|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 4:54 pm: |       |
Rosey rote:
>Beware of THIS particular bedroom!It can hold a strange fascination for the unitiated...it exhibits an extraordinary power over the most perceptive mind. But if you must enter, garlic will not save you - even that crucifix hanging above the head of that THING is powerless to help!
Dear Rosey,
Thank you, thank you, thank you! You are absolutely right, and I could not make it out myself before now in this painting. Yes, that is a large cross hanging in the window -- above that THING (the tailcoat on the clothes-tree), a cross made nebulous by a thin, sheer curtain in front of the Venetian blinds. It is hanging from a metal ring at the top of the cross. That is absolutely amazing, and completely unexpected. What a link between 'Jack The Ripper's Bedroom' and the three paintings with religious titles made after Sickert's stroke! Wow!
Chapeau bas, Rosey! I'll say it again: you have more insight into Sickert than anyone else.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1201
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 6:43 pm: | |
Once again, Mark Starr,
A confession is worth very little if it's not corroborated by physical evidence; the same goes for speculations about cover-ups and patterns.
No way they by themselves can be considered as "most powerful evidence" and without other types of evidence to go with them, they prove absolutely nothing -- at least not enough to stand up in court or make a conviction. Where do you get this stuff?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
I really don't get what Mark is trying to prove here. When people point out that Cornwell's conclusions or his conclusions don't make sense and that they seem to have tried to stack the evidence to support their suspect, he claims that we have no way of knowing how he came to his evidence and implies that both he and Cornwell have withheld the GOOD evidence that would magically support their cases.
What the heck. Call me silly, but if either of you had good evidence you'd be using it, you would be spending all your time on strange whacked out theories about what you think his paintings mean.
And, no, the watermarks don't prove anything either. They are suggestive, assuming we can take what Cornwell and her expert says at face value (which I have my doubts about), but they aren't conclusive that Sickert wrote any letter. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 12:08 am: | |
Dan wrote:
> [He} implies that both he and Cornwell have withheld the GOOD evidence that would magically support their cases.
I never said it. I don't have to respond to it. And I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Rosa
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 6:22 am: | |
Greetings everyone;
Considering how many people wrote in claiming to be the Ripper, and how many others squealed to the police that someone else was the Ripper, and how many people smelled, touched and saw the Ripper, and considering what a prig, prat and pig Sickert was, i wouldn't be surprised if he made it to the police list,  along with Beethoven, although I would say I had lied about Beethoven but say it was true about Sickert. or did I mean Franz Lizst, or Micheal Maybrick, I'm sure I could make a case for all of them equal to Cornwell's. the world is full of possibilities and ifs. We should use the information we have.
Were these the types of murders inwhich the killer could stop after Kelly? Could the killer be satisfied with less gory murders? Satisfy his needs in a different way? I don't think so. Bring in the next suspect please.
How old is Elvis?
Rosa |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 219
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
Mark,
I think the Dadd case isn't much of a comparison here. Dadd was convicted on the basis that he had a list of names, including the murder victim (his father). His father's name was the only one with a check mark (and the only one on the list who was killed). The other names on the list were of individuals of whom he sketched with their throats cut (which was how his father was killed). Finally, he attacked and cut the throat of another person who was lucky to live.
In other words, the list of names with his father's checked off, the sketches were of people he knew (who's names were also on the list), the attack on the tourist showing a similar MO (throat cutting), his relationship with the murder victim (in this case a family relationship), are all links between "Dadd Jr" and the murdered "Dadd Sr".
Sickert did not have a list with the names of any of the JtR victims.
Sickert did not sketch any of the JtR victims.
There is nothing to suggest Sickert knew any of the JtR victims.
There is nothing to suggest Sickert was in London at the time any of the victims were murdered, and there is quite a bit to suggest he was in France.
And so on.
What the Dadd example illustrates is the kind of information contained in sketches one would need in order to use the sketches as evidence. Three paintings that have no direct link to any of the JtR victims, or to any murder at all (even in the Bible Abraham doesn't end up murdering his son remember), can not be considered as the same level of evidence. If it can, then one could take Van Gough's sunflowers, suggest that they represents the victims, (they are "cut flowers" after all), the heavy brush strokes he used represent the strength of his attack, he was known to use a knife and cut his own ear off (one could point to the threat of sending an ear to the police, etc), and I'm sure we could make up some other links as well with a bit of imagination. But, just because we can creatively create a story that includes JtR victims in it doesn't mean that story can be used as any kind of evidence.
If you truly want to prove Sickert was the Ripper, you should start with demonstrating that he had the oppertunity. Meaning, demonstrate he was actually in London at the time. It is not enough to say it was possible for him to be in London. As I've said before, it is possible a large knife waving monkey was in London etc. Possible does not mean probable, and possible is not evidence. Anything is possible, and everything is anything, but not everything happened.
- Jeff |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 330
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
Jeff,
Don't bother. All the points you just mentioned re: Dadd were previously pointed out to Mark. He just chooses to ignore any facts and logic that he completely refutes his statements and prefers to go blithely on, spinning fantasy and fairy tale. It's really best to leave these types alone--attempting to confront them with reality tends to upset them and make them unmanageable.
Just give him a cookie.
 |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 201
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 6:26 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
First of all, there’s no doubt that at least Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were killed by Jack the Ripper. I don’t include Mary Jane Kelly in this series, because some people doubt that she was killed by the man we call Jack. By the way, most people do accept the five canonical victims as his, that’s why they are called that. I think that any forensic psychologist would agree that the man responsible for at least these three murders and probably also Mary Jane Kelly’s was suffering from a sexual dysfunction which caused him to kill and mutilate, and that in such a small area it would be too much of a coincidence for them to have been killed by different men.
I know you’ve written about the sources that they do not prove that Sickert was in France at any of the time of the murders, but let’s look at some of those letters again.
There is a letter from St Valéry-en-Caux, dated 6th September, from Sickert's mother to a family friend which describes how Sickert and his brother Bernhard were vacationing there and were having such a "happy time" swimming and painting. There is independent corroboration of this in a letter that Jacques-Emile Blanche sent to his father that stated that he had visited Sickert and his family at St Valéry-en-Caux on the 16th September.
I think it’s fair to say that Sickert was staying with his family or friends in St Valéry-en-Caux at the latest from the 5th of September to at least the 16th of September.
Then there’s also the letter dated 21 September from Sickert's wife, who stayed in London, to her brother-in-law in which she states that Sickert was in France and had been "for some weeks with his people," i.e. his family.
Regardless of the relationship between Sickert and his wife, the contents of this letter regarding Sickert’s rest in France correspond exactly with what may be concluded from the other two letters.
Of course, there’s also an undated letter from Sickert to Jacques-Emile Blanche, in which Sickert states that he was in St Valéry-en-Caux for a rest, about which art historian Richard Shone says he believes it was probably written sometime in August soon after he first arrived in France. Although it is undated, it does corroborate once more that Sickert was having a rest, which ran from at least the beginning of September through to, at the very least, the 16th of September, but most probably even to at least the 21st of September.
We all know that during this period Annie Chapman was killed and this might be regarded as an important murder in that it was the first case in which a victim’s abdomen had been cut open, intestines had been drawn out and some body organs had been taken away by the killer.
You’ll undoubtedly say that he could simply have travelled to Dieppe, taken a boat to England, travelled to London where he killed her, cleaned himself up somehow somewhere, dumped the organs somewhere because he didn’t need them in the first place or wrapped them up to take them back to France with the risk of all kinds of annoying questions from his family or friends, and then back to France again.
Of course he might have travelled to London and back in less than one day, but why would he want to go specifically to London, a city to which he had long standing ties and so, to which he could be tied? I’m guessing your answer would be that slipping out of France, in and out London and back into France again would diminish his chances of ever being caught, or something along those lines.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true, because in those days the period in which a killer ran the most risk, was when he was on the crime scene. His only concerns should have been not being seen with the victim prior to the crime, not getting caught in the act, and fleeing the crime scene unnoticed until his haven was reached, and the closer by this haven, the better. If he managed to do all that, it would have been strange if he did get caught after all. And Sickert being the clever man that he was, would undoubtedly have known that and would undoubtedly have been capable of not giving himself away in between the murders. Slipping in and out of London would have had little effect on avoiding detection.
But even if we suppose that it’s true that slipping in and out of London would have considerably diminished his chances of getting caught, it still doesn’t answer the question, why specifically London when easier options were available? Why not simply travel to Dieppe or La Havre? Port towns filled with sailors, prostitutes, and in the case of Dieppe, holiday makers who poured into the French seaside town every summer. Why not Paris? Paris was closer and much easier to get to by rail than London. I’m sure there were other cities closer by in France to which he had no ties at all. He could have travelled there and back in maybe less than half a day. London wouldn’t have been the logical place to go to.
So, what do we have? There are no indications Sickert was in London at the time of Chapman’s murder, only sources that put him in France for a rest. There’s no reason to think slipping in and out of London would considerably diminish his chances of not getting caught, and going to London to do his dirty work wasn’t the most logical choice. Perhaps in a courtroom this wouldn’t mean much, but outside I’d say it’s not probable that Sickert would have travelled from St Valéry-en-Caux to London and back to murder Annie Chapman, and so, it’s also improbable that he killed Mary Ann Nichols and Catherine Eddowes, who were undoubtedly killed by the same hand.
And of course you can say that it isn’t impossible for him to have done it, but that argument doesn’t cut it, since there were heaps of men for whom it wasn’t impossible to have done it. George Hutchinson, to name just one, was without a doubt in London, in fact he even was near a crime scene at a time critical to one of the murders and he gave a suspicious statement about his presence there and then. Even this fact doesn’t mean that Hutchinson was the killer. So, simply saying that it wasn’t impossible for Sickert to have done it would not even convince a jury.
Take care,
Frank
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 220
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 11:33 pm: | |
Hi Ally,
I suspect your prediction will be supported, but I think it is important to lodge logical objects "for the record". People new to the case, who come looking for information, should be presented with the objections. Also, it's important to show how research, and logical argument, can be used in relation to the "but it's possible" line of reasoning. Just because something is not impossible doesn't make it true or plausible.
- Jeff |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 812
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 4:03 am: | |
Mark,
Regarding your post to me.
Im not contesting anything.
Many thanks for pointing me the the right direction....I am such a lazy so and so.
Monty
 |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 779
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 6:38 am: | |
Mark,
I never said it. I don't have to respond to it. And I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth.
Ok then. If you didn't mean what Dan said then fair enough but I have to admit that's how it came across when I read what you wrote about you withholding evidence too. If you didn't mean that you withheld any good evidence then please can you just explain it in a simpler way. I am not trying to be rude but I would seriously like to know what you meant.
Sarah |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
Ally wrote:
>Don't bother. All the points you just mentioned re: Dadd were previously pointed out to Mark. He just chooses to ignore any facts and logic that he completely refutes his statements and prefers to go blithely on, spinning fantasy and fairy tale. It's really best to leave these types alone--attempting to confront them with reality tends to upset them and make them unmanageable. Just give him a cookie.
Hi Ally:
Does that mean you don't agree with me?
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Infobabe
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
I just finished reading the book. It would appear to me that the evidence would be compelling, but the DNA and watermark evidence makes it conclusive. All the rest is specutltion. I know about these things. I watch Discovery, Law and Order and the Simpson trial. But I could be wrong. |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Rosa wrote:
> i wouldn't be surprised if he made it to the police list, along with Beethoven, although I would say I had lied about Beethoven but say it was true about Sickert. or did I mean Franz Lizst, or Micheal Maybrick, I'm sure I could make a case for all of them equal to Cornwell's.
Hi Rosa:
Hold on, Rosa! Don't be so quick to remove Ludwig van Beethoven from the liszt, I mean list of suspects.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the writing of radical feminist Dr. Susan McClary -- who is Professor of Musicology at the University of California and a recipient of a MacArthur Foundation "genius award." While not naming Jack directly, McClary has described the first movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony as an unconstrained eruption of misogynist aggression, a sonic enactment of an episode of violent rape and murder. In her recent book, Feminine Endings, she stated: `Beethoven's symphonies add two other dimensions to the history of style: assaultive pelvic pounding..and sexual violence. The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damning up energy which finally explodes in the throttling, murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release."
The fact that Beethoven died in 1827 is irrelevant and should have no bearing on his validity as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders :<{)
And as for Franz Liszt, throughout his life, he was known as a ladykiller.
Regards,
Mark Starr
P. S. As for Elvis being The RIpper, before you dismiss that idea, you might first check out the following web page:
http://www.ioffer.com/i/Elvis-Presley-The-King-Tryclone-Folding-Knife-2299066
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
Jeff wrote:
Sickert did not sketch any of the JtR victims.
There is nothing to suggest Sickert was in London at the time any of the victims were murdered, and there is quite a bit to suggest he was in France.
Jeff, I think you have some homework to do on Walter Sickert.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 2:59 am: | |
Hi Rosey:
I'm still flabbergasted by your discovery of the cross hanging in the window of Jack The RIpper's Bedroom. But now I am wondering whether you may have also identified the five brightly colored (light green and rose) objects to the viewer's right of the birdcage. The colors and the appearance of floating suggest that they are birds, but the shapes are so formless on my copy I can't make them out. What do you think they are? If they are birds, are they perched on the exterior of the birdcage or are they flying about?
Do you see and electric lamp with a lightbulb sitting on the desk? Is there anything else in the room that I may have missed?
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Edgar Hadley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
Hi all,
At last I have found solid evidence to connect Sickert to Mary kelly.
Yes,look at the picture of Walter in Cornwell's book,the one that shows him with very short hair,sitting the wrong way round on a chair.
Now look closely at vertical spindles of the chair and compare them with the two spindles that fix Mary kelly's headboard to her bed.They're identical!
Missed that one Patty!
Incidentally I have seen Cornwell's book for sale secondhand on Amazon for 95p but I am waiting until they reduce it to a more realistic level before I am tempted.
Best regards,
Edgar |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Edgar wrote:
At last I have found solid evidence to connect Sickert to Mary kelly. Yes,look at the picture of Walter in Cornwell's book,the one that shows him with very short hair,sitting the wrong way round on a chair. Now look closely at vertical spindles of the chair and compare them with the two spindles that fix Mary kelly's headboard to her bed. They're identical! Missed that one Patty!
I suppose this is your idea of humor. That you perceive the spindles in these two photographs as "identical" has, of course, no bearing on whether or not Sickert knew, much less killed Mary Kelly. However, Mary Kelly's bed is potentially relevant evidence in the case because it is indeed very possible that Sickert painted it in two of his paintings.
In his Ripper Notes article, WOlf Vanderlinden states: "Cornwell rightly claims that Sickert painted only bedrooms with iron beds in them. Sickert was famous for this feature in his work, but in these two paintings he has replaced the iron bed with a wooden one much like Mary Kelly’s bed in her small room in Miller’s Court. Cornwell goes further and states that these are depictions of Mary Kelly’s room. How could he know what Kelly’s room looked like if he was not the Ripper, she asks? How indeed."
Vanderlinden then goes on to question Cornwell's contention that Sickert knew what Mary Kelly's room looked like because he had been in the room.
Vanderlinden suggests that Sickert could have copied the same photograph of Mary Kelly's room that Cornwell had seen. Vanderlinden wrote:
"According to abcnews.com, Cornwell also pointed out that "one of the paintings closely resembles the room where Mary Kelly...was killed in 1888. Cornwell noted that the painting features a wooden bedstead, just as in the Kelly murder. Sickert painted iron bedsteads in his other paintings." I would ask Ms Cornwell how it is that she knows what Mary Kelly’s room looked like, and would offer the opinion that both she and Walter Sickert knew what the room looked like because they had been looking at the same photograph." Maybe Vanderlinden's opinion is right. Maybe it is wrong.
I would say that Vanderlinden speculative opinion is reasonable. But even if Sickert did actually consult the published photo of Mary Kelly in her bed when he painted the two paintings in question, that does not negate the possibility that he was also in Mary Kelly's room when he killed her, and he used the photograph for two reasons (1) to refresh his memory for details like a bedboard; and (2) his use of a photo provided him with a plausible explanation if he were ever confronted with criminal charges that these two paintings proved he was in Mary Kelly's room.
For these reasons, I count this evidence as merely suspicious, intriguing and potentially incriminating, and I DISCARDED it as conclusive proof that Sickert murdered Mary Kelley.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 2:43 pm: | |
Sarah wrote:
>If you didn't mean that you withheld any good evidence then please can you just explain it in a simpler way. I am not trying to be rude but I would seriously like to know what you meant.
I meant exactly what I wrote. And the meaning of what I wrote is absolutely clear -- unless it is twisted into something I never said by someone who is intent on setting up a straw-man argument, only to tear it down. That is something Dan has done in many of his posts commenting on my theory and Cornwell's book, and there is no question that is exactly what he did in this instance. He cannot deal in a straightforward manner with the material that I present or that Cornwell presents in her book, so he habitually misrepresents both.
I never said a word about hiding my best evidence. Nor did I ever imply that Cornwell hid her best evidence. The very idea is absurd.
What I in fact wrote was a direct response to Michael Raney about his comments in one of his posts -- and I quoted Raney's words precisely in my post. I always take the trouble to quote the words of the people to whom I respond. Dan cannot quote my words making any statement about withholding my best evidence, or Cornwell withholding her best evidence, because I never said it.
In his post, Raney had dismissed Cornwell's conclusions. Then he added: "I have been trained to work from the murder outwards to the killer. I do not believe you can find a suspect and then trace him backwards to the murder unless you have absolute, proven factual hard evidence." I specifically refuted this comment by stating that he had no justification for assuming that this was in fact what either Cornwell or I had done.
This is what in fact I wrote: "However, I certainly do not believe I have "found a suspect and then trace him backwards to the murder." Neither you nor anyone else has any way of knowing all the evidence I reviewed and how I reached my conclusions. Neither I on Casebook, nor Cornwell in her book, bother to go over all of the evidence -- on Sickert and on other suspects -- that each of us reviewed and discarded for one reason or another. The principal reason why I have concentrated here on Casebook on evidence relating to Walter Sickert is to discover whether any evidence exists that would ELMINATE Sickert from consideration as Jack The Ripper. And to date, no one has ever presented so much as a scintilla of hard evidence that convincingly eliminates Sickert."
There is no suggestion whatsoever in that paragraph that either I or Cornwell have ever hidden our best evidence. On the contrary, I specified evidence that either I or Cornwell had "reviewed and DISCARDED for one reason or another." Perhaps Dan need a dictionary to look up the definition of the word DISCARDED. No one discards their best evidence. There is nothing even remotely ambiguous in my statement. Any claim that I implied that I and Cornwell were hiding our best evidence is disingenuous and indefensible with direct quotes.
As I have written on numerous occasions, if someone disagrees with my ideas, that is fine with me. I will respond by defending my theory with the evidence as I see it. But I will not sit idly by while I see deliberate attempts to misrepresent my ideas, and to attribute words to me that I never stated.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 206
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
You wrote: “Neither you nor anyone else has any way of knowing all the evidence I reviewed and how I reached my conclusions.”
I think the confusion or misinterpretation has been caused by the word ‘evidence’ here, which might be interpreted as ‘proof’, which is what Dan and Sarah did, but also as ‘case material’, which is what you must have meant by it.
If you would have used 'material' or 'case material' there would have been no confusion.
Take care,
Frank
|
Jan Sjoberg
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 7:24 pm: | |
Mark Starr wrote:
"The principal reason why I have concentrated here on Casebook on evidence relating to Walter Sickert is to discover whether any evidence exists that would ELMINATE Sickert from consideration as Jack The Ripper. And to date, no one has ever presented so much as a scintilla of hard evidence that convincingly eliminates Sickert."
Well, what can I say? In Western judicial thinking the burden of proof hardly lays on those who wish to clear a suspect. Besides, is it reasonable to expect that any suspect can be "convincingly eliminated" some 120 years after fact? What would be required in way of counter-evidence to satisfy the Cornwells of this world??
An alibi? Sickert's French alibi seems to be as solid as may reasonably be required.
Speaking of alibis, the issue of Sickert's French alibi seems not to have attracted quite the attention it merits.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Sickert really was JTR and that he concocted an alibi for his protection. According to Cornwell and her retinue he would have (overtly) stayed in France for the autumn of '88 and (covertly) moved back and forth over the Channel in order to kill. My question is: why would Sickert-gone-JTR have bothered to fix an alibi in the first place?
An alibi is generally required ONLY when there is a strong pre-crime connection between victim and perpetrator. This connection is needed for the police to initially focus it's attention on a specific suspect. When there is no pre-crime connection between perpetrator and victim (as is the case in many serial killings), the perpetrator must usually be caught red-handed in order to become a suspect in the first place.
There was no connection between the various JTR victims and Sickert. Sickert admittedly lived in the same city as the victims, but so did some six million other people. Hence my question: how would the police ever have come to suspect Sickert, alibi or no alibi? And how would travelling from France to England at the time of each murder have been less risky or suspect than staying in London all along????
Best regards,
Jan Sjoberg |
Rosa
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 12:08 am: | |
Mark Starr:
You are perfectly right! I do stand corrected! So many people use death as an excuse for not being responsible for something. The bastards!
My god, what people think up. Here I thought the 9th, was a nice piece of music; foolish me.
Thank you for the infor about Beethoven.
Cheers
Rosa |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
Dear Mark,
You must stop wandering about in strange bedrooms, Mark :-) Is there anything else you missed? Well...there is the matter of a splintered-door, probably done with a pickaxe.
Other than that, not much.
Rosey :-) |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 1:03 am: | |
Frank:
There is weak evidence and there is strong evidence, there is evidence that leads nowhere and there is conclusive evidence. But no one with the minimum intelligence required to participate in a discussion on Casebook.org has the slightest doubt what the word "evidence" means. I use my words precisely, and I meant exactly what I wrote. No changes are warranted. As I said when I first responded to Dan's post, I don't appreciate anyone putting words in my mouth. If someone wants to attack my words, fine, then they should quote them exactly, in the context in which they were written, and not make up statements I never said.
I have repeatedly encounted the bogus tactic of the straw-man argument in the posts of several respondents, and I will not play their game. Either someone deals with my point without distorting it, or they don't deserve a response from me.
If you want to create a face-saving mechanism for others, that is your perrogative, but I don't buy it. It has happened too many times to be a case of confusion over a word. If you followed all my posts, you would know I have complained about straw-man arguments many times.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 3:59 am: | |
Mark wrote:
"He cannot deal in a straightforward manner with the material that I present or that Cornwell presents in her book, so he habitually misrepresents both."
Actually it could just be that you are so used to seeing things in such a cockeyed way in order to try to justify your assumptions that Sickert was a killer that when someone (myself or one of the many other people who criticize your arguments) does approach things from a straightforward and logical way, you just don't follow along.
Your statement that:
"Neither you nor anyone else has any way of knowing all the evidence I reviewed and how I reached my conclusions."
. . . followed almost immediately by:
"The principal reason why I have concentrated here on Casebook on evidence relating to Walter Sickert is to discover whether any evidence exists that would ELMINATE Sickert from consideration as Jack The Ripper."
. . . heavily implies that you think you have good evidence that you have withheld (and possibly that Cornwell might as well) and that right now you just want to try to explore evidence that would disprove what you think you can prove.
But then if you now admit unambiguously that you don't have any better evidence to try to support your theory than what you (and Cornwell) have already presented, I'll take you at your word. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
