Originally posted by Michael W Richards
View Post
Had to open access to your posts again because it would seem you continue to post things that need to be addressed so your inaccurate representations are identified and understood for their actual value.
On we go. A point that you really should give consideration to Michael when discussing who is misrepresenting the truth or not is the entirety of Ripperology. This isn’t some ‘error of judgment’ or ‘conformist plot’ on my part this is everyone. There’s only you (and maybe one or two others of a conspiracist frame of mind) who see any basis for conspiracy. Everyone else has looked into this time and time and time again and seen the same thing. A few timing errors based on incorrect estimations which prove fertile ground for your type of thinking. A cooler, more reasoned, interpretation shows us what is glaringly obvious. That the notion of a cover-up is ill-founding, the suggested plan itself is infantile in its conception and the evidence for it is completely and utterly non-existent. It’s an entirely manufactured scenario. A work of complete fiction. It never happened.
1. This is of course your opinion only and has nothing to do with established baseline facts. In fact 4 witnesses, (including 1 outside witness), all stated that they were by the dying woman with Louis there between 12:40-12:45. Issac K, Gillen and Heschberg..in addition to the aforementioned Spooner. That makes 4 corroborative stories. The other ones you choose to believe..you know, those unsubstantiated by anyone stories from people with livelihoods and reputations on the line......all of them...have not one single corroborative witness account.
For someone that claims knowledge of the case (and despite our differences I would never deny your knowledge of the case) I really can’t understand for the life of me why you keep talking about ‘Gillen?’ There was no such person. Nowhere in the records anywhere is there mention of a Gillen so WHY Michael do you simply refuse to type GILLEMAN? It’s utterly baffling. And why the hell do you try and use him to claim an earlier discovery time?
Lets talk about honesty shall we Michael? You have been asked time and time and time again why you keep using Gilleman to prove an earlier discovery time. WILL YOU FINALLY ANSWER THIS QUESTION MICHAEL…….I DOUBT IT.
Gilleman is only mentioned by Eagle who said that he called him to see the body at 1.00. That’s the only mention of Gilleman. So how can you claim integrity when you repeatedly claim a witness who categorically doesn’t prove your point?
THE SECOND QUESTION THAT YOU’VE BEEN ASKED NUMEROUS TIMES BUT HAVE ALWAYS IGNORED IS……WHY DO YOU ACCEPT SPOONER’S RANDOM GUESS BASED ON PUB CLOSING TIMES, WALKS ALONG THE STREET AND CONVERSATIONS AND YET YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT HE SAID THAT HE GOT TO THE YARD 5 MINUTES BEFORE LAMB?
Hoschberg was guessing of course. The words ‘about’ and ‘i should think’ are the clues.
Obvioysly you won’t address these points because you havent thus far so why would you begin now.
2. Since you believe all of the singular unsubstantiated stories, surely the fact that Louis says he stopped his cart as he entered the passageway to see why his horse shied...at 1am according to him...would raise the question of what happened to the cart and horse and "goods"? They effectively blocked the entrance to the yard via the gates, and as such would have to be moved for the rest of the arrivals to get access to where Liz lay. So...if he arrived when he says he did, 1am..(which is contradictory to what Fanny saw or heard from her door up to and including that time), then someone does something with the cart horse and goods before Eagle arrives back with Lamb. Which is seen by Issac Kozebrodski as he returned alone after being sent to seek help by himself.
They did not block the gates. Lamb got in, Smith got in, Spooner got in. It’s none point. The horse and cart wasn’t blocking the gate it was in the yard and didn’t get mentioned because it was irrelevant to all but a conspiracy theorist trying to weave a fantasy around it.
As per Lamb himself at the Inquest...."Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: 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 and shouting. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder."§
Lamb didn’t have a watch. He was estimating. He was wrong. Now that’s cleared up we can move on.
Because you obtusely state without any factual evidence to support you that 4 witnesses all were "incorrect" about when they saw things even though they see the same things at the same times, and that an impediment as large as a cart and horse are irrelevant to any discovery about this crime, Its important that you are corrected before less studied people are misinformed about what actually is on paper and what isnt.
Im not going to keep responding to the same lie.
Leave a comment: