Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[andy1867]

I voted for Cross....
Due to a distinct lack of knowledge over the broad base of the cases..I go for the most prosaic answer...
Cross was seen next to dead victim...Hutch was seen under a lampost

Now if the question was "Who do you think p*s**d up this lampost"?...............




..........Hutch for me....

[MysterySinger]

Deleted

[John Wheat]

Adieu.

Goodbye.

[Fisherman]

Adieu.

[John Wheat]

Not very likely, no.

Your suspect is not related to the Ripper murders in any fashion whatsoever. There is no connection proven in any way. And still you claim he is by far the best suspect there is.

Thereīs fanatism for you.

My suspect is firmly tied to the case, with an ex-murder squad leader saying that before he can be cleared, nobody else can be suggested with any effect.

Thereīs the reality of things for you.

How that constitutes problems for me, I fail to see.

Why I would prolong a discussion that is already settled, I also fail to see.

So itīs adieu, John.

You are largely wrong. You are right about one thing though I don't wish to discuss the matter with you further. You're failure to see you're suspect and it is a failure as nothing more than a witness is embarrassing.

[Fisherman]

You cause yourself problems.

Not very likely, no.

Your suspect is not related to the Ripper murders in any fashion whatsoever. There is no connection proven in any way. And still you claim he is by far the best suspect there is.

Thereīs fanatism for you.

My suspect is firmly tied to the case, with an ex-murder squad leader saying that before he can be cleared, nobody else can be suggested with any effect.

Thereīs the reality of things for you.

How that constitutes problems for me, I fail to see.

Why I would prolong a discussion that is already settled, I also fail to see.

So itīs adieu, John.

[John Wheat]

More like problems everytime...

You cause yourself problems.

[Fisherman]

No problem anytime.

More like problems everytime...

[John Wheat]

Thanks for the thoroughly illuminating exchange.

No problem anytime.

[Fisherman]

I have answered your question. It is you who has complicated matters by giving a very hardline definition of a fanatic that would seem to only fit religious lunatics.

Not at all. YOU and nobody else introduced the term fanatic, and you and nobody else must therefore define things. You claim that I am a Lechmere fanatic, but you refuse to state whether you are a Bury fanatic.

Thanks for the thoroughly illuminating exchange.

[John Wheat]

Letīs not debate it at all. Letīs just hear you say whether YOU categorize yourself as a Bury fanatic or not.

I am not asking you whether you think it possible that some definitions may fit you when it comes to fanatism.
I am asking you to state clearly whether you yourself would describe yourself - a man who just crashed into another thread stating that the suspect discussed there is nowhere near as good as Bury, and who just stated that Bury is way ahead of any other suspect - a Bury fanatic.

Do you think you can manage a "Yes, I consider myself a Bury fanatic" or a "No, I donīt consider myself a Bury fanatic"? Or is the question too demanding?

I have answered your question. It is you who has complicated matters by giving a very hardline definition of a fanatic that would seem to only fit religious lunatics.

[Fisherman]

Going by your definition of a fanatic I am clearly not one however that definition is one definition of a fanatic and is not gospel. I may fit other definitions of a fanatic. A fanatic could be described as someone who is heavily into something or someone this could be a pop star. If fanatic could be used to describe someone who is heavily into the idea that Bury was Jack the Ripper then I would say I am a Bury fanatic by that definition as you are heavily into Lechmere being The Ripper then that would also make you a fanatic.

I am not asking you whether you think it possible that some definitions may fit you when it comes to fanatism.
I am asking you to state clearly whether you yourself would describe yourself - a man who just crashed into another thread stating that the suspect discussed there is nowhere near as good as Bury, and who just stated that Bury is way ahead of any other suspect - a Bury fanatic.

Do you think you can manage a "Yes, I consider myself a Bury fanatic" or a "No, I donīt consider myself a Bury fanatic"? Or is the question too demanding?

[John Wheat]

Letīs not debate it at all. Letīs just hear you say whether YOU categorize yourself as a Bury fanatic or not.

Going by your definition of a fanatic I am clearly not one however that definition is one definition of a fanatic and is not gospel. I may fit other definitions of a fanatic. A fanatic could be described as someone who is heavily into something or someone this could be a pop star. If fanatic could be used to describe someone who is heavily into the idea that Bury was Jack the Ripper then I would say I am a Bury fanatic by that definition as you are heavily into Lechmere being The Ripper then that would also make you a fanatic.

[Fisherman]

I would say it's debatable as to wether I am the biggest Bury fanatic. However as regards Bury I'm probably right.

Letīs not debate it at all. Letīs just hear you say whether YOU categorize yourself as a Bury fanatic or not.

[John Wheat]

Would you categorize yourself as the biggest Bury fanatic? Or as a Bury fanatic overall?

I would say it's debatable as to wether I am the biggest Bury fanatic. However as regards Bury I'm probably right.