Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Again you elevate the ‘well he was there’ argument. If that puts him ahead of Bury then you aren’t worth listening to. Take away Cross being present and you are left with absolutely nothing but you’re own manipulations. This is why you, Von Stow and the acolytes are reduced to talking about his mother and other irrelevancies.
The whole case against Cross is a dishonest, reprehensible example of manipulation, exaggeration and the wilful and deliberate twisting of the English language. It stinks. He’s a feeble suspect with nothing going for him. He’s better than Gull is about all that I’ll say. Everything that he did that night speaks of an entirely innocent man. And as for you acolytes who are such delicate flowers that they won’t debate on Casebook the less said the better. They clearly only want to hear from those who worship at the altar.
So….for them I’ll repeat:
In Cutting Point on page 92 he says:
“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”
And yet on post # 138 on here he says:
“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”
So what has changed between then and now? What newspapers are available to him now that weren’t available then? Or was his abacus missing a few beads so that he couldn’t count properly?
How could this ‘absolute bulk’ not only have escaped his attention at the time that he was researching then writing his book but they were so well hidden that it led him to state the exact opposite?! He apparently had no problem finding and counting the one newspaper that mentioned 3.20 and was keen to mention it though. But this ‘absolute bulk’ apparently and very mysteriously eluded him.
100%, cast-iron, rock solid, take-it-to-the-bank PROOF that you deliberately misled your readers in Cutting Point.
Tell your response to them…..they’ll believe anything.
Comment