Private sale

[Chris]

I would like to go through and point to this above post by Phil Carter who is currently chastizing someone else for "hounding".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzQ8GDBA8Is

[Fisherman]

Ally: And very much of what you say actually is wrong and can be verified by facts.

If it is wrong, how could it be verified by facts? Should the facts not dispell it, in such a case?

You "think" I am wrong, but can provide no actual evidence. I know you are wrong and provide evidence in the form of definitions, evidence, etc.

Ehrm - no. The "evidence" you proudly brag about is YOUR take on what Davies meant. I have presented the same sort of "evidence" - MY take on what Davies meant.

And I still think you are wrong and I am right.

Whose opinion is actually more valid? The man who just pulls crap out of nowhere and decides it's fact or the person who provides evidence to back up their opinion.

I know who I am going with, the rest of you can vote as you like.

Oh - back to kindergarten again? "Me and Timmie and Jimmy and Sonny and Megan are gonna beat you up real bad". Eh?

Ally, I am very much aware that I am in a minority. I am totally unaware that such a thing would mean that I am wrong, though. Plus my dad is stronger than yours.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Stewart P Evans:

But...were it not for the 'Cross/Lechmere theory' would you, and 'Lechmere', still be here debating at such enormous length something that has been thrashed to death in the past?

We are not siamese twins, so I can only answer for myself. And yes, there is every chance that I would debate just about anything for the longest time, Lechmere theory or no Lechmere theory. I have done so in the past, long before I hooked up with him (Lechmere the proposed killer, not Lechmere the poster).

And what was 'Lechmere's' motive in starting the debate about a private sale of private goods? I guess only he knows that, but his subsequent posts seem to indicate where he was initially headed.

Once again, I am not the one to ask.

As I have pointed out, it can be easily shown that it is in the interest of those with a 'new suspect' of their own to doggedly pursue arguments against established and recognized suspects.

It can be easily proposed that this is so. But what possible gain for the Lechmere theory is at hand by dismissing the marginalia? One opponent less? Nope - the Pole still stands, but without a name. That´s all that happens.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fishman, your interpretation The [endpaper notes] (in the marginalia copy of Anderson´s book) show evidence (signs or clear signs) of occasional tremor (shaky handwriting is what is caused by that tremor) which is similar (looks exactly like, is the exact same type as) to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's.

has several problems, first of all, that similar does not mean exaclty the same and secondly that you fail to address the second part of the phrase
individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinsons

which again you interpret as this individual has parkinsons, but if you look, was not what was said

You are wrong on both counts. I don´t interpret Davies´words as though Swanson had PD. I take his words exactly for what they state (at least to my mind): That the text showed signs of a shakiness that was similar to that of PD patients (or patients with closely related diseases within the same group).

Davies may well have thought: Nah, that´s not a PD patient´s writing - but it is similar. So I don´t jump to any conclusions at all - I go by what Davies said, no more, no less.

As for the similarity thing and it not meaning "exactly the same", we may all need to ponder the fact that unless Swanson wrote the exact same wording as Davies had seen before and in the exact same manner, there could never be any exact copying.

Davies would never have meant "exactly like". But you may well see a tyoe of handwriting that resembles another type of handwriting so much as to cause you to say "Look! That looks exactly like the handwriting I saw yesterday, in that book!"

Of couse, it is not an exact replica anyway. But colloquially, this is how we express ourselves.

But I can do a Bart Simpson if that is what you wish!

Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.

There! Happy, Denny?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Stewart P Evans:

I guess that anyone might be 'potentially suspicious', are you sure that you mean that? I thought you actually regarded him as suspicious and, therefore, potentially the Ripper.

I was speaking not of Lechmere, but of the marginalia and the letters attached to it´s origin. I would not call them outright suspicious, since that would have people saying that I suspect the marginalia is faked.

The truth is that I am inclined to "suspect" that it is genuine. I also HOPE it is, since that would be the best outcome for all parts.

I do, however, have issues with some of it, and I would therefore like to see a further investigation into the matter. Not because I think they must be faked, but because I think we could get firmer ground to stand on by doing such a thing.

You don't worry too much to how many people agree with you as you have a 'sneaking suspicion' that others will stick with the theories that suit their own ideas best? Well, you are right on that one, but that is true with regard to many, apart for those wonderful objective individuals who have no suspect preference, God bless them.

God bless us all, Mr Evans - objective individualists and suspectologists alike. Both categories are needed for ripperology to move forward - or so I believe, at least.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Stewart P Evans:

I am on record with regard to Tumblety, he was a genuine 1888 suspect who was unknown in Ripperworld before 1995 when my book was published. If you understand my position in this regard then I truly appreciate it.

I believe I do. I consider the Tumblety findings very important to the field of research, and I think it was of paramount importance to have it followed up on. I also think that over the years, you have presented the case in a very useful manner.

I don´t think it fair that some posters should try and goad you for your work. It´s childish and unworthy. Then again, I do not wish to be goaded for my take on Lechmere - much work has gone into the research about him, and he represents a unique case, where very many factors make him a very good suspect. And yes, I speak of "my" take, but not in order to "claim" him for myself; I am not either first or second in line, and my contributions to the matter are comparatively small. Michael Connor is the front figure and he remains so, although Edward will be the person in todays ripper world who knows by far and away most about Charles Lechmere.

I will simply add that I am not 'a firm believer in his guilt' and I'd be a fool if I was. And, despite all the objective work I have done since 1996, including transcribing all the official records, I am still presumed to believe that he was the Ripper. Such is life. In this mad, mad, Ripperworld we should not be upset by narrow minded goads (if they are unjustified) and we have to learn to have opinions (subject to modification) rather that set beliefs.

Yes, that is all very true. I agree all the way with this. Mind you, in our approaches to Tumblety and Lechmere, respectively, we differ in one significant way: You soundly do not point a finger at Tumblety, claiming that he was probably the Ripper. I do so with Lechmere, however - to me, he is the man we are looking for.
You dug out all you could about Tumblety, and ended up doubting that he was the man. During the process, though, you handed down a wealth of material about your man. And he has never been proven NOT to be the Ripper, of course.
I have dug deep into the Lechmere soil. And what I have found has persuaded me that I am on the right track. And right or wrong, I like to think that contributions have been made to the overall disciplin of ripperology along the way.

Those who have nothing more to offer in exchange for this than goading and petty sniping are essentially nothing but sad people.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Steve S]

I'm afraid if Stewart's well-reasoned and sensible posts can't bring this complete waste of time to an end,nothing will.............

[Fisherman]

I'm afraid if Stewart's well-reasoned and sensible posts can't bring this complete waste of time to an end,nothing will.............

What sort of ending would you propose, Steve?

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

What sort of ending would you propose, Steve?

Discussing how to end the thread has got to be good for another 200-300 posts!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Please God, may this tiresome thread do the decent thing and fall on its sword?

The Swanson marginalia is genuine. Kosminski was the suspect. Sir Robert Anderson was right. God is in his heaven. Five beans make five. Two wrongs don't make a right. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Druitt was the suspect. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Whatever.

Who gives a flying fig?

I've had enough. I'm outa here to fresh pastures in my newly-delivered Chevy Corvette. It's red with white upholstery and goes like stink.

Case closed.

Be seeing you.

Regards,

Simon

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi All,

Please God, may this tiresome thread do the decent thing and fall on its sword?

The Swanson marginalia is genuine. Kosminski was the suspect. Sir Robert Anderson was right. God is in his heaven. Five beans make five. Two wrongs don't make a right. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Druitt was the suspect. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Whatever.

Who gives a flying fig?

I've had enough. I'm outa here to fresh pastures in my newly-delivered Chevy Corvette. It's red with white upholstery and goes like stink.

Case closed.

Be seeing you.

Regards,

Simon

No one is making you read the thread Simon, but thank you for making it even longer to wade through with your post.

Im glad to see you think the marginalia is genuine

[Jenni Shelden]

Discussing how to end the thread has got to be good for another 200-300 posts!

I think the thread will not end because there is a seeming ...... about the ....

dont you think?

[Jenni Shelden]

You are wrong on both counts. I don´t interpret Davies´words as though Swanson had PD. I take his words exactly for what they state (at least to my mind): That the text showed signs of a shakiness that was similar to that of PD patients (or patients with closely related diseases within the same group).

Davies may well have thought: Nah, that´s not a PD patient´s writing - but it is similar. So I don´t jump to any conclusions at all - I go by what Davies said, no more, no less.

As for the similarity thing and it not meaning "exactly the same", we may all need to ponder the fact that unless Swanson wrote the exact same wording as Davies had seen before and in the exact same manner, there could never be any exact copying.

Davies would never have meant "exactly like". But you may well see a tyoe of handwriting that resembles another type of handwriting so much as to cause you to say "Look! That looks exactly like the handwriting I saw yesterday, in that book!"

Of couse, it is not an exact replica anyway. But colloquially, this is how we express ourselves.

But I can do a Bart Simpson if that is what you wish!

Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.
Similar does not mean exactly the same.

There! Happy, Denny?

The best,
Fisherman

No Fishman, I'm not happy and if you give me a few hours I'll explain exactly why your rude and sarcastic bluster, does not cut the muster

best wishes
Jenni

[Chris]

It's not too late to stop this thread getting to 1200 posts if we all work together!

[Jenni Shelden]

It's not too late to stop this thread getting to 1200 posts if we all work together!

i agree that we must stop this from happening