|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 12:36 am: |       |
NB--I'd like to stop or cut down on these ongoing jibes for my Ripperlogical method, personal choices, etc. So I'm going to ignore them to the best extent I can in the future, and will not reply unless there is a particularly sharp remark made. Life is too short for this kind of thing.
Saddam
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 797
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 9:56 pm: | |
David Radka,
Are you misinterpreting me on purpose?
"If you know what the witnesses said that is correct, and what they said that is incorrect, then please enter your complete solution to the case right here, right now. If you can't solve the entire case right here, right now, then please explain how you know what parts of what the witnesses said were true, and what parts were not."
But I DON'T know, David. That is the whole point -- if we really could know what was right and what wasn't in Packer's rambling, then his statements wouldn't be that much of a problem.
Since that unfortunately is hard to determine, he must, as I see it, be considered a questionable witness as a whole. Don't you even read the lines you choose to quote? ("...we can't really tell what's right and what's fairy-tales...")?
---------------------------
"I'm showing my own cards all the time! Center, epistemology, erotic pursuit of knowledge, respect for the case evidence as ground, unifying analysis, logical methodology, mediation of oppositions, etc."
Yes, but that is your methods, not the solution you claim everone else has over-looked.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 16, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 798
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 10:03 pm: | |
Radka,
That last part of my post was my final comment regarding your philosophical methods in this context; I just had to add that since you quoted me.
The Liz Stride thread is not the place for a methodical/philosophical discussion anyway.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 16, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 238
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 12:08 am: | |
>>The only orthodoxy I have is open for anyone's interpretation.
Dear Saddam--note that I didn't say that your theory was Orthodox, [hell, you might argue that Emily Marsh's bearded Irishman is just off the boat from Switzerland---wink, wink]; all I am insisting is that in continuously plumping for seeing the 'center' you are setting up the 'case evidence' as static. Your source material is the orthodoxy-- as if to say, 'connect the dots between Lipski, Lusk, and Colney Hatch' and we can turn around and see what's making that flickering on the cave wall. But alas, the source material is not static, it's comprised of what we attend to; your premise becomes, in a manner, meaningless. The 'case evidence' is that that is actually connected to the case. One man sets out to solve the 'puzzle' of Ripper lore ('the whole of the case') another sets out to merely solve a crime. RP |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 306
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:32 am: | |
David,
We just want to see this solution you keep on telling us all about. If you laid it out before us then people wouldn't get so annoyed at you when you critisise others ideas as you also would have put your ideas forward and probably have had them critisised.
I don't mean this in a nasty way, just trying to say it in a nicer way than you may be getting from others.
Blimey, I must have my patience hat on this morning, either that or I overdosed on valium again.
Sarah  |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 11:01 pm: | |
1. "...in continuously plumping for seeing the 'center' you are setting up the 'case evidence' as static. Your source material is the orthodoxy-- as if to say, 'connect the dots between Lipski, Lusk, and Colney Hatch' and we can turn around and see what's making that flickering on the cave wall."
>>No rationalist/idealist sort of philosopher (as I am) treats ANYTHING as static. The case evidence can be dealt with dynamically, as a dialectic. You can have a kind a dialogue with it, not quite as Socrates did with Theaetetus, for example, but somewhat. Exegesis is possible, associations and oppositions can be mediated. Phenomena and analysis beget phenomenology. Read up on Plato, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Levinas, Alphonso Lingis and you'll see. Use your imagination. Think for yourself. You sit in the mud only because you want to. Roger Palmer LOVES his mud.
2. "One man sets out to solve the 'puzzle' of Ripper lore ('the whole of the case') another sets out to merely solve a crime."
>>I know this. Nobody had to tell me about it. I figured it out for myself. But the starting point is the whole point.
Bullwinkle
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 12:39 pm: | |
Sarah, "If a witness in a trial was found to lie about some things he would be deemed an unreliable witness and the jury would be asked to ignore everything he has said (even he part of what he said was the truth)".
Not if they had a good judge.
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 12:35 pm: | |
Glen, "Then, regarding Packer's statements: I agree that there is a possibility that he really did see something of value and that some of his testimony was worth its ink and paper to being with -- I have myself suggested that."
Not in the begining you didn't. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 1:07 am: | |
"...he must, as I see it, be considered a questionable witness as a whole..."
>>Your original position: "Throw out Packer entirely." Your new position as above: "Consider Packer a questionable witness as a whole."
What is the difference between the two? If he's questionable AS A WHOLE doesn't that mean we throw him out entirely? But if you do that, once again, how do you know you aren't throwing out some correct information that could help solve the case? Please state specifically what part of his information should be accepted, if any.
Bullwinkle
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 243
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:03 pm: | |
"Use your imagination. Think for yourself.'
That's it. Keep your chin up, David. It's especially impressive when you rattle off the names of a few Philosophers.
Be patient; it won't be long now. The Muddy-One will soon show you where your 'logic' failed you.
Happy New Year |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 855
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 9:34 pm: | |
Hi Cludgy,
"Not in the begining you didn't."
That is because you read what you like into my posts. I obviously did the mistake in the beginning to assume that it's a natural thing that one can't disregard everything that is being said in a witness statements. That has been my opinion all along, but I really didn't think I would need to write that down. I think it is obvious that one can't make such a claim regarding a over hundred years old testimony that can't be verified up on today.
The point was, however, that his attempts to attract media to his own person has disqualified him from being a truthful witness.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 856
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 9:54 pm: | |
Bullwinkle,
Yes, these two statements mean the same thing. I haven't changed my position!
In my opinion you can't take a witness account from an unreliable person (that appears in the press with different testimonies and suspect descriptions) seriously unless you have something that backs it up. One can keep its details in mind in case of future progressions, of course, but until there are other witness accounts that backs parts of his stories up or evidence comes along that verifies it, he must be considered as a questionable person delivering bogus information, unless you want to waste your time with a worthless testimony.
"Please state specifically what part of his information should be accepted, if any."
And once again, Bullwinkle: I can't. What's what makes his testimony useless. Even if some of the information in it would be correct, it can't be identified and extracted from the rest of it -- nor studied or verified. And since he has proven unreliable with changeable stories and an apparent need to be in the focus of the press, he can't be considered of value. He would be shredded to pieces in court anyway.
There ARE such things as credible and unreliable witnesses, Bullwinkle, and there is a limit to how much room they should be given in an investigation. I think it is fairly evident that his main purpose was to attract people to his shop, not adding much of value to the investigation per ce.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 11:09 pm: | |
Glenn,
If you 'LIMIT' how much of Packer you want to use, then please say WHAT you want to use, and why. Surely at minimum you MUST accept the fruit juice stains on Stride, as it ties into Packer's statement that he sold her man a bunch of grapes. If you don't, then you DENY a logical tie-in, and you must then explain WHY you deny it.
Incidentally, I've just returned from a Christmas celebration at which several traditional Swedes were present. They poured wine and vodka into a pot and heated it up. Pretty potent drinking, I can assure you. Have you any experience with this? What is it called?
Good luck,
Bullwinkle |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 309
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 9:55 am: | |
I am coming more and more to think that Packer did sell Liz and her man some grapes that night. Everything I read about him strikes me that he was an ornery geezer, so when White questioned him the morning of the murder and he said he had seen nothing I think he was just trying to get rid of him. Later, seeing the City reward posted he realised he had made a mistake in claiming to see nothing and changed his tune. I think the package seen in the man's hand by PC Smith had to be the grapes, and that's where Packer's testimony ties in.
With that in mind then, his first description of the man is most likely to be the most accurate. After that he seemed to amend it to fit in with whatever the latest newspaper reports said, probably in the hope that he would share in the reward if and when the man was apprehended.
However I agree with Glenn here. Packer's testimony is so contradictory in terms of timing and appearance of the man that it is impossible to know which bits are true and which bits false, and as such he tells us nothing except that Liz was wandering around Berner Street with a bloke sometime that night, and we already knew that. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 876
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 12:07 pm: | |
David Radka,
You naughty boy, changing your alias... 
"If you 'LIMIT' how much of Packer you want to use, then please say WHAT you want to use, and why."
Once again, Sadd... David, I CAN'T! It is impossible to know which parts of his testimony that are accurate -- that is the whole problem with it!
"Incidentally, I've just returned from a Christmas celebration at which several traditional Swedes were present."
Ah! You're lucky you survived then, especially considering the combination Swedes and alcohol... "Potent drinking"... I'm sure...
"They poured wine and vodka into a pot and heated it up. Pretty potent drinking, I can assure you. Have you any experience with this? What is it called?"
Hmmm... I have some idea what that could be, but there are generally more ingredients than that (if I am right about the drink), the most important ones being spices like clove and cinnamon, and sometimes even cardamom. If that is the case, then you're referring to a very common Swedish christmas drink called "glögg" (in english called "mulled wine", I think) -- the "ö" is pronounced like the vowel in the word "world". It is important that this drink is heated up properly (but not boiling) and mostly one puts almonds and raisins in it before drinking it -- at least that is essential over here. The vodka isn't necessary though.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 877
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
Alan,
Quite plausible thoughts.
And if he actually saw a man with Stride in the shop, his first personal description of him would be a more correct one.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 1:09 pm: | |
Mr. Sharp in his 12/27/03 9:55 a.m. post above exemplifies the classic stance of countless posters to these boards concerning me. Note how I honorably and steadfastly stood my logical guns in several posts with Glenn Andersson above concerning Packer, despite that Mr. Andersson disagreed with me and refused to see my point. Then Mr. Sharp is forced to take my position in his post because it is entirely correct, but he turns the paradigm upside down to do so, in order to make the appearance of siding with Mr. Andersson despite that I have proved Mr. Andersson wrong. Mr. Sharp SAYS he "agrees with Glenn," but he actually agrees with ME. It was MY point against Mr. Andersson both (1) concerning the notion that Packer has to be taken seriously TO AN EXTENT BUT NOT ENTIRELY, and (2) that Packer had sold the grapes to Stride's companion, IT WAS NOT MR. ANDERSSON'S POINT. This kind of thing goes on over and over on these boards. One poster sees that it is okay to foul and lie about me, and the next poster picks right up on it and does so, and on and on. Despite that I have been a BRILLIANT poster for many years, I am repeatedly accorded the WORST status and treatment. Honor is reciprocated with dishonor.
Bullwinkle
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 883
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 8:00 pm: | |
David,
1. You are not correct as far as Packer's witness statements are concerned. I do see your point but I am surprised you failed to see mine, although I tried to explain it several times. It doesne't help if a witness statement is PARTLY reliable, if you don't know which part is correct. If there was parts of it that could be verified by others sources (so that you were able to sort that out), there wouldn't be that much of a problem. But unfortunately that is not the case. Any reasonable police officer would dismiss him quite rapidly. Alan HAS a point, however, that the truest things in his statements would be the earlier ones, because that is usually the case, but we can't be sure of that either.
2. I must say I pity you, David. You seem to totally indulge in self-pity and paranoia, without never even consider your own conduct.
I must give you credit, that I didn't recognize you in your "Bullwinkle" posts, because the reasoning was generally more fruitful than usual. I even gave you credit for your suggestion on the alcohol and weekend thing regarding the Ripper's conduct -- and also quite politely asked your personal question about the Swedish booze.
Not as much as a comment! When people are trying to reason with you on a rational and friendly level, you completely disregard them. That is ungrateful to say the least and makes it feel really pointless to meet you in a reasonable manner (regardless if one is agreeing with you or not), when you don't seem to see or appreciate it.
The answers you get, are dependent on how you express yourself. Noone is out to get you, David! But if you could lay off your self-absorbness and your paranoia for one minute, you maybe even would see when people are trying to level with you.
"Despite that I have been a BRILLIANT poster for many years..."
And still you are an unregistred guest! How about doing Stephen the honor to finally register, then, instead of riding for free for several years? I really don't get you.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 316
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 8:30 pm: | |
Mr Radka, that was truly the most paranoid post I have ever seen. So let me clarify.
I was agreeing with you entirely that Packer's testimony cannot be simply dismissed. I wasn't forced to take this position by any brilliance on your part, but nonetheless I was agreeing with you, and I do fully agree that you came to this position some time before I did. Because I happen to think that on many occasions you are absolutely correct, and the fact that I disagree with the arrogance with which you present your case does not blind me to the fact that you are very knowledgable on the case indeed and that I would be a fool if I did not listen to your opinions and weigh them up in my own mind.
However I was also agreeing with Glenn on this one point regarding the usefulness of Packer's testimony, because strangely enough, it is possible for more than one person to be correct at any given time.
Have you become so paranoid that you are no longer able to spot it when somebody is saying "Hey Dave, you nailed that one spot on, fair play to you"? |
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 172
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 1:24 am: | |
Are you paranoid or just desperate for attention, David? I think I speak for the majority of us when I say that while I respect your intellect and I think you have some important contributions to make, your attitude tends to keep me from taking you all that seriously. I've played the "goat" in plenty of situations myself but I believe that if you really stand back and look at things, you will realize that you aren't nearly as abused as you think you are. 
Now, can we get back to the topic at hand? I think it concerned daffy old Mr. Packer and his grapes. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 577
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 7:18 am: | |
Hi Erin,
One small point – no one can possibly know if they speak for the majority of readers. A handful of those who strongly agree or disagree with a point will up and say so, the vast majority won’t say anything at all, for a variety of reasons. That’s why the results of voluntary polls should always be taken with a huge pinch of salt – they only represent the views of the proportion of readers who go in for expressing themselves in this way.
David’s views on the ripper case would be taken at least as seriously as anyone else’s if we all judged each and every observation on its own merits, and weren’t quite so concerned with whose name, or pseudonym, appeared at the top of the post from which it came.
Love,
Caz
|
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
Thank you, Caz.
Dave |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 6:41 pm: | |
Glenn,
Thank you for your answer concerning the glogg. I remember hearing the Swedes say a word like this amongst themselves at the time, in their language. Nothing but wine and vodka was used, as far as I know. It tasted, basically, like hot wine.
Bullwinkle |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 912
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 9:09 pm: | |
OK, David.
I am sorry for the harsh tone in my last message, I was indeed frustrated.
I think there is a great chance, then, for that glögg is what you had to drink, even though they seem to have revised the recipe a bit and done their own version of it -- the spices are actually the most important ingredients in order to make the right thing and to get that real "christmas" taste to it -- they are at least more important than the vodka.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 375
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 6:13 am: | |
Blimey I haven't been on this thread for a while. I would just like to point something out to Cludgy. With regards to you comment "Not if they had a good judge." I would just like to say that I did not make that up about the jury having to dismiss everything the witness would have said if some of it was proven false, it is a fact. I know this as my boyfriend studied law and I remember him telling me this not too long ago. Think about it, say some of a witness' statement was proven false, how could you possibly know which, if any, was true? You couldn't so you wouldn't be able to trust ANYTHING he said. It seems pretty straight forward to me.
David,
I agree with Glenn here. As I have said before, if a witness is shown to be unreliable in some parts of his story then how can anyone trust any of it? No-one can so it must all be, unfortunately ignored even if some of it was true. It is a fact of law.
Sarah |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
