Proof of Innocence?

[Edward Stow]

That isn't what I was referring to.

[Steve Blomer]

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.

[Christer Holmgren]

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.

[Edward Stow]

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

[Michael Banks]

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.

[Edward Stow]

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.

[Edward Stow]

Mr Banks
You assume wrong!

Sorry I see Christer has provided chapter and verse.

[Christer Holmgren]

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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gary,

Probability.

Regards,

Simon

[Gary Barnett]

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?

[Gary Barnett]

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

So, not Jon, Mark or Steve?

[Simon Wood]

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

[Gary Barnett]

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?

[Michael Banks]

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.

[Michael Banks]

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.