Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kidney - for and against

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Fisherman, no offense, but when you demand that people either agree with you or repeat something that you insist must be wrong you shouldn't be surprised when that doesn't fly. You just set up a situation where you're going to try to claim that any answer just proves that you're right, despite never having provided a good reason why anyone should think you are in the first place. One error-filled essay on the Stride case doesn't make you the local expert on the topic, nor does insisting (as you did on the old boards) that Tom was intentionally misrepresenting evidence when it was more that you misread it and then refused to admit your mistake.

    Dan Norder
    Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
    Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

    Comment


    • #17
      Tom, I'd be interested to know of how many inquests you know where a senior police officer has stood up and questioned a witness in regard to his sworn testimony?
      You see it is not a police matter, but a civil matter.
      The only requirement of the police is to supply the coroner with witness statement, and then to react to the outcome of the coroner's inquest, which then makes it a police matter.
      If a senior police officer feels the need to question a witness at inquest in regard to his sworn testimony, then it does seem to imply that the senior police officer has no prior knowledge of that testimony.
      This then seems to imply to me that the senior police officer is attempting to make a police matter out of a civil matter; in other words his basic questioning of the witness at inquest is a clear indication of police interest in his testimony at civil proceedings.
      I do believe the coroner was probably at fault for allowing this questioning of a witness in his civil court,as the inquest was convened for one purpose and one purpose alone, determining the cause of death and responsibilty for that death... but the rub is that cause had to be established prior to responsibilty.
      And here we see responsibilty being questioned before cause.

      Comment


      • #18
        Tom Wescott writes:
        "Fisherman,

        A few points:

        * Regarding Stride in specific and Ripperology in general, I've never, ever been 'backed into a wall'. Nor is that likely to happen. That might be your experience, but it's not mine.

        * I did not call your posts crap, I called the behavior evinced in them crap, namely your crusade against me.

        * The unpleasant truth is that I stand on much firmer ground than you. Accept it. If what you're looking for is a fight, go find a weaker opponent. You can't win against me. That's the simple truth. But I'm not looking for a fight, so leave me be. I don't respond to your crap because I don't consider your input or attitude to be worthy of my time.

        * Stride was not killed by Kidney. If she were, Kidney was a brilliant man who managed to fool everyone from Stride to her friends to his own friends to Schwartz to the police. Is that easier to accept than his innocence?"

        Strange stuff, Tom. Why ask me a question when you have already stated that you can´t be bothered for time to read my posts?

        And it gets stranger: You feel the need to write "If what you're looking for is a fight, go find a weaker opponent. You can't win against me. That's the simple truth."

        For that I pity you, Tom. Paranoia is a terrible thing, and there is more than a whiff of it here. If you feel the need, I will tell you once again what I have told you before, Tom:
        I have no wish to compete in a who-knows-most competition with you. I fail to see what use it would be. I have never, not on the old threas and not now, had any trouble to accept and live with the fact that there are heaps of people who are better read up than me on the Ripper. You should try that same feeling; it is relieving, and it may take a lot of your chest. For securitys sake, and if you need me to, I will say it out loud: Tom Wescott probably knows more than I do about the death of Liz Stride. He has probably read more about if and he has definitely written more about it. There! Better?

        Now, for the sad part of it. Your established superiority - and this may come as a shock to you, but I don´t know how to break it in a gentle way - does not make you unfallable! That was very much proven on the old boards, when I pointed out that the single piece of rock steady proof you used to establish that Johnston must have smeared Strides hand with blood was wrong!

        I suggest that we work from this order fortwith; I have no trouble accepting you as an almighty authority on Stride, and you hve no trouble realizing that almighty authorities are sometimes wrong. Moreover, when they are wrong, they owe it to those less gifted, talented and knowledgeable than themselves to admit that they have made a mistake. if not, there is every chance that those on the ground will live on accepting that even the mistakes made by the experts were in fact truths, like it having been substantiated that Kidney was cleared on sound and watertight grounds, that the cut in Strides throat could only have been delivered by an expert knifesman and that the coroner asked P C Lamb whether he had seen anything in Strides right hand, whereupon he replied in the negative.

        Deal, Tom?
        Fisherman
        Last edited by Fisherman; 03-01-2008, 04:39 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Fisherman,

          You are not merely another terminally wrong crackpot, you are a liar. How's that for a deal. Now go find someone else to obsess over cuz my card's full.

          Mr. Sparrow,

          Did Fisherman recruit you into this mess? Because you're falling into the same traps as he. Yes, the police investigated Kidney. In the case of the inquest, Kidney commented that he thought he knew something about the murder. The policeman told him he could share his information now if he'd like. It turned out he had none...just a theory. There's nothing at all suspicious in any of this. He probably learned his theory from Charles Le Grand, in any event.

          Yours truly,

          Tom Wescott

          Comment


          • #20
            Dan Norder writes:
            "You just set up a situation where you're going to try to claim that any answer just proves that you're right, despite never having provided a good reason why anyone should think you are in the first place."

            No, Dan. I am not pressing the point that I would be right. I am pressing the point that Tom could very well be wrong when he writes that Kidney was interrogated and cleared by the police. Different thing, wouldn´t you agree?

            As for "One error-filled essay on the Stride case doesn't make you the local expert on the topic, nor does insisting (as you did on the old boards) that Tom was intentionally misrepresenting evidence when it was more that you misread it and then refused to admit your mistake", would you please elaborate?
            This is the focal point of that discussion, as it was published on these boards (my post):

            "By the way, since you in your earlier post could not remember exactly how you phrased that exchange between Lamb and the coroner (in Ripper Notes), here it is, free of charge:

            “Coroner Baxter asked if he had noticed anything in the right hand, and he replied in the negative”. Your exact wording, Tom. (Quoted from Ripper Notes)

            And this is how you yourself quoted the source (Times) that led you to this embroidered version of the truth, “The Wescott truth” so to speak:
            “Lamb: "...I put my hand on the face and found it slightly warm. I then felt the wrist, but could not feel the pulse.
            Coroner: "Did you do anything else to the body?
            Lamb: I did not, and would not allow any one to get near the body. Deceased was lying on her side, and her left arm was lying under her.
            Coroner: Did you examine her hands?
            Lamb: I did not; but I saw that her right arm was across the breast”


            I used the excerpt from the Times, as Tom claimed that it was a more trustworthy source than the Daily Telegraph, that I originally used. After having satisfied him on the point, I found that Tom in a post to Howard Brown stated that the Times was a more unreliable source than the DT. That did not enhance my respect for Toms manner of treating sources - or posters - in any fashion.

            You claim that I misread Tom and afterwards refused to admit my mistake. That is interesting, for as far as I can see, Tom WAS misleading big time here: The coroner NEVER asked specifically about the right hand and he NEVER received an answer specifically denying that Lamb had seen anything in Strides right hand. If you are of another opinion, it will be interesting to see how you reached it. The salient point here is of course that if it HAD been true that the coroner had asked that specific question and if Lamb HAD answered that question in the negative, then that would have pointed strongly to johnston having bloodied Strides hand. Therefore it was of the utmost importance to show that the question Tom claims was there, in fact never was asked, just as the specific answer claimed never was given.

            As for the rest of your post, I am slightly baffled. You state that my "error-filled" essay on Stride does not make me the local expert on the topic, and I have to ask:what is the matter with you guys? When did I ever claim that I WAS? At what time was it stated that my inferior level of knowledge should prohibit me from writing an essay on Stride? Where do I try to pass the exams allowing me to have a view and to point out errors on your behalf? The last time around, when you entered the discussion between Tom and me on the old boards, you did so assuming that the blood was running profusely from Strides neck as Johnston arrived on the scene, remember? I had to point out to you that it had run away into the gutter before that and that it had begun to clot to some extent. So it seems that maybe you are not the local expert yourself, Mr Norder? To me, that is no big deal; I always thought that we must allow for mistakes, long as we admit them when called upon. Would you not agree?

            The best,
            Fisherman
            Last edited by Fisherman; 03-01-2008, 01:08 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Tom Wescott writes:
              "you are a liar. How's that for a deal"

              I must ask you to point out at what point and in what context you claim that I have lied. Accusations like these are not very nice to see on the boards, and this time around I think that you are going to have to substantiate your claim.

              The best, Tom!
              Fisherman

              Comment


              • #22
                Cap'n Jack to you, Tom.
                Mishter Sparrow only to the whores of old Jamaica town.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Well, well, Cap´n Jack; since boatswabber Wescott and handyman Norder seem to have gone missing, there is only you left to bid a good night. And that suits me just fine!

                  The best, Cap´n!
                  Fisherman

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Cap'n Jack View Post
                    Mishter Sparrow only to the whores of old Jamaica town.
                    I went to a party in Jamaica once. It was a rum do.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Cutting things short on this deplorable topic, I am still waiting for a reply from Tom Wescott explaining how he is going to substantiate calling me a liar, just as I am waiting for Dan Norder to explain why he claims that I misread Toms theory on the bloody hand and then refused to admit it. It should also be added that Dan Norder dubbed my essay on Stride here on the boards "error-filled" - and forgot to point out why.

                      It amounts to a cowardly behaviour to deliver such statements with no substantiation whatsoever. And as I am sure that neither gentleman would like to have such cowardness added to their cv:s, I have good hope to see their respective explanations on these boards shortly.

                      The best, Tom and Dan!
                      Fisherman

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Hey Fisherman,

                        The previous thread on the topic more than adequately explained why you were mistaken, and your attempt to pretend it never happened demonstrates either that you have a very selective memory or that you are purposefully trying to be deceptive. Either way, you aren't worth anyone's time.

                        Dan Norder
                        Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
                        Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Ah, what lofty towers the likes of Dan and Tom occupy, and then throw their corrupted and rotten bread to us, the poor plebs who would beg for more of their manna from heaven... which is just stale old toast that sticks in the throat of those who are hungry, but never mind we'll slaughter sheep, cows and even manatees just to get a taste of their shared heaven.
                          Fisherman, if you want to approach these godly beings you must perform the required rituals, that is only publish stuff that is in Dan's rag, with the approval of Gideon - that's Tom to you - and accept the divine guidance of Dan and Tom that Stride was killed by Jack the Ripper, that Kidney was in Moscow when Stride was killed, and that Le Grand was hiding underneath Dimshits cart when he rolled into Dutfield's Yard and then sprang out with a bunch of grapes in his mouth and some sweetmeats up his asp and through lack of breath suffocated Stride through sheer bullshit.
                          Meanwhile I understand that Dan and Tom are to have an interview with Jeremy Paxman in an effort to see who actually owns the head that speaks.
                          Both deny it of course.
                          But hey, so would I.
                          Lucky I got a ship and can sail right outta 'ere.
                          A rum do is dead right, Sam.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Dan Norder writes:
                            "The previous thread on the topic more than adequately explained why you were mistaken, and your attempt to pretend it never happened demonstrates either that you have a very selective memory or that you are purposefully trying to be deceptive. Either way, you aren't worth anyone's time"

                            Thus no substantiation. Shameful is the word for it. "The coroner asked if he had noticed anything in the right hand, and he replied in the negative". Yes, Dan Norder, that previous thread was very telling, just as your refusal to substantiate your allegations and accusations of errors. So go stick your tail between your legs and get lost - long lost! - if that is the way you choose to have it.

                            Well Tom, your honorable friend chose cowardness, but it at least amounted to showing something. All that is called for now to have this settled is a substantiation from you as to when and how I have lied on these boards. You see, the backside of the coin when you call somebody a liar is that when you can not substantiate it, you automatically become a liar yourself, something you should perhaps have pondered from the outset.

                            So it´s either substantiation, or I will sense that I am dealing with a ventriloquist and his dummy here. And I will leave it up to you to sort out the roles inbetween you.

                            Fisherman

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Friends, Romans, Countrymen,...

                              Havent all of us either erred or been less than accurate at times? Either purposefully or not. I cant solve your dispute for you, but I can say that neither Fisherman, Dan, Tom or anyone else chiming in.. including me, is 100% correct at all times. Ergo, no reason to cast stones with that perspective, we all live in glass houses. Ive had my run ins with members here when the treatment or the insinuation is such that I cant let it slide, but we return to civility afterwards.

                              Isnt that more productive?

                              My best regards all.
                              Last edited by ; 03-02-2008, 02:42 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Bless you Michael, for the world you live in.
                                In my world it comes down to who can load their guns quicker, but when the powder is damp, you might as well stroll the deck with a fine glass of rare rum in hand, and admire the setting of a Carib sun.
                                For we deal with wet powder here which will never fire.
                                My decks are cleared.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X