You still seem unduly irritated by the very existence of the Lechmere theory. Can I ask respectfully, how are your own researches progressing? Are you any closer to finding the remaining piece of evidence that confirms the identity of the killer, or announcing the solution? I know that the gogmagog letter turned out to be a basic but huge error of research, and the 'biological explanatory variable' also seemed to be a dead end. Oh, and likewise the Tennyson 'clue' was based on a hilarious misunderstanding (but you were not researching the murders specifically at that point, but rather 'the cultural production of literature' or something, so that's understandable). So many threads, so many dead ends, I don't know where to look to find the latest updates on your work. Could you be so kind as to point me in the right direction?
How do your university colleagues react when you tell them you're a ripperologist? I hope they indulge you. I'm sure you'll be back to publishing peer-reviewed papers and books very soon, once you've cracked the case.
To those who know legal matters and who are aware how qualified a queens councellor and barrister is when it comes to judging the viability of a court case, Iīm sure itīs a different stroy altogether. They will realize that Scobie knew what he was talking about.
But I can see why it is a very hard pill to swallow for you, I really can.
Why you say that circumstantial evidence can be more or less damning, I donīt know - I would have thought that everybody out here would be able to spell that out for themselves. This is why Scobie is udeful - he tells us that the amount of circumstantial evidence attaching to Lechmere is enough to form a prima faciae case. So that calls for either trying to denigrate Scobie (hard) or to try and lead on that he was misinformed, lied to or underinformed (much easier).
It was always going to be very predictable. But you know what, Steve? Itīs "not convincing".
No comments were made on Scobie's opinion.
No attempt to attack him, or say he was misinformed, lied to or underinformed. So mention any of those is unneeded and without purpose.
However once again we see the reverence with which the opinion of one "expert" is held.
Which point says that one should not misrepresent other posters, Steve? You had a very clear post pointing out exactly where it went awry for you. Saying in retrospect that it did not is denying the obvious.
Has far as I can see that is not mentioned in the "Major Rules" of such.
However I disagree you were misrepresented. The quote provided was in your own words.
As for you always being big enough to admit your mistakes, I simply disagree. I find you admit the ones you cannot possibly deny, but keep the lid tightly on a number of other matters. Plus I think that we may not be best suited ourselves to judge how big we are.