"thedarkman" wrote in message
news:d8328b42-9648-4576-b99a-d05a7bc29d9b@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> There was no Yorkshire Ripper cover up; with hindsight the police
> could have done things differently; Sutcliffe was questioned 9 times
> before he was arrested, and that by accident. I was living in Leeds at
> the time so I know what I'm talking about, but it's very easy with the
> wisdom of hindsight to say they got it wrong. There was no copycat
> Ripper though, and there was certainly no three hundred year old
> Dublin psychopath commuting to Yorkshire with a Stanley knife wedged
> up his jacksey battering women in the area as Mr O'Gara seems to
> believe.
>
> This is an obsession based on the same sort of crap as the Diana
> conspiracy, and Mr O'Gara should quit while he is behind.
Problem with these single-issue conspiracists is that they make it their
whole life, and when it starts to unravel, they are left with nothing to
replace it. It's a common trait in any case with them that any fact or any
person disagreeing with, or failing to support, their theory, is at worst
part of the conspiracy of secrecy or at best, deluded by it.
I'm sure there are things that go on without our knowledge which
occasionally manifest themselves in ways which raise questions; but anyone
who thinks that they can actually get to the truth of these is caught in a
recursive trap, because whichever way they argue, they cannot possibly be
wrong. Applying Occam's Razor, however, is usually more productive because
this is not Nineteen Eighty-Four - if it were, would we even be aware, for
example, of the existence of Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay? Of course not,
and it's an insult to suggest the contrary.
In O'Gara's case, ably assisted by his tame dupes and his hangers-on, he's
nailed his colours to a mast; unfortunately, that mast is attached to a ship
which is, since his extremely silly libel of Gregg, holed beneath the
waterline and now sinking fast. Of course, he lacks the objectivity to see
this, because he seems to think that his version of the facts- which are not
necessarily the facts- and which have already been comprehensively destroyed
by Keith Brannen- are enough to stand up in Court. Well, he now knows that
it ain't necessarily so, and if he is so clued up on the "cover-up", you'd
think he would have addressed the risk that, er, he might be laughed out of
court.
Of course, it's all part of the "vast conspiracy"- I told him to quit while
he was behind, but no, on he ploughed, and a problem with
ploughing is that you can get caught up in the mud.
A bigger fool I have yet to encounter.
|