Originally posted by David Orsam
View Post
Let there be light!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostThere isn't any evidence, as far as I am aware, to tell us what the police believed. As far as I know, we only have the account of Walter Dew which you have selectively ignored. For that reason I fail to see what your belief is based on other than that you personally don't accept Maxwell's account.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Observer View PostWell you've been doing a bloody good impersonation of being annoyed
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostHere's where the delusion is....
You seem to accept (reluctantly) that Prater's evidence is that a cry of "oh murder" was a common occurrence.
Yet you also seem to think that only in the early hours of 9 November did such a cry indicate that a murder was taking place.
Every other time that such a cry was heard (if I understand you correctly) it indicated that a common assault was occurring.
But what I don't understand is why the cry on 9 November was so special and different from all the other times that such a cry was heard. That is what you need to explain.
Ad nauseum...if a common assault was taking place "at the door" of Sarah Lewis, then it follows that she would have heard more than a single cry of "oh murder".
Ok lets hear what your explanation of the cry of "oh murder as heard by Lewis and Prater was down to. What do you suppose was happening?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostDoubting a story is not dismissing it.
The question then becomes, what is it you are assuming which is creating this doubt, and on what grounds are you making these assumptions?
Until or unless your assumptions are verified, which cannot be done in this case, only then will you dismiss the story.
Therefore, doubting a story is not dismissing it.
Remember, your personal doubts have no bearing on whether the story is true or not.
And of course my personal doubts have no bearing on whether a story is true or not but equally your personal conviction that it is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not either.
So unless you are saying we must believe everything we read in the newspapers without questioning or challenging it I don't quite know what you are saying.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Observer View PostOf course you're not guilty of personal attack are you?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostNo, it's not a case of: if we can't dismiss it we accept it. We can doubt it can't we?
The question then becomes, what is it you are assuming which is creating this doubt, and on what grounds are you making these assumptions?
Until or unless your assumptions are verified, which cannot be done in this case, only then will you dismiss the story.
Therefore, doubting a story is not dismissing it.
Remember, your personal doubts have no bearing on whether the story is true or not.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Observer View PostI firmly believe the above. Ok, forget what I have posted. Do you believe the men who really mattered, the investigators at the time believed Maxwell? I don't believe thy did.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Observer View PostAs for annoying you it doesn't take much does it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Observer View PostThen you're deluded.
You seem to accept (reluctantly) that Prater's evidence is that a cry of "oh murder" was a common occurrence.
Yet you also seem to think that only in the early hours of 9 November did such a cry indicate that a murder was taking place.
Every other time that such a cry was heard (if I understand you correctly) it indicated that a common assault was occurring.
But what I don't understand is why the cry on 9 November was so special and different from all the other times that such a cry was heard. That is what you need to explain.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostMy serious response is simply, that I still wonder why anyone will ask a question that we cannot possibly answer.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostAs far as I can tell, you came into this thread (having, as you told me, not posted for some time) with the intention of annoying me. Or, I don't know, avenging Fisherman or something.
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostFirst thing you said was that I'm selective in my use of evidence and you've not supported this in anything you've subsequently posted.
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostIf you had wanted to discuss the subject of Maxwell's evidence, fine, but did it really need all the personal attacks?
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostIf you want to "bugger off" great, go ahead, but I'm staying here thanks.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: