Originally posted by Michael W Richards
View Post
Its rather ironic that you should make points about accepting that there are unknowns because that’s one thing that you appear to be loathe to admit. On timings for example. When reasonable posters like Jeff and Frank (to name but two) have stated that a reasonable margin for error needs to be applied you’ve pretty much hit the roof. Fanny Mortimer is a case in point of course. Hoschberg couldn’t be wrong. Kozebrodski couldn’t be wrong.
Honesty and integrity. Ok, how about how you kept on and on about Gilleman (who for some absolutely unfathomable reason you stubbornly kept calling Gillen despite being told numerous times that there’s no mention of a Gillen in the case) You kept telling us that there was testimony from Gilleman that confirmed an earlier discovery time but everyone knows that this doesn’t exist. How is it ‘honest’ to persist in that very obvious untruth Michael.
Your very selective in memory as well as thinking on this case. I’m not decrying your knowledge of the case at all by the way. Just your interpretations which everyone can see always lean toward supporting your theory. You refuse to accept that witnesses make errors; that estimations can be and often are incorrect.
And let’s refresh our collective memories about motives shall we Michael. Even the least cynical among us might be a tad suspicious to find a man who has a suspect for two of the murder (Issendschmidt who couldn’t have killed Stride or Eddowes) who just happens to be insistent that Stride couldn’t have been a victim (and if I recall correct, you’ve expressed doubt about Eddowes too) Most would say….convenient. Just as convenient as the same theorist coming up with a far fetched plot which ‘proves’ that the ripper didn’t kill Stride. Convenient again.
No one, including me, would ever get excessively irritated Michael by someone simply postulating a theory but you just can’t do that. Despite the fact that you’ve found no supporters over the years you still persist in posting in a tone of someone explaining the obvious to idiots. A kind of “how can you not see that this plot actually happened” tone which is over-confidence taken to whole new levels.
I rarely claim anything as an undisputed fact. I don’t claim to know more than anyone else on this case. I have no theories to bias my opinions. I’m not attached to any orthodoxy. And I’m not hoping that the case is never solved. I’m not immune to errors but unlike some I’ll admit them when they’re pointed out to me. Yes I get irritable and yes I can be sarcastic. Maybe I’m too cautious but that’s my preferred approach. I don’t get excited just because 2 newspaper reports are slightly differently worded; or if 2 estimated times clash. I don’t believe in assuming the sinister.
Finally, if you took a poll of 100 ripperologists I’d guess that 99 would disagree with your theory. I’m not even saying that this would prove you wrong but what it should do is make you think “perhaps I’m being a bit over-confident as surely not all of these 99 are idiots like Herlock?”
But it won’t. You cannot debate with someone convinced that he’s come up with a solution (and a solution that he’s held onto for 20 years.)
Comment