A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the contrary.

I explained previously that I am not going to reveal all my sources on this forum.

The issue is not a non-issue.

Your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.

I quoted from what I had actually written in order to prove that.

The issue is whether what I have actually written is going to be presented accurately.

You obviously have not done so.

I said that there is a problem with the timing given by a witness in the Nichols inquest, but there are no problems with any of the timings given by witnesses at the Eddowes inquest.

I didn't write that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct, as you claim I stated.

You have no evidence that a salt and pepper jacket was associated with sailors. There’s absolutely no benefit in secrecy on this issue; if you had evidence you would have provided it with glee but you haven’t because you made it up to fit your theory. Simple as that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why is it that I ask a question at least 8 or 9 times, going back days and you blatantly refuse to respond. Yet you know demand a response to this trivial point. You are focusing on this non-issue as a way of avoiding a real one.

On the contrary.

I explained previously that I am not going to reveal all my sources on this forum.

The issue is not a non-issue.

Your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.

I quoted from what I had actually written in order to prove that.

The issue is whether what I have actually written is going to be presented accurately.

You obviously have not done so.

I said that there is a problem with the timing given by a witness in the Nichols inquest, but there are no problems with any of the timings given by witnesses at the Eddowes inquest.

I didn't write that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct, as you claim I stated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's irrelevant.

Your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.

If you won't address that simple point, then there is no point in our having any further correspondence.

Why is it that I ask a question at least 8 or 9 times, going back days and you blatantly refuse to respond. Yet you know demand a response to this trivial point. You are focusing on this non-issue as a way of avoiding a real one.

You did say this btw:

“No-one should be alleged to have poor reasoning for accepting timings given by witnesses which do not disagree with one another.“

So you are saying here that if two witnesses times match, we should assume that the time was correct.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I wish there was a white flag emoji.

If we’re talking about a lack of response, how about responding to this one.

Provide the evidence that a salt and pepper jacket was in anyway connected to sailors NOW or admit that you made it up.

Simple as that…….no more waffling.

That's irrelevant.

Your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.

If you won't address that simple point, then there is no point in our having any further correspondence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wish there was a white flag emoji.

If we’re talking about a lack of response, how about responding to this one.

Provide the evidence that a salt and pepper jacket was in anyway connected to sailors NOW or admit that you made it up.

Simple as that…….no more waffling.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why are all conversations with you like this? Why don’t you just forget about how ‘hard done by’ you are and discus the details. Why is it that when someone disagrees or challenges you you go on about people ‘ridiculing’ your theory? You appear to post with a permanent sense of outrage.

No one, as far as I’m aware, has ridiculed the theory that the killer might have been a sailor. It’s perfectly possible although a hat and a neck scarf is hardly a slam dunk. Why does it irritate you when people have doubts?

No one, as far as I’m aware, has said that the killer couldn’t have written the graffito. In fact I even said that I slightly favour that he did write it but I have about a 100th of your confidence on the subject. Many aspects of the case have more than one interpretation which varies from individual to individual

No one, as far as I’m aware, has claimed that Druitt was the killer. And yet you appear to know for a fact that he (and Kosminski for that matter) wasn’t. All that others are saying in effect is that we shouldn’t just dismiss a suspect when we have no concrete alibi for him.

There is so much about this case that we don’t know and most of it we probably never will. So it’s open season for speculation and theory and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as we realise that it’s just that.

I cannot see how what you have just written above relates in any way to what I wrote in the previous post, namely # 255, which was:



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is what I wrote in # 247:

You keep suggesting that the timings are out but if they were, there would be conflicts between timings and there are not.

They fit perfectly.

In the Nichols inquest, there was a conflict and one witness' timing can be disregarded.

That did not happen in the Eddowes inquest.

No-one is saying they are exactly right.

All timings are approximations to the nearest or most complete minute.

There is, however, no reason to disregard them unless there is a conflict between them.



Here is what you wrote in # 252:


If you are happy to be the only Ripperologist in the world who thinks that the times in the case all have to be accepted as exact and correct then that’s up to you.



Here is my response in # 253:


I never said that.



As I had written in # 247:


No-one is saying they are exactly right.



Your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I quoted our correspondence to prove that your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.


Nothing in your response addresses that point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why are all conversations with you like this? Why don’t you just forget about how ‘hard done by’ you are and discus the details. Why is it that when someone disagrees or challenges you you go on about people ‘ridiculing’ your theory? You appear to post with a permanent sense of outrage.

No one, as far as I’m aware, has ridiculed the theory that the killer might have been a sailor. It’s perfectly possible although a hat and a neck scarf is hardly a slam dunk. Why does it irritate you when people have doubts?

No one, as far as I’m aware, has said that the killer couldn’t have written the graffito. In fact I even said that I slightly favour that he did write it but I have about a 100th of your confidence on the subject. Many aspects of the case have more than one interpretation which varies from individual to individual

No one, as far as I’m aware, has claimed that Druitt was the killer. And yet you appear to know for a fact that he (and Kosminski for that matter) wasn’t. All that others are saying in effect is that we shouldn’t just dismiss a suspect when we have no concrete alibi for him.

There is so much about this case that we don’t know and most of it we probably never will. So it’s open season for speculation and theory and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as we realise that it’s just that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

See post 247 and others.

This is what I wrote in # 247:

You keep suggesting that the timings are out but if they were, there would be conflicts between timings and there are not.

They fit perfectly.

In the Nichols inquest, there was a conflict and one witness' timing can be disregarded.

That did not happen in the Eddowes inquest.

No-one is saying they are exactly right.

All timings are approximations to the nearest or most complete minute.

There is, however, no reason to disregard them unless there is a conflict between them.



Here is what you wrote in # 252:


If you are happy to be the only Ripperologist in the world who thinks that the times in the case all have to be accepted as exact and correct then that’s up to you.



Here is my response in # 253:


I never said that.



As I had written in # 247:


No-one is saying they are exactly right.



Your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I never said that.

You disagreed when I’ve suggested that a margin for error should be allowed for. See post 247 and others.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But I can say that you’re wrong not to allow for a reasonable margin for error PI and I can do it safe in the knowledge that you will be the only Ripperologist that doesn’t accept this. If you are happy to be the only Ripperologist in the world who thinks that the times in the case all have to be accepted as exact and correct then that’s up to you. But it’s historically inaccurate.

I never said that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In that case, maybe you don't know about the discrepancy in timings that came to light.

If so, I don't see how you can consider yourself qualified to say that I'm wrong.

But I can say that you’re wrong not to allow for a reasonable margin for error PI and I can do it safe in the knowledge that you will be the only Ripperologist that doesn’t accept this. If you are happy to be the only Ripperologist in the world who thinks that the times in the case all have to be accepted as exact and correct then that’s up to you. But it’s historically inaccurate.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you don’t accept a reasonable margin for error on timings then you are absolutely wrong. There’s nothing further to say on this issue. A margin for error has to be allowed. There’s no need for discussion. It’s a fact not an opinion.

In that case, maybe you don't know about the discrepancy in timings that came to light.

If so, I don't see how you can consider yourself qualified to say that I'm wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not nonsense.

Have you read the Nichols inquest record?

If you have and have noticed the discrepancy in the timings then you shouldn't be calling what I've written nonsense.

If you don’t accept a reasonable margin for error on timings then you are absolutely wrong. There’s nothing further to say on this issue. A margin for error has to be allowed. There’s no need for discussion. It’s a fact not an opinion.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Absolute nonsense.

It is not nonsense.

Have you read the Nichols inquest record?

If you have and have noticed the discrepancy in the timings then you shouldn't be calling what I've written nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You keep suggesting that the timings are out but if they were, there would be conflicts between timings and there are not.

They fit perfectly.

In the Nichols inquest, there was a conflict and one witness' timing can be disregarded.

That did not happen in the Eddowes inquest.

No-one is saying they are exactly right.

All timings are approximations to the nearest or most complete minute.

There is, however, no reason to disregard them unless there is a conflict between them.

Absolute nonsense.