnt thinks so . But you just keepi slinging that mud and personal attacks .

Henry Smith said his suspect gave women polished farthings instead of sovereigns. Francis Thompson found a couple of coins in the street. Richard claims that this this is a match. I don't want to call it a lie either, but is there any way that this can be considered a plausible claim?

Also, it's provably false that Thompson within 100 meters of all of the murder sites. We know that's false because the Nichols and Eddowes murder sites are more than 200 meters apart, so it isn't even possible for anyone to have lived within 100 meters of every murder site.

[Pcdunn]

I've noted that Richard is counting Thompson's occasional work "holding" cab-horses as fitting in with the new theory of JtR having a horse (or team) and carriage.
That is a shoehorned speculation.

[Kunochan]

Ok I’ll apologise first… I’m sorry for yet another poll but I’ve been considering this one for ages and was put off doing it. It’s a suspect poll but I wanted to do it differently and make it The BIG one.

1. Prince Eddy
2. William Gull
3. Walter Sickert
4. Lewis Carroll
5. David Warner with a time machine
6. The fetus of Adolf Hitler
7. Bigfoot

/jk I'll make a real list before the deadline.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1. Prince Eddy
2. William Gull
3. Walter Sickert
4. Lewis Carroll
5. David Warner with a time machine
6. The fetus of Adolf Hitler
7. Bigfoot

/jk I'll make a real list before the deadline.

So according to number 5 it could have been you!

[Kunochan]

So according to number 5 it could have been you!

So here's my real list:

1. Francis Thompson
2. Francis Thompson
3. Francis Thompson
4. Francis Thompson, but not THAT Francis Thompson
5. Francis Thompson's younger brother Steve
6. The ghost of Thomas Chatterton
7. Richard Patterson

I promise my next list will be serious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So here's my real list:

1. Francis Thompson
2. Francis Thompson
3. Francis Thompson
4. Francis Thompson, but not THAT Francis Thompson
5. Francis Thompson's younger brother Steve
6. The ghost of Thomas Chatterton
7. Richard Patterson

I promise my next list will be serious.

I’d say that the ghost of Thomas Chatterton is a likelier suspect than Francis Thompson though.

[caz]

I agree Trevor but it’s not easy to get to a point of agreement on who does or doesn’t justify consideration.

And that is partly why I have no desire to come up with a list of my own, Herlock. Frankly, no named suspect would justify my consideration above anyone else, because the 'evidence' we have been left with is equally lacking against every man Jack of 'em.

It's the perfect definition of a cold case, which would need new evidence to put one suspect - named or not yet named - above the rest.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Don’t expect Fishy to discuss the details of evidence Doc. All that Fishy ever does is to pick a side. Usually based on something personal, like whether he gets on with the poster or not, then when asked a specific id question he either ignores it, changes the subject or says that the question has been answered.

Try it, ask him a question on the details of the subject. I guarantee that he won’t give a proper answer.

I don't know why you respond to posters if you think it's personal and they are only trying to wind you up. If they feel they are succeeding, it's only likely to make them worse, and create more disruption to your thread.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know why you respond to posters if you think it's personal and they are only trying to wind you up. If they feel they are succeeding, it's only likely to make them worse, and create more disruption to your thread.

Love,

Caz
X

Fair point Caz.

[FISHY1118]

Don’t expect Fishy to discuss the details of evidence Doc. All that Fishy ever does is to pick a side. Usually based on something personal, like whether he gets on with the poster or not, then when asked a specific id question he either ignores it, changes the subject or says that the question has been answered.

Try it, ask him a question on the details of the subject. I guarantee that he won’t give a proper answer.

Thats Rubbish Herlock and you know it . It seems your always trying to convince other poster and newbies alike that people who disagree with you must be wrong in their opinions . Its a smoke screen you've perfected over the years , when the smoke clears the clever ones see whats really going on .

" a proper answer" my point exactly , who's decides that any answer to a question regarding evidence and or jtr suspects is proper ? ,it may not be proper to you, but it is to me based on my interpretation/s, which is that same reasoning you give when asked for an answer which isn't based on a documented fact

Everything you suggest and accuse me of Herlock could be said exactly of yourself over the years , the Richardson, JFK, Chapman threads just to name a few . Thousands of post over the years by me ,you and others and this is the best you can come with ?

I'm at a loss at your continued interest in this case if all you seem to do is argue with me for my opinions instead of accepting them even if you disagree and move on .

This should not be viewed as a personal attack by the way ,just my right as I see it to set the record straight when replying to a post such as the one above.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With an opinion there should be an explanation of the reasoning behind it. This incorporates discussing the details and the evidence. It calls for specifics and not just generalities. This is why people discuss the case on a forum…not just to hear someone say “I think this..” but to hear their analysis; their thoughts processes to find out how they have arrived at that opinion. Of course I accept that interpretations differ but to understand the viewpoint of the person that you are discussing any aspect of the case with you need to know their thinking; their reasoning. And this involves a two-way process of asking and answering direct questions. Of giving explanations with detail. If one person is reluctant to do that (for whatever reason) then it makes discussion redundant.

[FISHY1118]

With an opinion there should be an explanation of the reasoning behind it. This incorporates discussing the details and the evidence. It calls for specifics and not just generalities. This is why people discuss the case on a forum…not just to hear someone say “I think this..” but to hear their analysis; their thoughts processes to find out how they have arrived at that opinion. Of course I accept that interpretations differ but to understand the viewpoint of the person that you are discussing any aspect of the case with you need to know their thinking; their reasoning. And this involves a two-way process of asking and answering direct questions. Of giving explanations with detail. If one person is reluctant to do that (for whatever reason) then it makes discussion redundant.

When given opinions for the same questions over and over again it tends to get a bit boring , I guess some of us sometimes just push the mute button .

[Herlock Sholmes]

If someone won’t give an explanation or answer a question there are only two options. To keep asking or give up. You would prefer me to give up and accept that you aren’t willing to answer or provide reasoning. Perhaps I should, but discussion is a two-way street; or at least it’s supposed to be. It’s simply curtesy to respond to a question.

If someone won’t answer it’s entirely reasonable to assume that it’s because that person has no answer. This is why Richard point blank refuses to answer questions but it appears that you don’t find his behaviour strange.

[FISHY1118]

If someone won’t give an explanation or answer a question there are only two options. To keep asking or give up. You would prefer me to give up and accept that you aren’t willing to answer or provide reasoning. Perhaps I should, but discussion is a two-way street; or at least it’s supposed to be. It’s simply curtesy to respond to a question.

If someone won’t answer it’s entirely reasonable to assume that it’s because that person has no answer. This is why Richard point blank refuses to answer questions but it appears that you don’t find his behaviour strange.

What you call as ''Unwilling to Answer'' in some peoples eyes is a non acceptance of an answer to a question thats repeated over and over because you or anyone doesn't happen to like or agree with it , that doesn't mean i or others are unwilliam to obilge ,we just feel we have already given it . The lengh of Richards post is a perfect example , the mountain of evidence surrounding Thompson his provided and ''his'' interpretation of it , i think makes a strong case for JtR in my opinion.