Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

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

  • Hi Joan

    When Trev says he'll leave, you can count on one thing :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPePk3kGZk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
      .

      A seeker for the truth would realise this - surely.
      I'm sure other posters will not relish Lechmere being gratuitously brought into this for very very strange (almost obsessional) reasons.
      I may not be perfect but at least I seek the truth, and see post #121 for your very strange obsessive reasons.

      Comment


      • he was "where the body was" according to Paul. That is best taken as a distinction telling us that Lechmere stood in height with the body, outside the gates to Brown´s.
        Agreed.
        In the middle of the road near Brown`s stables. I think that is what most of us have now established.

        And from that stance, he would not have been many feet away from Polly Nichols..
        Agreed.

        You call this cherrypicking, and I´m afraid that says more about you than about the matter as such.
        Yes, it does.
        Because if I was presenting the theory as I do with all my articles, I would present the inquest testimony but would add the further detail (that Paul stated in an interview with a journalist that the man was standing close to the body)

        [quote]I use both distinctions and get a more exact position.
        [quote]
        No you don`t !!
        You`ve just gone with the Lloyds interview :-)

        So guess who is cherrypicking, Jon?
        It`s still you, Christer

        Anyway, I`m off home now buddy. have a good evening !!

        Comment


        • Jon Simons:

          Anyway, I`m off home now buddy. have a good evening !!

          Well, how can I, when you misrepresent me, Jon? I am effectively NOT going with the Lloyds interview only, I am saying that he stood out in the road, in height with Browns. That is using BOTH statements to determine where he was. If I had only used Lloyds, I would not have him out in the road, would I? In such a case, I would have him on the pavement, with Nichols - "where the body was".

          Besides, Jon, you need to weigh in that what I am saying is that Lechmere could be the killer. That involves how he MUST have been able to cut Nichols before Paul arrived for me to be potentially correct, and then he moved away from the body. And to me, if he moved five, ten or fifteen feet away is immaterial - he cannot be cleared by either measure. And all three measures are "close to the body". And as Edwards has pointed out, if he was bluffiong, he will NOT have stood right next to the body - he would have moved away more than so.
          "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
            Hi Joan

            When Trev says he'll leave, you can count on one thing :

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPePk3kGZk
            Terminator? Douglas MacArthur? It was either or. Turned out it was Terminator...!
            "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jon Simons View Post
              I may not be perfect but at least I seek the truth, and see post #121 for your very strange obsessive reasons.
              "Strange obsessive reasons"...? Wow.

              Paul wrote: "And there are a lot of knowledgeable people arguing against you here, not theorists with some agenda to defend".

              In a way, it seemed as if he excluded the possibility that anybody with a suspect could be knowledgeable.
              Being familiar with Pauls very level-headed way of posting, I realize that this was not what he meant (at least that is how I read him), but there ARE those out here who think promoting a suspect is somehow inferior to not having any suspect at all. You must take my word for that. The "truth" that "if the case has not been solved in 127 years, it is not going to happen now" is peddled on a regular basis.
              I do not agree with it. Nor do I agree that people with suspects are less informed than those without. Nor do I like being called strangely obsessive, believe it or not.

              But if that is the best you can do, trying to fight off the carman, then hey, who am I to complain?
              "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Joan Tortorello View Post
                You certainly are and I hope you do. Each of you add to it all, and not just Mr. Marriott. It takes you all to paint that forest.
                Well that's just it, Joan- I don't feel like bothering any more because every time I make a point that goes against something Trevor has decided he has 'proven beyond doubt' I get accused of wearing rose tinted specs, propping up old theories, not having a life and being 'one of a few people sitting holding court here' and so on and so forth, instead of Trevor addressing the points being made against his idea.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                  Well that's just it, Joan- I don't feel like bothering any more because every time I make a point that goes against something Trevor has decided he has 'proven beyond doubt' I get accused of wearing rose tinted specs, propping up old theories, not having a life and being 'one of a few people sitting holding court here' and so on and so forth, instead of Trevor addressing the points being made against his idea.
                  When debating (well...) with me, he ordinarily claims I am "ducking and diving". And then he avoids every point I make...
                  "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                  Comment


                  • Trev, does it matter whether other posters on here agree with you? Of course it doesn't - not a sausage. The important thing is that you have the freedom to state your point of view. Whether or not other posters - or even the general public - agree with you is out of your hands.

                    The aim, surely, is to win arguments, not converts. If you think you've won the argument, then why should you care whether people agree with you?
                    -Robert Linford-

                    Exactly.

                    Trevor is perfectly welcome, as is everyone else, to bring up their points of view...which we've done for over ten years here.
                    Its up to the next fella to agree or disagree. Thats the way it works.

                    If I had a dollar for every time I said the following, I'd be rich.
                    If a Forums researcher has a point of view that runs contrary to what others believe, such as the issue on this thread about Kelly....set up your own thread in your Individual Forum here on the boards and express your viewpoint without interference from anyone ,including me.

                    If someone desires to set up a thread such as "Kelly's Heart : Missing Or Not ?" on the main forums....then they have to expect discussion, some of which might be contrary to their viewpoint.

                    In the Individual Forum, this does not happen. YOU control the thread and who posts on it.

                    Carry on..............
                    To Join JTR Forums :
                    Contact [email protected]

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                      Well that's just it, Joan- I don't feel like bothering any more because every time I make a point that goes against something Trevor has decided he has 'proven beyond doubt' I get accused of wearing rose tinted specs, propping up old theories, not having a life and being 'one of a few people sitting holding court here' and so on and so forth, instead of Trevor addressing the points being made against his idea.
                      I must admit that I often wonder why anyone bothers to debate with Trevor. Usually one argues with people whose opinions matter. The point about asking Trevor who his many supporters are is that they don't appear here or anywhere else discussion takes place, so it is difficult to know if they exist. If his arguments persuade the innocent, then maybe there is a point in arguing with him, if he's not persuading anyone, perhaps one shouldn't bother. One can point out the facts, maybe, edge him in the right direction, but leave it at that.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                        If his arguments persuade the innocent, then maybe there is a point in arguing with him, if he's not persuading anyone, perhaps one shouldn't bother.
                        On that note, I think that the average Ripperologist is entitled to know how Trevor represents Ripperologists to the world at large, since that would seem likely to have an effect on how the discipline is perceived generally. According to Trevor, the general public listen to him.

                        Capture2.JPG

                        Article available here.

                        There are a handful of people who are quite consciously destroying this subject, and several of them will be along in a minute to say that I'm one of them. I'm not.

                        Regards,

                        Mark
                        I bet your Ripper feels better now.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                          Well that's just it, Joan- I don't feel like bothering any more because every time I make a point that goes against something Trevor has decided he has 'proven beyond doubt' I get accused of wearing rose tinted specs, propping up old theories, not having a life and being 'one of a few people sitting holding court here' and so on and so forth, instead of Trevor addressing the points being made against his idea.

                          But see, I don't want you to give up or Trevor either. You both add something, and I don't mean to devalue either of you by saying what I'm saying. You give a lot and make some very valid points. I don't see you that way at all as you state above. I see you as a passionate and giving person who cares about the subject matter, but I also see Trevor Marriott that way.

                          Please don't think I see you that way because I don't. I have a great respect for what you do. How can I say what I'm trying to say without offending anybody because that isn't what I want to do here. I just hate to see good information get buried by nonsense, and somebody else leaving who adds a lot.

                          What you contribute, what each of you contribute is valuable. It's what makes the case stay alive and not become a forgotten dusty folder some where with forgotten victims that nobody cares about. It takes all of you to do this.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by m_w_r View Post
                            There are a handful of people who are quite consciously destroying this subject ...
                            I suppose that, in another sense, this sort of thing does represent a kind of tribute to Ripperology. Ad hominem mudslinging is often the resort of people who are unable or unwilling to respond to the substantive criticisms of their claims.

                            But what I find really offensive is the way in which non-Ripperologists - usually the descendants of people involved in the case - are sometimes dragged into the argument and victimised by these people.

                            Comment


                            • The problem with arguments without new information is that those arguments go on and on and nothing is accomplished. I know what Trevor believes and though I don't agree, I cannot absolutely say he is wrong. So I keep my eyes open. I believe the overwhelming evidence is that organs were missing from the victims, and taken away by him, including Mary's heart, or part of her heart.

                              Lots of times we come up against a brick wall like Debra, Gary and I did with Bridget Kelly. We could push and pull and try to make her fit at MJK, but the best thing is to keep looking for evidence.

                              Knowing what Trevor believes firmly I always think of his opinion when I read about the case. Reid made too many mistakes I think, to consider him reliable. (Recently some police officials have gone online to discuss a more recent crime which had international attention. Less than two decades after the fact these investigators had forgotten a number of things that folks like us on the internet remembered. There was just too much information in the investigation for these men to remember every little bit. I am sure the same can be said of the men involved in the JtR investigations.)
                              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                                I must admit that I often wonder why anyone bothers to debate with Trevor. Usually one argues with people whose opinions matter. The point about asking Trevor who his many supporters are is that they don't appear here or anywhere else discussion takes place, so it is difficult to know if they exist. If his arguments persuade the innocent, then maybe there is a point in arguing with him, if he's not persuading anyone, perhaps one shouldn't bother. One can point out the facts, maybe, edge him in the right direction, but leave it at that.
                                Yes. It's probably my own fault. I never learn and have this strange thing that I always seem to feel sorry for people and give them the benefit of the doubt, thinking they are capable of honest discussion.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X