Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Proof of Innocence?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Edward Stow View PostI 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Edward Stow View PostIt's all perfectly normal and Ally Rider borrowed my goggles.
Leave a 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.
Leave a 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Mr Banks
You assume wrong!
Sorry I see Christer has provided chapter and verse.
Leave a 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
So, not Jon, Mark or Steve?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Simon Wood View PostSo far, Ally's the only one to have made any sense.
Leave a 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.
Ally Ryder?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Edward Stow View PostThis 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.
Leave a 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.
.
This point simply cannot be expressed too many times.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: