Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This is yet another perfect example of a naysayer gratuitously bringing Lechmere into a topic that has nothing to do with Lechmere. They can't help themselves.
    And then other naysayers will invariably chip in and say 'why can't you stop going on about Lechmere in an off topic manner?'
    Oh and yes, I did notice Lechmere also being referenced in the Druitt podcast, which is amusing as if one thing in 'Ripperology' is certain, Lechmere will never be separately discussed on that podcast channel.

    Comment


    • Please can people leave personal comments out of it and stick to discussing the subject matter?

      Regarding the question of "on topic/off topic", I don't think anyone has complained recently. Probably the thread has succeeded in answering the main question posed in the original post, and it hasn't been active for a while, so I can't see that it does much harm for it to meander a bit. But if anyone feels strongly otherwise, they should feel free to shout.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
        Please can people leave personal comments out of it and stick to discussing the subject matter?
        I have no problems with that - up until the moment somebody misrepresents me on whatever thread that may be. In such a case, I fail to see what other thread there is to use for a reply than the one on which I have been misrepresented, and so that is where my answer will end up.

        I will however gladly move the discussion to Murder Victims: Annie Chapman: Considerable Doubt - Wolf Vanderlinden, should R J feel inclined to persist in the suggestion that an early TOD for Chapman is an idea of mine rather than of Bagster Phillips.
        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
          This is yet another perfect example of a naysayer gratuitously bringing Lechmere into a topic that has nothing to do with Lechmere. They can't help themselves.

          No offense, Ed, but the question you posed about Druitt on this thread struck me as a rather good example of a Ripperologist applying an objection to someone else's suspect that they would never dream of applying to their own.


          Perhaps no further comment is warranted, but on one hand we have a man supposedly murdering and mutilating women on his commute to work--mingling with coworkers and customers within the hour--yet it is supposedly problematic that another man could murder and mutilate a woman several hours before a social event across town?

          It seems like an obvious enough contradiction, but I'm more than happy not to further inject Lechmere into this discussion.

          The Druitt theorists have never fully explained why Druitt is in East London, and why he is murdering women some hours before the morning trains could have led him back to Blackheath (he could have easily walked to Kings Bench Walk) but I don't think the Chapman murder is a legitimate blow to their preferred theory. The window is too big.

          As I acknowledged, the matches in Blandford and Canford pose a more significant challenge to their theory.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

            I have no problems with that - up until the moment somebody misrepresents me on whatever thread that may be. In such a case, I fail to see what other thread there is to use for a reply than the one on which I have been misrepresented, and so that is where my answer will end up.

            I will however gladly move the discussion to Murder Victims: Annie Chapman: Considerable Doubt - Wolf Vanderlinden, should R J feel inclined to persist in the suggestion that an early TOD for Chapman is an idea of mine rather than of Bagster Phillips.
            I think you misunderstood. It's the personal comments I asked people to avoid. I said I didn't feel there was any harm in the subject matter of this thread meandering a little, in the circumstances.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
              I will however gladly move the discussion to Murder Victims: Annie Chapman: Considerable Doubt - Wolf Vanderlinden, should R J feel inclined to persist in the suggestion that an early TOD for Chapman is an idea of mine rather than of Bagster Phillips.
              Let's not be tedious, Christer. Everyone and their dog knows Dr. Bagster Phillips suggested an earlier time of death--that doesn't mean you have to accept it and promote it. It's your choice to do so, of course, but all that mean is that MJ Druitt had even more time to get from Buck's Row to Blackheath by 11.30.

              You aren't disputing the logic of this, are you?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                I think you misunderstood. It's the personal comments I asked people to avoid. I said I didn't feel there was any harm in the subject matter of this thread meandering a little, in the circumstances.
                You actually wrote:

                "Please can people leave personal comments out of it and stick to discussing the subject matter?"

                That´s a very clear twofold ask, and I am quite aware that Annie Chapman´s TOD is not the subject matter on a Druitt cricket thread. Which was why I said that I would be willing to oblige and move that particular discussion with R J. That stands.
                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

                  Let's not be tedious, Christer. Everyone and their dog knows Dr. Bagster Phillips suggested an earlier time of death--that doesn't mean you have to accept it and promote it. It's your choice to do so, of course, but all that mean is that MJ Druitt had even more time to get from Buck's Row to Blackheath by 11.30.

                  You aren't disputing the logic of this, are you?
                  See post 1072 for discussions about your claims on my behalf.

                  As regards the logic of a early death allowing for more time to get to London after it, I am surprised that you feel a need to ask. Do you think I am too dense to understand how that works or was it something else that prompted your question?
                  "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

                    You actually wrote:

                    "Please can people leave personal comments out of it and stick to discussing the subject matter?"

                    That´s a very clear twofold ask, and I am quite aware that Annie Chapman´s TOD is not the subject matter on a Druitt cricket thread. Which was why I said that I would be willing to oblige and move that particular discussion with R J. That stands.
                    I think I made myself clear, actually. Enough said.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                      I think I made myself clear, actually. Enough said.
                      I agree. You did.
                      "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                      Comment


                      • RJP - not being an expert on Druitt's cricket matches, beyond being aware that several matches almost coincided with various murders, I was not particularity conversant with the 8th September match - where it was, what time it started, if known. Had it been in Dorset rather than Blackheath then I would suggest a big problem would have arisen.
                        So Lechmere was entirely irrelevant. Unless you wear blinkers.
                        If you wish to start a thread on the philosophical and practical differences between a carman murdering on his way to work and an amateur cricketer murdering before a match... then fire away.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post


                          It seems there are two ways of doing ripperology. One is to discuss the various facts of the case, straight and honest, and the other one is to misrepresent the facts in a way that suits your own arguments.

                          .
                          Like stating in a book and in a documentary that Lechmere left home at 3.30 when he’d said ‘about 3.30,’ a point where a very few minutes can make the vital difference between ‘no missing minutes’ = everything in line with Lech finding the body, or ‘missing minutes’ - Lech lies about how long he was with the body.
                          This point simply cannot be expressed too many times.
                          Regards

                          Michael🔎


                          " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                            This is yet another perfect example of a naysayer gratuitously bringing Lechmere into a topic that has nothing to do with Lechmere. They can't help themselves.
                            And then other naysayers will invariably chip in and say 'why can't you stop going on about Lechmere in an off topic manner?'
                            Oh and yes, I did notice Lechmere also being referenced in the Druitt podcast, which is amusing as if one thing in 'Ripperology' is certain, Lechmere will never be separately discussed on that podcast channel.
                            Over on Casebook Jon Menges extended an offer that Christer could come onto a podcast at any time to discuss his book and the case for Lechmere. He didn’t mention your name but I assume that this offer would extend to you too.

                            Regards

                            Michael🔎


                            " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

                              Over on Casebook Jon Menges extended an offer that Christer could come onto a podcast at any time to discuss his book and the case for Lechmere. He didn’t mention your name but I assume that this offer would extend to you too.
                              A serious discussion would be good. But who would be able to present the alternative view?

                              Ally Ryder?

                              Comment


                              • So far, Ally's the only one to have made any sense.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X