John Richardson

[A P Tomlinson]

I think most people, upon reading what you wrote above, may be wondering what is wrong with you.

You write that the matter was being politely discussed, as though my making a comment somehow constitutes an act of rudeness.

You then accuse me of half-reading instead of reading - what is that other than an assumption or supposition?

You then claim that I decided "I've not had MY say on this matter... here goes!".

Is that not a peculiar reaction?

All I did was quote from Wikipedia, which cited Sugden on Anderson's views about the very subject - the graffito - being politely discussed.

The point I made was relevant.

I then made the further point that Anderson considered the graffito to have been vital evidence.

That point is also highly relevant.

Instead of acknowledging that, you launched a personal attack on me.

Of course, Anderson's statements at the time about being clueless do not support his later claim that it was obvious that a Polish Jew was the murderer.

I am entitled to point that out too.

OK mate... whatever... you win.

It's pointless talking to you.
It doesn't matter that all I was doing was pointing out that the contradiction suggested that Anderson had decided that the Graffito wasn't a clue, but you need a win too badly to not throw your oar in. To begin by telling me that Anderson DID believe the Grafitto to be a clue, and then ultimately flip to... a contradiction on Andersons part.
Great... well done.
You win the most pointless argument of the day that should never have been an argument if you'd only bothered to read back through and try just once to understand the context of something.

I tried being done with you once, but more fool me, I didn't stick to it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

OK mate... whatever... you win.

It's pointless talking to you.
It doesn't matter that all I was doing was pointing out that the contradiction suggested that Anderson had decided that the Graffito wasn't a clue, but you need a win too badly to not throw your oar in. To begin by telling me that Anderson DID believe the Grafitto to be a clue, and then ultimately flip to... a contradiction on Andersons part.
Great... well done.
You win the most pointless argument of the day that should never have been an argument if you'd only bothered to read back through and try just once to understand the context of something.

I tried being done with you once, but more fool me, I didn't stick to it.

I think you have got completely the wrong end of the stick.

I was not trying to win an argument at all.

I was merely pointing out something relevant and then recalled something that Anderson had written about the graffito.

[jmenges]

I'm tempted to shut this thread down if y'all don't raise the level of discourse.

Pronto

JM

[Lewis C]

It also kind of throws the grafitto out as a "clue" in his opinion. If they considered that the killer had effectively signed his work... surely that would fall under the heading of "...clue being supplied by the criminal..."

I find Anderson's statement to odd anyway, because even if the killer didn't write the graffito, he did drop a piece of Eddowes' apron on the ground below it. Isn't the apron a clue supplied by the killer?

[A P Tomlinson]

Oh no, I've been buckled.

Paul, I'm not sure if this is all some sort of attempt to play the "Just joshing, you just don't understand the British sense of humour of a bit of playful ribbing" card after the tirade at Wick, or whether you have had a few sherbets on a Sunday afternoon and are going to look back on this tomorrow and think, "Oh God... I didn't did I?"

But "unhinged" is the vibe you're giving off.
When Ms Diddles (who's probably one of the most polite and well behaved out of the lot of us) is advising you to back off a bit, it's worth paying attention.

[Lewis C]

I have read before that he was treated royally by the police, which suggests that my alleged obsession with a sailor suspect has considerable merit.

I would think that how well a witness was protected would be determined by how much danger he was thought to be in rather than by how valuable his evidence was thought to be. At least, that's how I would do it if I were the police.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would think that how well a witness was protected would be determined by how much danger he was thought to be in rather than by how valuable his evidence was thought to be. At least, that's how I would do it if I were the police.

I agree, but why would he alone of the witnesses be considered to need protection unless he was believed to have seen the murderer?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I find Anderson's statement to odd anyway, because even if the killer didn't write the graffito, he did drop a piece of Eddowes' apron on the ground below it. Isn't the apron a clue supplied by the killer?

Yes.

It was a clue that the graffito was written by the murderer of Catherine Eddowes.

That is why, I would argue very strongly, the murderer cut the apron in two.

He knew it would authenticate the piece he dropped as coming from the murder scene and that the apron piece dropped would 'sign' his message.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Back to the unlikely being presented as if it were more likely than the likely.

It's not an honest and serious discussion at times, PI.

Herlock's, and not only Herlock's, argument attempts to shift the burden of proof away from them.

We know Annie ate at a quarter to two in the morning, that is evidential.

Anything after that is conjecture, and a lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary despite what a few people on here claim. As said, Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, which is not an argument of equal worth.

In the event they were honest and reasonable, and say: "aye, that is a point against Annie being alive at a quarter past five in the morning, but it is only one piece of information among a whole lot of information and it certainly isn't the deciding factor", then a reasonable person would agree with that and say right you are.

But, we don't get that. The objective has deteriorated into: 'just don't concede anything at all costs'. In other words, it's more a discussion aimed at posters being right as opposed to what the information suggests (when you put it all together, the pros and the cons, whatever outcome you arrive at).

[Paul Sutton]

Paul, I'm not sure if this is all some sort of attempt to play the "Just joshing, you just don't understand the British sense of humour of a bit of playful ribbing" card after the tirade at Wick, or whether you have had a few sherbets on a Sunday afternoon and are going to look back on this tomorrow and think, "Oh God... I didn't did I?"

But "unhinged" is the vibe you're giving off.
When Ms Diddles (who's probably one of the most polite and well behaved out of the lot of us) is advising you to back off a bit, it's worth paying attention.

This is just a board. Look to your own posts, old chap, many of which seem bonkers to me. The last one - to PI - is off the scale for ranting:

'OK mate... whatever... you win.
It's pointless talking to you.
It doesn't matter that all I was doing was pointing out that the contradiction suggested that Anderson had decided that the Graffito wasn't a clue, but you need a win too badly to not throw your oar in. To begin by telling me that Anderson DID believe the Grafitto to be a clue, and then ultimately flip to... a contradiction on Andersons part.
Great... well done.
You win the most pointless argument of the day that should never have been an argument if you'd only bothered to read back through and try just once to understand the context of something.

I tried being done with you once, but more fool me, I didn't stick to it.'

It's easy to spot in others!

The chances of me regretting a thing I've said are zero, unless I make a mistake - which I'll readily admit to.

Good Lord, this isn't the real world! Incidentally, I'm not the one who's launched horrendous attacks, on a real person's life (poor old Trevor). Matters not whether they're 'true'. All done to 'win a point'. I was utterly shocked by that - since the poor bloke must have gone through hell. And notice he's not here now. The cruelty towards him is astounding and vile. That's someone's life - not a discussion about shoe-leather.

As an outsider, almost all (not all) of the posters here are unhinged, at times. But I'd warrant they're/we're all fine in real life.

I use flippancy and self-mockery, but don't imagine it's for no purpose. Ignore stuff you don't like. I'll listen to your advice when you're not doing what you're condemning.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We know Annie ate at a quarter to two in the morning, that is evidential.

Anything after that is conjecture...

I had been thinking the same thing, FM.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In two cases of that terrible series there were distinct clues destroyed - wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin.

(SIR ROBERT ANDERSON, 1908)


Conclusive proof that there is not something 'wrong with' me!

[Fleetwood Mac]

I had been thinking the same thing, FM.

Not only is it conjecture, PI, but the speculative attempt to explain how and why Annie sourced food after two morning when she'd just eaten, is a weak speculative attempt also.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I had been thinking the same thing, FM.

Agreed. Whether Chapman ate, or didn't eat after 1. 50 am is conjecture. We have no idea either way.

[Paul Sutton]

Yes.

It was a clue that the graffito was written by the murderer of Catherine Eddowes.

That is why, I would argue very strongly, the murderer cut the apron in two.

He knew it would authenticate the piece he dropped as coming from the murder scene and that the apron piece dropped would 'sign' his message.

Apologies if this is well-covered.

Why did the PC pick up the infamous rag? It was before he could have known what happened in Mitre Square. And would it have been so readily noticed? We're not in Singapore, where litter dropping is a capital offence! So that anything untoward gets noticed. The place would have lots of bits all over.

I agree that the graffito was written by Eddowes' killer. I think its size doesn't imply not.

I also find the reasons for its erasure highly dubious. I'm not dismissing the fears, but it's very odd.