Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our Charles Cross

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Herlock, when I write that it is in no way certain that the Eastenders would have helped the police, since there was much disliking about them in the district, you claim that I have said that not a single Eastender would help the police.

    If you need the point further proven, I can list a fair few other examples of the exact same thing where you misrepresent me very badly.

    Working from those kinds of misrepresentations, I think you may want to be a bit more careful about judging who is factually sound.
    More misrepresentation.

    If you go back to that specific point.

    You made the above claim previously and at the time I pointed out to you that in one of my previous posts I had listed the possible outcomes of CL calling Paul’s attention to the body. One of those points was in fact that Paul might not have suggested going for a Constable.

    I was also stressing that we couldn’t stereotype all Eastender’s and assume that they wouldn’t want anything to do with the law.

    And so, as anyone can see, this shows that I looked at all possibilities (or at least all that I could think of) and presented a 100% unbiased opinion.

    This facts show that I am correct. Therefore Fish, you must be.......
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-26-2018, 03:09 AM.
    Regards

    Herlock






    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      More misrepresentation.

      If you go back to that specific point.

      You made the above claim previously and at the time I pointed out to you that in one of my previous posts I had listed the possible outcomes of CL calling Paul’s attention to the body. One of those points was in fact that Paul might not have suggested going for a Constable.

      I was also stressing that we couldn’t stereotype all Eastender’s and assume that they wouldn’t want anything to do with the law.

      And so, as anyone can see, this shows that I looked at all possibilities (or at least all that I could think of) and presented a 100% unbiased opinion.

      This facts show that I am correct. Therefore Fish, you must be.......
      Why would you stress that we cannot stereotype all Eastenders - when I did no such thing? And do you deny that you started your post by claiming that I had stated that no Eastender would help the police?

      Shall I fetch the post up and quote it? Is that what you are asking for?

      Comment


      • #78
        You can either quote it or give me the post number as I can’t find it.
        Regards

        Herlock






        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          You are welcome to provide a basis for your misgivings about the honesty of Jonas Mizen.

          You are not equally welcome to say that my "post clearly said that the DN and DS reported that Mizen had described bleeding."

          I never worded it like that, did I? I said that point 2 was placed in a certain spot, and I have explained to you that post 2 to me is the moment when Mizen found Neil by the body.

          That is what my post says - and why. Admittedly, I should have worded point 2 better since it would have voided having you calling me untruthful, but there you are. Nowhere did I actually say "the DN nd the DT (not DS) reported that Mizen had described bleeding".

          Make a meal of it or accept what I say.
          When are you going to stop this semantic nonsense?

          In Post #6 you listed 4 points. The second of which was Mizen saw blood.
          You then listed that point in the accounts of the two papers.

          Therefore. It is very clear, that at that point you claimed both papers mentioned that.

          That since that posting a U turn has been carried out, and you say that was not what you meant is neither here nor there.
          The fact remains the post said clearly that both papers mentioned the bleeding in their reports when they did not.

          Its that simple, that clear


          Steve

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            You can either quote it or give me the post number as I can’t find it.
            I am through with this for some time - I can stand only so much crap over a period of time, and so I´m off.

            This post will be my last for some time. Here is the material you ask for.

            You wrote:

            This option for a guilty CL surely would be preferable to calling someone over who would undoubtedly suggest that they find a constable with CL in possession of the murder weapon and ‘possibly’ with Nichols blood on him (in the dark he couldn’t be certain of being completely blood-free.)


            This post arrived after I had explained carefully that there were Eastenders who disliked the police and distrusted them. There was talk of a hatred of the police here. So I grew somewhat tired and posted this in response:

            In your world, any person in the copper-hating East End would "undoubtedly suggest" that they go searching for a constable, in spite of how they did not even know that there was a crime involved.


            To which you responded :

            And now, in your utter desperation, you are seeking to claim that all Eastenders were such heartless, uncaring b%^**@*s, that they wouldn’t have informed a police officer.


            So this is it - I point out that the East End was not police-friendly, and that we could not work from an assumption that any Eastender would "doubtlessly" contact the police, whereupon you said that I was seeking to claim that all Eaastenders were so heartless and uncaring that they would not have contacted the police.

            An important factual marker was thus turned into a lie about me that painted me out as totally inept to make a fair and balanced call.

            This incidentally came two pages after where you had said
            "Only you could consider getting away scot free 'reckless and stupid'".

            As if I had ever said anything at all even remotely like that. Which I of course had not.

            So I answered you:

            So all we have is one more example of you misrepresenting me.

            You need to stop now, it´s running over the brim.

            Maybe you can now see what I mean? Regardless of how perceptive you are in that area, I wish you the fairest of luck with your efforts out here in the future.

            Me, I will do something else for a while.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              I am through with this for some time - I can stand only so much crap over a period of time, and so I´m off.

              This post will be my last for some time. Here is the material you ask for.

              You wrote:

              This option for a guilty CL surely would be preferable to calling someone over who would undoubtedly suggest that they find a constable with CL in possession of the murder weapon and ‘possibly’ with Nichols blood on him (in the dark he couldn’t be certain of being completely blood-free.)


              This post arrived after I had explained carefully that there were Eastenders who disliked the police and distrusted them. There was talk of a hatred of the police here. So I grew somewhat tired and posted this in response:

              In your world, any person in the copper-hating East End would "undoubtedly suggest" that they go searching for a constable, in spite of how they did not even know that there was a crime involved.


              To which you responded :

              And now, in your utter desperation, you are seeking to claim that all Eastenders were such heartless, uncaring b%^**@*s, that they wouldn’t have informed a police officer.


              So this is it - I point out that the East End was not police-friendly, and that we could not work from an assumption that any Eastender would "doubtlessly" contact the police, whereupon you said that I was seeking to claim that all Eaastenders were so heartless and uncaring that they would not have contacted the police.

              An important factual marker was thus turned into a lie about me that painted me out as totally inept to make a fair and balanced call.

              This incidentally came two pages after where you had said
              "Only you could consider getting away scot free 'reckless and stupid'".

              As if I had ever said anything at all even remotely like that. Which I of course had not.

              So I answered you:

              So all we have is one more example of you misrepresenting me.

              You need to stop now, it´s running over the brim.

              Maybe you can now see what I mean? Regardless of how perceptive you are in that area, I wish you the fairest of luck with your efforts out here in the future.

              Me, I will do something else for a while.
              As you have decided to omit the part of my post where I accepted the possibilty that Paul might not have suggested going for a police officer (I also even accepted that Paul might have just walked on) I think it’s only fair that I mention it yet again to show that I was presenting an unbiased view of all options.

              Quibbling is just pointless.

              I used the word ‘undoubtedly’ which was perhaps too strong a word. ‘Overwhelmingly likely’ would probably have been a better choice.

              I think that I did nothing wrong in interpreting your use of the phrase ‘copper hating East End’ as an attempt to strengthen the likelihood of there being no police involvement.

              This is nitpicking as a distraction.

              If I listed all the times that you had misrepresented me and others I would have little time for anything else. I could also add of course “how many times have I called you ignorant or stupid?” You can search the posts as much as you like Fish. But you will find occasions when you have used those inappropriate terms about me.

              You persist in climbing onto that high horse. And, as ever, when things are getting tough in Lechmere Land and Steve is undoubtedly beating you in a debate on the Mizen testimony thread you are ‘off’ again. It is transparently you who continue to make these debates personal. I have even, a few days ago, been complimentary about you and your knowledge and yet you still have the same condescending and irate attitude toward me.

              I can’t see things changing no matter how much I hope that they will.
              Regards

              Herlock






              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

              Comment


              • #82
                A lunatic named Lechmere

                I think this may have been CAL’s son:

                https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=30934

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  I think this may have been CAL’s son:

                  https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=30934
                  Interesting find.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Might the reason that Lechmere used the Cross name at the Nichols inquest be that he had to take time off work from Pickfords in order to attend - and knew that they would be checking on him under that name? That seems more plausible than his choosing, for nefarious ends, an alias name to which he was already linked in the historical record.
                    Last edited by Bridewell; 01-01-2019, 02:30 PM.
                    Regards, Bridewell.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X