Kidney - for and against

[Jon Guy]

I absolutely can say the same. I enjoy being wrong, because that means I've learned something. But then I actually bother to do my best to learn the truth before proclaiming I know it. That saves me much embarrassment. I've been waiting for someone else to come along and point out your rather screaming errors, but it's clear to me now none of the other current posters or readers to this thread have a flipping clue what they're talking about, and aren't capable of correcting the errors, so we'll just let the matter rest there. I've corrected the same errors on the Stride threads repeatedly, over and over. It doesn't do any good and if anyone actually gives two craps about the truth, they ain't talkin'. That's why I had to strongly disagree with your notion that everyone is 'looking for the truth'. I don't see ANY of that here and it frustrates the hell out of me. So one of these days I'll just put out a book and be done with the damned thing. Then all the crackpots like Fish who stalk me around, twisting my words and manipulating the facts, will have a much harder time doing so. That's something to look forward to. In the meantime I'm working on making a lot of money, which is why I'm not around the boards much any more. That and the fact that most of the current crop of posters are dumbasses, you (tji) not included.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom

I take it you don`t think Kidney killled Stride ?

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom

I take it you don`t think Kidney killled Stride ?

Of course not. There's no reason to suppose so, as all the above posts from TJI, Fisherman, Glenn, et al make painfully clear.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Pssst, Tom; I think that Jon was actually joking...!

Oh well. This IS apalling news, Tom - you are planning to write a book and thus rid yourself of me.
Then what´s to become of me? What am I to do when you deprive me of the possibility of stalking you and littering these threads with crap?

Before you answer, Tom - I am actually joking too.

I have just corrected you on the Stride thread, by the bye. In spite of your asserted efforts to always get things right before you enter the boards with them, you made a slight slip-up, I´m afraid.

I´ll let you in on a secret, Tom. The reason that I have been taking a number of fights with you is actually not that I deem my miserable life worthless without you in it. It all owes to the fact that you are the single most arrogant poster on these threads, and that you have made a series of mistakes, faults and unsubstantiable assertions, none of which has improved since I pointed it out. Oh no. For in your case, constructive criticism does not make you give your theories a second thought, does it? Instead, it sends you into headless ravings, mixed up with the foulest possible language and substanceless accusations, with the aimless hope of trying to save face. The outcome, Tom, is the exact opposite.

I 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!

Now, try to stop painting other posters out as dumbasses and concentrate on the differing topics of the threads. That will give us both the chance to work in favor of tji:s suggestion to use the boards in a productive manner.

Cone on, Tom - you can do it!
Fisherman

[anna]

Hi all, Actually Tom has made some very good points relating to the Stride murder,and I have to agree with him and state that in my opinion is is unlikely that Kidney killed Stride.Great timing if he did, JTR striking not far away,in time and distance that he could kill Liz and get away scot free leaving JTR to take the blame for both,but as with Barnett,I think they would have been thoroughly eliminated.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.There had to be a reason why these women were tied in together,and that ,for me,has to be the throat cut,as with Liz there were no mutilations,and I don't think she was included because of the panic of the night.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.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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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

Good night, sweet prince!
Fisherman