The BIG Poll

[GBinOz]

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

Well said Caz. Not having a preferred suspect is, IMO, definitely an aid to clear thinking.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

If someone won’t answer it’s entirely reasonable to assume that it’s because that person has no answer.

Not necessarily so, my friend. Sometimes questions are phrased to elicit an anticipated response. Sometimes answers do not fit the required parameters for a response and are therefore discounted. Sometimes questions that have a response that is perceived as unacceptable to the asker are repeated to the point of exhausted exasperation. In the final summary, those who are asked questions have the right to determine whether the question is worthy of reply on the basis of the understanding of the questioner of the proposals of the person being questioned.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Not necessarily so, my friend. Sometimes questions are phrased to elicit an anticipated response. Sometimes answers do not fit the required parameters for a response and are therefore discounted. Sometimes questions that have a response that is perceived as unacceptable to the asker are repeated to the point of exhausted exasperation. In the final summary, those who are asked questions have the right to determine whether the question is worthy of reply on the basis of the understanding of the questioner of the proposals of the person being questioned.

Cheers, George

A simplified verson of what i was trying to say .

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

What Richard does is that he keeps repeat posting lengthy lists expecting to go unchallenged though Fishy and that’s the issue. When his points get challenged he refuses to respond, which is because he has no answer. So what does he do? He just posts another list.

Doesnt it make you suspicious though Fishy? That someone has no answers. Talking of evidence, look at Richard’s absolute insistence that Thompson was Major Smith’s suspect. Post after post after post telling us how mathematically certain it is that Smith was talking about Thompson as being the man that Smith sent his two men to Rupert Street to arrest. I have post the actual statements of those to officers which categorically proves that Major Smith’s suspect was Oswald Puckeridge. This isn’t my opinion Fishy or simply a case of me interpreting the evidence differently to Richard - it’s a case of black and white, cast-iron proof. Ask yourself “is it reasonable for Richard to keep on posting that Thompson was Smith’s suspect when we know that he wasn’t?”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not necessarily so, my friend. Sometimes questions are phrased to elicit an anticipated response. Sometimes answers do not fit the required parameters for a response and are therefore discounted. Sometimes questions that have a response that is perceived as unacceptable to the asker are repeated to the point of exhausted exasperation. In the final summary, those who are asked questions have the right to determine whether the question is worthy of reply on the basis of the understanding of the questioner of the proposals of the person being questioned.

Cheers, George

If we all took the position of deciding not to respond to questions we wouldn’t have much of a forum George. The reason that I’ve asked questions isn’t because I haven’t liked the answer though it’s simply because no answer has ever been given. For example:

Richard had claimed as a fact that Thompson was living at the heart of the murder sites at the time of the murders. Richard has no evidence on which to base that claim and yet he continues to use it without responding to evidence to the contrary.

[caz]

Not necessarily so, my friend. Sometimes questions are phrased to elicit an anticipated response. Sometimes answers do not fit the required parameters for a response and are therefore discounted. Sometimes questions that have a response that is perceived as unacceptable to the asker are repeated to the point of exhausted exasperation. In the final summary, those who are asked questions have the right to determine whether the question is worthy of reply on the basis of the understanding of the questioner of the proposals of the person being questioned.

Cheers, George

I agree with this, George, having been at the rough end of endless questions about my own reasoning on certain matters, which I have tried to address to the best of my ability, knowing my explanations will never satisfy someone who has already made up their own mind that there is no explanation. It's all too easy to throw out accusations of not being able to supply an answer, when the truth is that no answer will ever be good enough, so why bother trying? It becomes a one-way discussion when a person is expected to give an answer, knowing it will be rejected and a different answer sought. Not being willing to get into this kind of 'no win' situation is then seen as not being able, which can be a very different kettle of fish.

Love,

Caz
X

[Doctored Whatsit]

Not necessarily so, my friend. Sometimes questions are phrased to elicit an anticipated response. Sometimes answers do not fit the required parameters for a response and are therefore discounted. Sometimes questions that have a response that is perceived as unacceptable to the asker are repeated to the point of exhausted exasperation. In the final summary, those who are asked questions have the right to determine whether the question is worthy of reply on the basis of the understanding of the questioner of the proposals of the person being questioned.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I am in broad agreement with what you say, in that I actively dislike getting into a debate where more or less the same points are being made repeatedly, and opt out rather than continue something that is clearly pointless. Some people won't say "OK I was wrong", "maybe you're right", or "thank you, I didn't know that" even when it is clearly relevant.

However, if any one of us makes a detailed, allegedly factual statement, we should be prepared to reply with some detail explaining and perhaps providing the source, if and when someone queries the factual truth. I think Herlock may be referring to attempts to resolve the latter rather than the former.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the issue of keeping debates going on for too long when a brick wall has been reached I have to plead guilty. I don’t think that I’m alone in doing it but yes, perhaps I’d be better off just bailing out and leaving it.

I don’t mind making clear what my issue is though. It’s certainly not that someone interprets events differently or if they particularly believe that one suspect is likelier than another (I agree with Caz that no suspect comes near to a ‘probably guilty’ let alone a guilty. It’s a case of possibles and nothing more) The issue is when there’s a point blank refusal to respond to questions. This is the situation that we have had with Richard. Post after post of lists of ‘reasons’ why Thompson was guilty. If someone makes a positive claim then surely they should respond to the points against and not just assume that everyone will take the points at face value. I think that if a statement is factually untrue it needs to be pointed out and the person making it should have the opportunity of clarifying. So, for example, when Richard makes the claim that Thompson was definitely staying at the Providence Row Refuge at the time of the murders this is a huge claim. It’s not physically impossible that he might have stayed there at some point but we have absolutely no evidence that he stayed there; let alone that he stayed there at the times of the murders. So it’s an untrue claim and yet it keeps being repeated.

[John Wheat]

On the issue of keeping debates going on for too long when a brick wall has been reached I have to plead guilty. I don’t think that I’m alone in doing it but yes, perhaps I’d be better off just bailing out and leaving it.

I don’t mind making clear what my issue is though. It’s certainly not that someone interprets events differently or if they particularly believe that one suspect is likelier than another (I agree with Caz that no suspect comes near to a ‘probably guilty’ let alone a guilty. It’s a case of possibles and nothing more) The issue is when there’s a point blank refusal to respond to questions. This is the situation that we have had with Richard. Post after post of lists of ‘reasons’ why Thompson was guilty. If someone makes a positive claim then surely they should respond to the points against and not just assume that everyone will take the points at face value. I think that if a statement is factually untrue it needs to be pointed out and the person making it should have the opportunity of clarifying. So, for example, when Richard makes the claim that Thompson was definitely staying at the Providence Row Refuge at the time of the murders this is a huge claim. It’s not physically impossible that he might have stayed there at some point but we have absolutely no evidence that he stayed there; let alone that he stayed there at the times of the murders. So it’s an untrue claim and yet it keeps being repeated.

I believe you should keep the debate going if you think the opposite side is clearly wrong and won't back down for whatever reason. I'm a poster who would like to see the Ripper crimes solved. I think this is unlikely and I make no secret that I think Bury was Jack but would be happy if it was proved who Jack was and it wasn't Bury. I mean why should I back down when I believe someone is clearly wrong?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I believe you should keep the debate going if you think the opposite side is clearly wrong and won't back down for whatever reason. I'm a poster who would like to see the Ripper crimes solved. I think this is unlikely and I make no secret that I think Bury was Jack but would be happy if it was proved who Jack was and it wasn't Bury. I mean why should I back down when I believe someone is clearly wrong?

I think if someone gives an opinion say on whether Bury is a likelier candidate that James Kelly for example, it’s not a debate that can be resolved because it’s often down to one persons interpretation over another but facts are different. If someone makes a claim that’s factually untrue it needs to be called out. Then the person who made the original statement can respond; perhaps by pointing out something that justified his claim. What Richard has been doing though is just repeating the claims as if they are indisputable facts. Anyone who accepts his ‘facts’ has then been misinformed.

[John Wheat]

I think if someone gives an opinion say on whether Bury is a likelier candidate that James Kelly for example, it’s not a debate that can be resolved because it’s often down to one persons interpretation over another but facts are different. If someone makes a claim that’s factually untrue it needs to be called out. Then the person who made the original statement can respond; perhaps by pointing out something that justified his claim. What Richard has been doing though is just repeating the claims as if they are indisputable facts. Anyone who accepts his ‘facts’ has then been misinformed.

I agree with all that Herlock.

Cheers John

[FISHY1118]

What Richard does is that he keeps repeat posting lengthy lists expecting to go unchallenged though Fishy and that’s the issue. When his points get challenged he refuses to respond, which is because he has no answer. So what does he do? He just posts another list.

Doesnt it make you suspicious though Fishy? That someone has no answers. Talking of evidence, look at Richard’s absolute insistence that Thompson was Major Smith’s suspect. Post after post after post telling us how mathematically certain it is that Smith was talking about Thompson as being the man that Smith sent his two men to Rupert Street to arrest. I have post the actual statements of those to officers which categorically proves that Major Smith’s suspect was Oswald Puckeridge. This isn’t my opinion Fishy or simply a case of me interpreting the evidence differently to Richard - it’s a case of black and white, cast-iron proof. Ask yourself “is it reasonable for Richard to keep on posting that Thompson was Smith’s suspect when we know that he wasn’t?”

Im sure Richard gave a pretty detailed account of Mr smith suspect in many of his post in relation to Thompson and Puckeridge. I havent seen your post of the actual statements of the two officers as to compare it to Richards explanation .

[FISHY1118]

I agree with this, George, having been at the rough end of endless questions about my own reasoning on certain matters, which I have tried to address to the best of my ability, knowing my explanations will never satisfy someone who has already made up their own mind that there is no explanation. It's all too easy to throw out accusations of not being able to supply an answer, when the truth is that no answer will ever be good enough, so why bother trying? It becomes a one-way discussion when a person is expected to give an answer, knowing it will be rejected and a different answer sought. Not being willing to get into this kind of 'no win' situation is then seen as not being able, which can be a very different kettle of fish.

Love,

Caz
X

''knowing my explanations will never satisfy someone who has already made up their own mind that there is no explanation. It's all too easy to throw out accusations of not being able to supply an answer, when the truth is that no answer will ever be good enough, so why bother trying? It''


I guess we,ve all been there huh Caz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im sure Richard gave a pretty detailed account of Mr smith suspect in many of his post in relation to Thompson and Puckeridge. I havent seen your post of the actual statements of the two officers as to compare it to Richards explanation .

No he didn’t Fishy. He won’t discuss it.

This is what I posted about the search for Puckeridge:


Major Henry Smith

"After the second crime I sent word to Sir Charles Warren that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. He had been a medical student; he had been in a lunatic asylum; he spent all his time with women of loose character, whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns, two of these farthings having been found in the pocket of the murdered woman. Sir Charles failed to find him. I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt."

[From Constable to Commissioner, p. 147]

——————————————————————

Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office dated 19 September 1888

"A man called Puckeridge was released from an asylum on 4 August. He was educated as a Surgeon - has threatened to rip people up with a long knife. He is being looked for but cannot be found as yet."

[Evans and Skinner, Ultimate Sourcebook, p. 132]

——————————————————————————

On September 24th 1888 Major Henry Smith sent two men to arrest his suspect. He was followed from Cheapside to his lodgings in a Rupert Street coffee house.


The following reports were initialled by Major Smith himself.


25th Sepr. 1888


I beg to report that in company

with D. S. Child, I saw Mr. W. Tolfree, Proprietor

of the Imperial Coffee House, 50 Rupert Street.

in answer to our Enquiry he informed us that

the man Puckridge had been Lodging with

him for the last four weeks, and had slept

every night in the House. he also said Puckridge

was Eccentric in his habits and given to Eccessive

Drinking, and appears to have ample means.


Fredk. Lawley

D. S.

R. Child. D. S.


and


P. C. P. 105 Benham reports that at 3.30. P.M. 24th

Inst, he saw Puckridge at the west End of Cheapside

followed him through Cheapside, Threadneedle Street, Austinfrias

to No 2 Circas Place London Wall, Puckridge remained

there till 6. P.M. when he left followed by Benham

& P. C. P Smith, he went into Lehmans Confectioners

London Wall, then to the Stirling Castle P. H. &

then through Coleman Street into Cheapside

through the Strand to Charing Cross, waited outside

the Post Office Charing Cross, then on to Leicester

Square, Coventry Street, Lockharts Coffee House,

remained there one hour & 30 minutes then came

out & walked up & down Coventry Street

then returned to Lockharts remained there about

ten Minutes then walked up & down Coventry

Street for about half an hour, then went into

a P. H. in Rupert Street, stopped about 10 minutes

then went to the Imperial Coffee House 50 Rupert

Street, opened the Private door with a latch Key

and went in at 9.45. P.M. I watched the Place

till 12.30. A.M. when the Place was [?]Cosed [Closed?], there

is a notice in the Window - Beds to let for Gentlemen.


25th Sepr.

1888


Thomas Benham

P. C 105

————————————————————————

So….Smith’s quote about his suspect - Sir Charles Warren writing to the Home Secretary about the suspect, Puckeridge - then two reports from the actual officers involved in tracking Puckeridge down to RUPERT STREET - and as Smith stated that he had an alibi, there we have it in black and white…his landlord said that Puckeridge had slept at his premises every night for the previous four weeks; exonerating him of the murders of Nichols and Chapman.

So we have it 100% proven that Puckeridge was Smith’s suspect, Richard is fully aware of this information, and yet he just keeps on posting that Smith’s suspect was mathematically certain to have been Thompson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

''knowing my explanations will never satisfy someone who has already made up their own mind that there is no explanation. It's all too easy to throw out accusations of not being able to supply an answer, when the truth is that no answer will ever be good enough, so why bother trying? It''


I guess we,ve all been there huh Caz.

But that’s not the case Fishy. Richard states a point then, and others, respond giving reasons why this point is untrue then….nothing. He can’t fall back on the “what’s the point of trying to explain” position. It’s a cop-out. The reason that he doesn’t answer is simple…there is no valid answer and he’s fully aware of the fact.