Kidney - for and against

[Fisherman]

Oh, Anna, and one more thing. Since you state that I "hijacked" this thread, it should perhaps be pointed out that I was the first one to respond to Sams original question. My first post to the thread was in fact the second one altogether on the topic.
So I really don´t see how I could be the hijacker here. If you want to elaborate on it, you are welcome. If not, let´s drop it, shall we?

The best, Anna
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Anna!

This IS getting annoying! Tom has done it, Dan Norder has done it and now you are doing it; asking who made me the authority on Stride.
There is only one answer to that question, is there not: As long as we cannot solve the riddle of how she died, there is no telling who got it right or wrong. Maybe we all got it wrong, ultimately.

You think that Tom has a balanced view of the Stride killing. Good for you! But I´m afraid that view of his is not necessarily the truth. Toms view may just as well be wrong, and if it is, it is of little use to state, after finding out, that it all seemed so balanced. Also, if you care to take a look at the correspondance between Tom and me, you will find expressions like dumbass, crackpot and liar, just as you will find suggestions of sending hungry chihuahuas up peoples asses. You will also find that those expressions are not balanced inbetween us, so if it is balance you are looking for, then maybe Tom is not the place to go. Just a suggestion, mind you ...

Moreover, DEBATING the issues connected to the Ripper is what these boards are all about, if I am not mistaken. Meaning that when you think that I "hijack" into threads that rightfully belong to Tom and his hangaraounds, I have more of a feeling that what I am doing is to criticize his and other posters views when I think that such criticism is necessary.
If you choose to go about your own doings on Casebook by applauding Tom, then that is your choice, and I will in no way blame you for it - as long as you leave it up to me to mind my own business the way I choose to.

I am sorry if you feel that I tried to make you join "a slanging match" in my former post to you. But I honestly found especially that last suggestion of yours - that the ONLY reason that you could think of as an explanation to why Kidney may want to kill Stride, was that she had played a padlock trick on him - so strange, that I could not help but to react. If you think it rude, I sincerely apologize. If that is how you see it, that´s okay by me.

The best, Anna!
Fisherman

[anna]

or indeed, anyone else who would care to restart it properly and sensibly please, ......lets just get back to discussing Liz.

[anna]

Hi Fisherman......Sam opened a DISCUSSION on the above topic.....I know my eyesight is not what it was, but I read it as Kidney- for and against. NOT "ask Fisherman"......who made you the authority on Stride.Yes, I do side with Tom, I am interested to read his thoughts and indeed others thoughts on the topic of the thread which you have hijacked into,what has now become, four pages of a slanging match,which I have no intention of joining in on.Hopefully Tom can come back and restart the thread,so we can all get back to JTR,as he seems to have a balanced view of her murder.

[Fisherman]

Don´t let it frustrate you, Tom - your theories are "possible" too!

Good night, sweet prince!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

The overriding point I'm making is that on most issues, you settle for a less likely (sometimes LEAST likely) conclusion, and then build your theories from this house of cards. When myself or someone else points out the inherent problem in your observations or theories, your only recourse is to point out that it's "possible" and that we don't have ironclad evidence to "prove you wrong". The fact that you can't support your conclusions with anything resembling evidence doesn't deter you from loudly putting them forth as conclusions. Your broken record approach to discussion and argument is what gives rise to the frustration.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

And on it goes...

"As for your misinformation, I'm clearly referring to your ideas that Kidney was a wife-beater when we do not know as such, or that he was never interrogated or investigated by police, or that he locked Stride in their room, or that the knife used by Stride's killer was in any way different from the one used on other victims"

Tom, since neither you or I know for a fact whether Kidney was a wife-beater or not, how can it be misinformation to point at the possibility of it (she DID turn him in to the police, you know...)?
If not knowing adds up to information, you´re in a sweat spot yourself, if you try to claim that he was not.

And where, oh where, have I said that Kidney was not interrogated by the police? Now THAT is what I call misinformation, Tom! Shame on you...!

And where, oh where, have I said that he locked her in the room? Now THAT is what I call mi...wait a minute - didn´t this happen before...?

And where have I stated that the knife that killed Stride differed from the one/s that killed the other Ripper victims? Now THAT....

Why do you resort to things like these, Tom? It is all very... well, unworthy, at least of most people. And the knife that killed Stride, if you want to stay on the topic; could you please give a fitting description of it? I cant, to be sure.

Tom, when I point to a possibility, I do not assure all and sundry that it must be right; I present it as a possibility, and some of the possibilities I put forward are more, some less feasible. Does that really consternate you? Have you not seen it done before? I know of one chap who asserts us that Kidney was thoroughly questioned and thereafter exonerated. Happens, you know.

And what makes you say that I ignored Phillips´words on Chapman/Eddowes? I did the exact opposite, did I not: I commented on it and gave my explanation to it? What happened, Tom? Did you miss it?

Really, Tom, sometimes you baffle me.

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

Nice try. Since I'm sure Fisherman won't bother correcting you (ahem), I will. Here's what I wrote:

So one of these days I'll just put out a book and be done with the damned thing... In the meantime I'm working on making a lot of money, which is why I'm not around the boards much any more.

Clear enough?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom, if I dare to quote you:

'Actually, I'm writing a book...'

Maybe you need to increase the medication?

[Tom_Wescott]

"I'm not above making mistakes"
Yes, you are. You have never been backed up against a wall by anybody, in any Ripper-related topic. You´ve said as much yourself.

If your world view is such that merely making a mistake is finding ones' self "backed up against a wall", then I'm sorry for you. I see no correlation myself. Both statements of mine utilized by you above still stand.

As for your misinformation, I'm clearly referring to your ideas that Kidney was a wife-beater when we do not know as such, or that he was never interrogated or investigated by police, or that he locked Stride in their room, or that the knife used by Stride's killer was in any way different from the one used on other victims. Or how about how you isolate a sentence where Phillips is remarking that the Chapman and Stride murders were different (which they were) and using it to imply he was saying he believed it to be a different killer? Meanwhile, you ignore where he blatantly said Eddowes was NOT killed by Chapman's killer, but by a different hand altogether.

Of the above you're either guilty of saying yourself or of allowing to stand uncorrected when someone else has written them. Basically, if at the end of a post or dissertation of yours, someone comes away with wrong information or a skewed perspective of the truth, then I would say you (or anyone) is guilty of misinformation. Mistakes are one thing, but intentional misleading? That's another. Maybe you actually believe some of what you say. If that's the case, then I'm not sure what the right word is, so for now I'll stick with misinformation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Right, Tom, I will answer you again, if you promise not to see it as stalking on my behalf. Myself, I am beginning to get slightly lost as to who´s stalking who by now, but never mind!

"the mountains of misinformation piled on this case by good folks such as yourself"
What misinformation, Tom? Examples of this clearsightedness of yours, please? That keen eye?

"Surely I have to be wrong before I can be corrected?"
Yes. Which is why.

"I'm not above making mistakes"
Yes, you are. You have never been backed up against a wall by anybody, in any Ripper-related topic. You´ve said as much yourself.

"More often than not I've already persued the line of reasoning being offered to me as 'criticism' and have rejected it or put it towards the bottom of the list for a good reason."
Like the coroners question to Lamb, and his answer, you mean? Yep, you had a VERY good reason for burying that one at the bottom of the list ...

"What I see is you post a long rant full of errors and misinformation"
...and there we go again on the misinformation issue! What misinformation, Tom? If it´s there, then surely you can point it out?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Anna!
Good to hear you side with Tom; he needs all the chums he can get!
Just a few comments on your post:

"unlikely that Kidney killed Stride.Great timing if he did"
Yes - but how would he have known that???

"The problem with the medical situation concerning these women is that there were conflicting doctors opinions,one said a different knife for one victim than another etc."
In Strides case, that is pretty useless. A plethora of knives, from short to long, from broad to narrow and from Kenyan to Burmese, could have caused her wound. Sorry, but that´s just it.

"There had to be a reason why these women were tied in together"
Had there? Were they? How?

"Which would mean that,same as in the case of Barnett and Mary, if the partner was the killer,they would have had to have killed the other ladies aswell"
Just the one "if" won´t do here. Better throw some more in, together with a huge pinch of salt. No impossibility, of course, but then again the impossibilities are few and far between here...

"I can't think of a reason Kidney would have had for killing Liz, unless the padlock key she had on her was part of a lock on something he had stored that he intended to sell,and she had taken the key out of spite,or with the intention of retrieving whatever it was to sell for herself"

No? Amazing! And you are not pulling our legs here...?

The best, Anna!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

Can you no longer read? I said that I'm NOT currently writing a book because I'm doing other things (not writing) to make a lot of money. And if I thought everyone into Ripperology was a dumbass then I wouldn't bother writing anything for them. Thankfully, the dumbasses are in the minority. They just seem to be the loudest and heaviest posters on certain threads.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

So Tom, I hope this book you are writing - the one you are going to make all that loot out of - is not about the Whitechapel Murders?
Because if it is you have just alienated your entire purchasing public by calling them 'Dumbasses'.
Nice to finally hear from you that you are in it to make money.
There was a time when I had time for you, but that time is now over.
Your supposed knowledge is based entirely on profit, and I now regard you as fair game.

[Tom_Wescott]

Oh well. This IS apalling news, Tom - you are planning to write a book and thus rid yourself of me.

Oh, if only it were so easy. Actually, I'm writing a book so nice, impressionable peeps like TJI don't get sucked in by the mountains of misinformation piled on this case by good folks such as yourself, Glenn, AP, and the guys who write Stride articles for the Whitechapel Society Journal.

I have just corrected you on the Stride thread, by the bye.

No, you backpeddled. There's a difference. Surely I have to be wrong before I can be corrected?

[quote-Fisherman] you have made a series of mistakes, faults and unsubstantiable assertions[/quote]

I'm not above making mistakes. But I haven't made too many on the Stride threads in recent times. Seems I have to constantly correct them, though, and then get vitriol and flack for my troubles.

For in your case, constructive criticism does not make you give your theories a second thought, does it?

That would depend on the criticism, now wouldn't it? More often than not I've already persued the line of reasoning being offered to me as 'criticism' and have rejected it or put it towards the bottom of the list for a good reason.

see that you refer to me and Glenn as "the Swedes", once again implying that we are something that can be handled collectively. We are not. Our opinions differ completely on a number of topics - something that is currently on display on the Tabram thread - but the difference in disagreeing with Glenn as opposed to disagreeing with you, is that Glenn listens, weighs, and then either agrees or politely points out why he holds another view than I do. A lot to learn there, Tom!

Really? What I see is you post a long rant full of errors and misinformation, followed by a Glenn post praising you for your mistakes and misinformation! Repeat, repeat, repeat. And with all due respect to Glenn, he makes me look positively bashful and modest by comparison.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott