Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    So far, Ally's the only one to have made any sense.
    So, not Jon, Mark or Steve?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

      So, not Jon, Mark or Steve?
      Personally, I found her contribution rather irritating. Perhaps you can explain why you believe otherwise, Simon. What did she add to the debate?

      Comment


      • Hi Gary,

        Probability.

        Regards,

        Simon

        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.
          You assume, and you are wrong. Jon Menges did reach out to me, and I declared that I would want to do a podcast involving both me and Edward, since I think that would involve a much broader collected insight. Mr Menges did not accept that suggestion, though, as was his right. After all, it is his podcast and he makes the calls.

          With any luck, some sort of agreement may perhaps be reached in the future, but a podcast on Lechmere really should involve the person who is the top authority on the carman, and that is not me.

          Anyway, you have it wrong, making the wrong assumption.
          "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

          Comment


          • Mr Banks
            You assume wrong!

            Sorry I see Christer has provided chapter and verse.

            Comment


            • I can confess to being no great fan of Ally Rider, but nevertheless I agree with Simon that she probably made the most sense.
              Not because of the hackneyed, trival and irritating Yank non plussedness over cricket which diverted the discussion (and I am no great fan of cricket) but because she cut to the chase on what the Blandford match means - which Steve Bloomer didn't seem to get when I said it here, but surprise surprise conceded when said by Ally Rider on the podcast...
              ...namely that this match is just another hurdle, another slightly preposterous leap that has to be negotiated by 'Druittists' in order to keep their theory active. And when you have to cross multiple high fences, to mix metaphors, you come to one which is a bridge too far.
              Which is undoubtedly why Jonothan Hainsworth neglected to share (in a very shadey manner) his claimed early discovery of this match and why he withdrew, hurt, from his proxy involvement in this discussion... points I raised early in this thread and which were picked up on by Ally Rider.

              Comment


              • Of course you agree. You have the Lechmere goggles permanently in place. It’s only unlikely if you make it sound unlikely. There’s nothing unlikely about it at all.
                Regards

                Michael🔎


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

                Comment


                • It's all perfectly normal and Ally Rider borrowed my goggles.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                    It's all perfectly normal and Ally Rider borrowed my goggles.
                    So that´s where they were! I was looking for them only yesterday, I feel so utterly lost without them.
                    "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
                      I can confess to being no great fan of Ally Rider, but nevertheless I agree with Simon that she probably made the most sense.
                      Not because of the hackneyed, trival and irritating Yank non plussedness over cricket which diverted the discussion (and I am no great fan of cricket) but because she cut to the chase on what the Blandford match means - which Steve Bloomer didn't seem to get when I said it here, but surprise surprise conceded when said by Ally Rider on the podcast...
                      ...namely that this match is just another hurdle, another slightly preposterous leap that has to be negotiated by 'Druittists' in order to keep their theory active. And when you have to cross multiple high fences, to mix metaphors, you come to one which is a bridge too far.
                      Which is undoubtedly why Jonothan Hainsworth neglected to share (in a very shadey manner) his claimed early discovery of this match and why he withdrew, hurt, from his proxy involvement in this discussion... points I raised early in this thread and which were picked up on by Ally Rider.
                      I think you will find that on this thread my view is the same as on the Podcast.

                      Druitts participation in the Blandford match, does not make it impossible for him to be in Whitechapel between 3-4 Am 31st August.
                      It's does however make the argument for him harder for those arguing it.


                      Comment


                      • That isn't what I was referring to.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X