Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

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

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    The Star to the rescue! Wow, who'd have thought? So who amongst us who has pilloried the Star report for it's (supposed) inaccuracies and exaggerations, now objects to the Star report being used to correct Abberline, where he was "very obviously" wrong?



    That would be after he witnesses the assault, which you conveniently failed to mention.



    You conveniently failed to mention that Schwartz is at the gateway, when the man speaks to and then assaults the woman ...

    ... having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

    Schwartz was at the gateway. The man and woman were at the gateway. It's simple. Yet it is also clearly a problem. How could Schwartz claim to stop and watch this, and yet run away in fear when a man smoking a pipe starts walking in his general direction, after he crosses the road and heads toward Fairclough street? It rather defies common sense. Hence your motivation to 'fix' the story.



    There are only 2 versions. One is the story Schwartz gave Abberline. The other is the story Schwartz gave the Star man. Only Schwartz can give a 'version', as it is his story alone. He may well have given another telling of the story at a later time (and I suspect he did), but there are only 2 definitive versions that we know of for certain. Everything else is derivative.



    There is a massive amount of guesswork going on here. Why would he lie? Well that depends on exactly what happened during the murder, and in its immediate aftermath, and in response to those events. This question cannot be answered by armchair speculation. How could he be confident that he wouldn't be found out? Why assume he would have to have felt confident? Perhaps he felt he had little choice. When Goldstein was persuaded by Wess to go to Leman street, do you think he was feeling confident about the outcome? Yet if Goldstein had reservations, why wouldn't Schwartz? After all, all Goldstein supposedly did, was hurriedly walk down Berner street from Commercial Road, carrying his shiny black bag, before continuing on to his place near a railway arch. By contrast, Schwartz similar journey was much more eventful, and detailed enough that Abberline (according to yourself) was confused as to exactly what had occurred.

    I think there was more going on that night, than your simple a, b & c choices allow for.
    And I think that there was nothing going on. He walked along Berner Street, saw an incident, the buggered off. Things happened, mistaken timing estimates were given.

    When will you tell us what you think happened instead of just telling me that I’m wrong? As my ‘version’ involves no plots, conspiracies or cover-up’s we can take it as a given that you will disagree with me on every point in the case.

    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      This is the closest we get ...



      As Mortimer does not give a specific time for seeing black bag man, there is no way Goldstein could have been 'copying' Mortimer. So 'about 1 a.m.' must have been his estimate. Yet it is now being claimed that Mortimer locked up by 12:45, to avoid the possibility of her seeing (but not hearing), Schwartz & co. Goldstein's estimate contradicts this notion.
      Im not talking about ‘copying.’ I’m simply saying that if Goldstein didn’t give a definite time then he has to be explained in terms of what Mortimer claimed and there is doubt about her times.

      So why not - Mortimer goes onto her doorstep just after Smith passed and went back inside at around 12.45. The Schwartz incident occurs then Stride is killed. She then went back to her door to lock it just before 1.00 when she heard someone pass. She looked into the street and saw Goldstein walk past the club. She locks her door. The Louis returns so 2 or 3 minutes after Fanny had locked the door she hears the disturbance at the club.

      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Im not talking about ‘copying.’ I’m simply saying that if Goldstein didn’t give a definite time then he has to be explained in terms of what Mortimer claimed and there is doubt about her times.

        So why not - Mortimer goes onto her doorstep just after Smith passed and went back inside at around 12.45. The Schwartz incident occurs then Stride is killed. She then went back to her door to lock it just before 1.00 when she heard someone pass. She looked into the street and saw Goldstein walk past the club. She locks her door. The Louis returns so 2 or 3 minutes after Fanny had locked the door she hears the disturbance at the club.
        Despite your desire to have Fanny simply missing seeing anything that is claimed and controversial...(Schwartz, Louis's arrival),..resorting to re-working what is already known about that night isnt valid. Simply put, in this scenario of yours Fanny went indoors at 1, a few minutes later would be 1:02-1:03, correct?

        Louis: "...and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street."
        Lamb: "Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me".
        Blackwell: "On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman"
        Johnson: "On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H"
        Philips: "I was called on Sunday morning last at twenty past one to Leman-street Police-station."

        There is quite simply not enough time in your revision of history to accomplish the above events with the timings they provide. Im not even going to bother bringing up the multiple witnesses whose corroborated statements invalidate Louis, Israel, Morris...and your revisions....well, I guess I just did,...but very clearly and quite obviously people MUST have left for help before 1am, like Eagle and Issac, only 1 of which stated that same fact.

        Lamb could not see the men "shortly before 1", Johnson could not have been there at a "few minutes past 1", Blackwell could not have been notified at "10 minutes past 1", and Phillips could not have been summoned at "20 minutes past 1", if the initial discovery only took place at 1:02-1:03. Cannot have happened at that time for all those statements to work.

        Louis said he lit a match, went inside to see his wife, summoned help from inside, members gathered by the body and it was decided to send men out for help. If as you suggest the discovery itself too place at approx 1:02-1:03, and all the activities I just listed took place before help was even sent, then basic math tells you that would suggest that the people left to get help at what, 1:08-1:10?

        So why does Fanny hear about it at around 1:04? Why does Lamb meet Eagle before 1am? How can Johnson be there before anyone has been sent for help? How does Blackwell hear about it at the same time the initial search party seeks help?

        Then you can add the 5-10 minutes the searchers were out on the street before finding help...how do 2 medical professionals and 1 policeman get summoned there before the body is found?

        Louis clearly, without any doubt, lied about arriving at 1. Its undeniable, which is why I spend my time assessing other witnesses who can better construct events and times with their statements. You however spend your time presuming all these witnesses were wrong or had no access to timepieces and Louis was the ONLY one that got the time right.

        And you cannot see the facts for the Diemshitz.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          Despite your desire to have Fanny simply missing seeing anything that is claimed and controversial...(Schwartz, Louis's arrival),..resorting to re-working what is already known about that night isnt valid. Simply put, in this scenario of yours Fanny went indoors at 1, a few minutes later would be 1:02-1:03, correct?

          Louis: "...and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street."
          Lamb: "Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me".
          Blackwell: "On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman"
          Johnson: "On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H"
          Philips: "I was called on Sunday morning last at twenty past one to Leman-street Police-station."

          There is quite simply not enough time in your revision of history to accomplish the above events with the timings they provide. Im not even going to bother bringing up the multiple witnesses whose corroborated statements invalidate Louis, Israel, Morris...and your revisions....well, I guess I just did,...but very clearly and quite obviously people MUST have left for help before 1am, like Eagle and Issac, only 1 of which stated that same fact.

          Lamb could not see the men "shortly before 1", Johnson could not have been there at a "few minutes past 1", Blackwell could not have been notified at "10 minutes past 1", and Phillips could not have been summoned at "20 minutes past 1", if the initial discovery only took place at 1:02-1:03. Cannot have happened at that time for all those statements to work.

          Louis said he lit a match, went inside to see his wife, summoned help from inside, members gathered by the body and it was decided to send men out for help. If as you suggest the discovery itself too place at approx 1:02-1:03, and all the activities I just listed took place before help was even sent, then basic math tells you that would suggest that the people left to get help at what, 1:08-1:10?

          So why does Fanny hear about it at around 1:04? Why does Lamb meet Eagle before 1am? How can Johnson be there before anyone has been sent for help? How does Blackwell hear about it at the same time the initial search party seeks help?

          Then you can add the 5-10 minutes the searchers were out on the street before finding help...how do 2 medical professionals and 1 policeman get summoned there before the body is found?

          Louis clearly, without any doubt, lied about arriving at 1. Its undeniable, which is why I spend my time assessing other witnesses who can better construct events and times with their statements. You however spend your time presuming all these witnesses were wrong or had no access to timepieces and Louis was the ONLY one that got the time right.

          And you cannot see the facts for the Diemshitz.
          Im no longer interested in discussing this aspect of the case with a biased, manipulator of evidence like yourself. I’m bored of your exaggerations and your infantile assessments and your pig-headed refusal to accept a reasonable margin for error on these timings. Your lie about Gilleman is enough for anyone to show what depths you’re willing to stoop to to shoehorn your comedic theory in to place.

          Your theory has been conclusively rebutted. Of course you can continue on your lonely, ego-fuelled path if you wish to waste you’re own time like that but I’m no longer willing to waste my own time repeatedly refuting your nonsense. It’s impossible to debate with a zealot who is devoid of all reason. I’m done with fantasists.

          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Your lie about Gilleman is enough for anyone to show what depths you’re willing to stoop to to shoehorn your comedic theory in to place.
            I keep seeing posted references to "Gilleman" but all I can find is

            1. the entry in the Complete A-Z :
            Gilleman: Supposed member of the IWC who according to Morris Eagle came into the clubroom at around 1am and said "There is a dead woman lying in the yard". Analysis of the sources shows that Eagle was talking about Louis Diemshutz.

            2. Ripperologist No 11
            Contents:
            Page Thirteen: The Mystery of Gilleman - Solved? Paul Begg

            Can someone please enlighten me as to why Gilleman is so mysterious and as to what importance he has on the Stride case???

            Cheers, George
            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
            If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
            Everybody lies - Greg House MD

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              I keep seeing posted references to "Gilleman" but all I can find is

              1. the entry in the Complete A-Z :
              Gilleman: Supposed member of the IWC who according to Morris Eagle came into the clubroom at around 1am and said "There is a dead woman lying in the yard". Analysis of the sources shows that Eagle was talking about Louis Diemshutz.

              2. Ripperologist No 11
              Contents:
              Page Thirteen: The Mystery of Gilleman - Solved? Paul Begg
              Can someone please enlighten me as to why Gilleman is so mysterious and as to what importance he has on the Stride case???
              Hi George,

              Perhaps Gilleman is so mysterious, because so very little, if anything, is known about him, as he was only mentioned by Eagle and because he's also known as Gid(d)leman(n) and Giglemann. He may very well be the Gilyarovsky mentioned in the October edition of the Arbeter Fraint and some, based on that edition of the Arbeter Fraint, think he might also be Kozebrodski. You'll find Gilleman/Giglemann/Gidleman, among others, in the Daily News of 2 October, the Daily Telegraph, Morning Advertiser and Times of the same date.

              I and others don't think he's so important to the case, but Mike Richards, who keeps calling him Gillen, thinks he is, as he's somehow supposed to support the notion that Stride wasn't found at about 1 o'clock, but just before 12:40.

              Arbeter Fraint of October:
              "At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body. His horse became frightened as he drove into the gate and shied to the right, and this caused Dimshits to bend down to see the reason for this. He noticed a black object on the ground. He touched it with his whip and felt that it was a body. He immediately struck a match, but that was insufficient and he wasn’t able to get a [good] flame, he was nevertheless able by the light of the first match to see that the object was a woman. From excitement he jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm.
              Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard.
              There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.
              “Don’t you know that a murdered woman is lying in the yard?” Gilyarovsky breathlessly called out. At first the two comrades did not want to believe him. “What, don’t you believe me?” Gilyarovsky quickly asked: “I saw blood.” Yaffa and Krants immediately ran out and went over to the gate. The gate was open and it was very dark near the gate. A black object was barely discernable near the brick building. Once they got very close, they could notice that it was the shape of a woman that was lying with its face to the wall, with its head toward the yard and with its feet pointing to the gate. Comrades Morris Eygel, Fridenthal and Gilyarovsky were standing around the body. Eygel struck a match and shouted to the figure lying there: “Get up!” “Why are you waking her?” asked Yaffa, who noticed that the woman was lying in a liquid. “Don’t you see that the woman is dead?”
              In the meantime, there was quite a to-do going on inside the club, and everyone ran out into the yard. Dimshits, Eygel and Gilyarovsky ran to look for a policeman;
              "


              I hope this answers your questions, at least to some extent (and doesn't create new ones!).

              Cheers,
              Frank
              Last edited by FrankO; 02-12-2022, 10:10 AM.
              "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
              Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                I keep seeing posted references to "Gilleman" but all I can find is

                1. the entry in the Complete A-Z :
                Gilleman: Supposed member of the IWC who according to Morris Eagle came into the clubroom at around 1am and said "There is a dead woman lying in the yard". Analysis of the sources shows that Eagle was talking about Louis Diemshutz.

                2. Ripperologist No 11
                Contents:
                Page Thirteen: The Mystery of Gilleman - Solved? Paul Begg

                Can someone please enlighten me as to why Gilleman is so mysterious and as to what importance he has on the Stride case???

                Cheers, George
                No real importance in relation to the point that I was making George except that for a long time Michael has been claiming that Gilleman can be included in some kind of list of witnesses who’s evidence points to an earlier discovery time. That there exists some kind of statement with Gilleman saying that he was with the body earlier. David O posted a long list of quotes from Michael claiming this but, as we know, the only mention of Gilleman in the case is by Eagle (plus the possible AF mention as Frank quoted.) So we know that he doesn’t point to an earlier discovery time. Has Michael acknowledged this? Have a guess?
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                  Hi George,

                  Perhaps Gilleman is so mysterious, because so very little, if anything, is known about him, as he was only mentioned by Eagle and because he's also known as Gid(d)leman(n) and Giglemann. He may very well be the Gilyarovsky mentioned in the October edition of the Arbeter Fraint and some, based on that edition of the Arbeter Fraint, think he might also be Kozebrodski. You'll find Gilleman/Giglemann/Gidleman, among others, in the Daily News of 2 October, the Daily Telegraph, Morning Advertiser and Times of the same date.

                  I and others don't think he's so important to the case, but Mike Richards, who keeps calling him Gillen, thinks he is, as he's somehow supposed to support the notion that Stride wasn't found at about 1 o'clock, but just before 12:40.

                  Arbeter Fraint of October:
                  "At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body. His horse became frightened as he drove into the gate and shied to the right, and this caused Dimshits to bend down to see the reason for this. He noticed a black object on the ground. He touched it with his whip and felt that it was a body. He immediately struck a match, but that was insufficient and he wasn’t able to get a [good] flame, he was nevertheless able by the light of the first match to see that the object was a woman. From excitement he jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm.
                  Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard.
                  There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.
                  “Don’t you know that a murdered woman is lying in the yard?” Gilyarovsky breathlessly called out. At first the two comrades did not want to believe him. “What, don’t you believe me?” Gilyarovsky quickly asked: “I saw blood.” Yaffa and Krants immediately ran out and went over to the gate. The gate was open and it was very dark near the gate. A black object was barely discernable near the brick building. Once they got very close, they could notice that it was the shape of a woman that was lying with its face to the wall, with its head toward the yard and with its feet pointing to the gate. Comrades Morris Eygel, Fridenthal and Gilyarovsky were standing around the body. Eygel struck a match and shouted to the figure lying there: “Get up!” “Why are you waking her?” asked Yaffa, who noticed that the woman was lying in a liquid. “Don’t you see that the woman is dead?”
                  In the meantime, there was quite a to-do going on inside the club, and everyone ran out into the yard. Dimshits, Eygel and Gilyarovsky ran to look for a policeman;
                  "


                  I hope this answers your questions, at least to some extent (and doesn't create new ones!).

                  Cheers,
                  Frank
                  Hi Frank,

                  Thanks for the reply. Cool new avatar.

                  None of the mentions of him as a witness have him quoting a discovery time at all. Perhaps the solution of the "Mystery of Gilleman" proposed by Paul Begg in the Ripperologist No 11 is that he was actually Deimshits?

                  Cheers, George
                  Last edited by GBinOz; 02-12-2022, 12:57 PM.
                  “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
                  If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
                  Everybody lies - Greg House MD

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                    Cool new avatar.
                    Thanks, George - I was about 6 years old on that photo... elementary school, great time.

                    None of the mentions of him as a witness have him quoting a discovery time at all. Perhaps the solution of the "Mystery of Gilleman" proposed by Paul Begg in the Ripperologist No 11 is that he was actually Deimshits?
                    Either that or there was no mystery at all, just a (Gille)man with not much of a role at all.

                    Cheers,
                    Frank
                    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Im no longer interested in discussing this aspect of the case with a biased, manipulator of evidence like yourself. I’m bored of your exaggerations and your infantile assessments and your pig-headed refusal to accept a reasonable margin for error on these timings. Your lie about Gilleman is enough for anyone to show what depths you’re willing to stoop to to shoehorn your comedic theory in to place.

                      Your theory has been conclusively rebutted. Of course you can continue on your lonely, ego-fuelled path if you wish to waste you’re own time like that but I’m no longer willing to waste my own time repeatedly refuting your nonsense. It’s impossible to debate with a zealot who is devoid of all reason. I’m done with fantasists.
                      You are living in a fantasy Herlock. Name one point I made in that post that isnt a recorded FACT. I didnt even mention Gileman for god sake, are you that far afield of reality that you now see things too? All of those timing are by the witnesses themselves, none support an arrival of Louis at or just after 1. And the fact that multiple witnesses stated they were by the body 15 or 20 minutes before Louis says he even arrived should tell you something.

                      If you call holding you hands over your eyes and ears rebuttal, sure...nice job. If you make up things as rebuttal, yeah, suppose thats up your alley too. But desist on suggesting that anything that doesnt agree with you is "rebutted", you have to be a sane person and actually have a counter argument to do that.

                      If youd like to reassess what was posted in #573 and attempt to deny all of it is as recorded historically, go for it. Love to hand you your head again. Otherwise princess, maybe go play elsewhere ...grownups are talking.

                      Just be glad there is no basic knowledge test for you have to pass to post here, cause if there was we all would have been saved over 11,000 of them. Not only poorly informed, but way too chatty too.
                      Last edited by Michael W Richards; 02-12-2022, 09:19 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        You are living in a fantasy Herlock. Name one point I made in that post that isnt a recorded FACT. I didnt even mention Gileman for god sake, are you that far afield of reality that you now see things too? All of those timing are by the witnesses themselves, none support an arrival of Louis at or just after 1. And the fact that multiple witnesses stated they were by the body 15 or 20 minutes before Louis says he even arrived should tell you something.

                        If you call holding you hands over your eyes and ears rebuttal, sure...nice job. If you make up things as rebuttal, yeah, suppose thats up your alley too. But desist on suggesting that anything that doesnt agree with you is "rebutted", you have to be a sane person and actually have a counter argument to do that.

                        If youd like to reassess what was posted in #573 and attempt to deny all of it is as recorded historically, go for it. Love to hand you your head again. Otherwise princess, maybe go play elsewhere ...grownups are talking.

                        Just be glad there is no basic knowledge test for you have to pass to post here, cause if there was we all would have been saved over 11,000 of them. Not only poorly informed, but way too chatty too.

                        Im not interest in your manipulations Michael. You repeatedly claimed (and it’s been produced in black and white) that Gilleman was evidence of an earlier discovery time. We KNOW that this is a lie. But you still cannot bring yourself to admit it so ‘shame on you’ as they say.

                        No one believes your plot nonsense Michael. That’s all that matters. Forget me, others have assessed it over the years and dismissed it. It’s gone. This is why I don’t wish to discuss the case with someone who can’t take an honest, unbiased view.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                          Hi George,

                          Perhaps Gilleman is so mysterious, because so very little, if anything, is known about him, as he was only mentioned by Eagle and because he's also known as Gid(d)leman(n) and Giglemann. He may very well be the Gilyarovsky mentioned in the October edition of the Arbeter Fraint and some, based on that edition of the Arbeter Fraint, think he might also be Kozebrodski. You'll find Gilleman/Giglemann/Gidleman, among others, in the Daily News of 2 October, the Daily Telegraph, Morning Advertiser and Times of the same date.

                          I and others don't think he's so important to the case, but Mike Richards, who keeps calling him Gillen, thinks he is, as he's somehow supposed to support the notion that Stride wasn't found at about 1 o'clock, but just before 12:40.

                          Arbeter Fraint of October:
                          "At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body. His horse became frightened as he drove into the gate and shied to the right, and this caused Dimshits to bend down to see the reason for this. He noticed a black object on the ground. He touched it with his whip and felt that it was a body. He immediately struck a match, but that was insufficient and he wasn’t able to get a [good] flame, he was nevertheless able by the light of the first match to see that the object was a woman. From excitement he jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm.
                          Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard.
                          There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.
                          “Don’t you know that a murdered woman is lying in the yard?” Gilyarovsky breathlessly called out. At first the two comrades did not want to believe him. “What, don’t you believe me?” Gilyarovsky quickly asked: “I saw blood.” Yaffa and Krants immediately ran out and went over to the gate. The gate was open and it was very dark near the gate. A black object was barely discernable near the brick building. Once they got very close, they could notice that it was the shape of a woman that was lying with its face to the wall, with its head toward the yard and with its feet pointing to the gate. Comrades Morris Eygel, Fridenthal and Gilyarovsky were standing around the body. Eygel struck a match and shouted to the figure lying there: “Get up!” “Why are you waking her?” asked Yaffa, who noticed that the woman was lying in a liquid. “Don’t you see that the woman is dead?”
                          In the meantime, there was quite a to-do going on inside the club, and everyone ran out into the yard. Dimshits, Eygel and Gilyarovsky ran to look for a policeman;
                          "


                          I hope this answers your questions, at least to some extent (and doesn't create new ones!).

                          Cheers,
                          Frank
                          I know well about the Arbeter Fraint Frank, (https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...arbeter-fraynd), and I know the issue that was released after the Stride murder stated Louis arrived at around 15 minutes to 1.

                          The reason for the petty comments concerning Gileman is because Herly Whirly sticks with Louis and Morris statements that the "discovery" was at or just after 1 am, when very clearly in the post I made that Herly Wirly says is bunk shows that Lamb statements, Johnsons statements, Blackwells statements and Phillips statement make that timeline impossible. Then you have mutiple witnesses that all say they were by the body at 12:40-12:45. Thats when Eagle knew about it...hence, so did Gileman,...and Spooner, and Heschberg and Kozebrodski.

                          Herly has Louis and Morris as his support, I have the rest of the witnesses, not really a fair fight... but when you deal with people who are oblivious to what constitutes "rebuttal" or a counter argument, its what he asked for. He either cant read or cant understand, he only has insults...not a point, nor an argument, nor the spine to address his lies and defeats. Which continue to pile up.

                          Comment


                          • Ok Herly Whirly...lets try just 2 questions and see if you can answer it instead of just saying "its been rebuuted"...shall we?

                            Lamb stated that he arrived just before 1 or at 1, as he saw Eagle on the street looking for help, correct? Then at What time did Eagle leave the site for help? Issac K meets them on the way back, what time must he have left?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              I know well about the Arbeter Fraint Frank, (https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...arbeter-fraynd), and I know the issue that was released after the Stride murder stated Louis arrived at around 15 minutes to 1.

                              The reason for the petty comments concerning Gileman is because Herly Whirly sticks with Louis and Morris statements that the "discovery" was at or just after 1 am, when very clearly in the post I made that Herly Wirly says is bunk shows that Lamb statements, Johnsons statements, Blackwells statements and Phillips statement make that timeline impossible. Then you have mutiple witnesses that all say they were by the body at 12:40-12:45. Thats when Eagle knew about it...hence, so did Gileman,...and Spooner, and Heschberg and Kozebrodski.

                              Herly has Louis and Morris as his support, I have the rest of the witnesses, not really a fair fight... but when you deal with people who are oblivious to what constitutes "rebuttal" or a counter argument, its what he asked for. He either cant read or cant understand, he only has insults...not a point, nor an argument, nor the spine to address his lies and defeats. Which continue to pile up.
                              Staggering, contemptible dishonesty.

                              The comments about Gilleman are due to your proven lies.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                Ok Herly Whirly...lets try just 2 questions and see if you can answer it instead of just saying "its been rebuuted"...shall we?

                                Lamb stated that he arrived just before 1 or at 1, as he saw Eagle on the street looking for help, correct? Then at What time did Eagle leave the site for help? Issac K meets them on the way back, what time must he have left?
                                Only a fool or a dishonest person would persist in holding people who are clearly estimating times to exact times. This is manipulation.

                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X