Originally Posted by Fisherman
Exactly, Abby - it is a fact. What is troublesome is that the specific weight of that fact supposedly changes depending on who mentions it. If I call it a fact, Gareth will try and nullify it by saying that since this information strengthens Lechmere´s candidature, it should not be regarded as useful information as long as I am the one offering it.
Supposedly, the exact same information would become more credible to him if somebody with no suspect mentioned it.
Doing Ripperology in that way is compromising yourself very badly. It is one thing to be wary about how people may over- or underrate the value of different pieces of information, based on convictions of theirs. But is quite another matter to make an initial deduction of credibility on behalf of people with suspects, regardless of the inherent quality of what they say. That is indecent, illogical and totally disrespectful.
Gareth has not only violated this rule - he also seems to be proud of it. The only thing he has managed to establish by it is a glaring lack of credibility and fair judgment - but that will not mean that I will look at what he sees in the future as automatically being wrong. I will, however, apply a good deal of caution to it, and I will be quite wary of the imminent danger of it being misleading.
Personalising things again, Fish? Tut, tut. "Glaring lack of credibility and fair judgement", "indecent, illogical" my arse.
Your remarks are not even remotely true. I don't "nullify" any facts at all, but I will challenge skewed interpretations where appropriate, whether the poster in question has a suspect or not. I will also point out any inaccuracies, logical fallacies, speculations asserted as facts or contrived generalisations, wherever they arise. It is these kinds of approaches that "compromise ripperology", not mine.