The BIG Poll

[Herlock Sholmes]

So what your saying is by reading , analyzing, studying , and forming an opinion on post that Richard put forward in regards to Thompson as a suspect, isn't actually "looking at the evidence " ? Not sure i follow that kind of logic your peddling there Herlock.

If only you could have considered the evidence he posted at the very least to its possibilities instead of totally dismissing it, its would be impossible not to support it .

I really can’t see why you aren’t getting this point Fishy. Richard has made his points and so have I. You can see how we differ. So the only way to form a valid opinion is to look at the original evidence itself and see which one of us is giving a truthful representation of the facts. We can’t both be right Fishy. And it’s not only me Fishy, others on here have posted how Richard has manipulated the evidence. Surely that should make you suspicious…and no…it’s not a matter of interpretation…it’s a matter of truth. Richard claims things as facts…

That Thompson was definitely staying in London at the time of the murders - this is proven an untrue statement by evidence and I have shown how he has managed to make this false claim.

That Thompson was an arsonist - this ludicrous claim has been exposed by revealing the three ‘incidents’ upon which it was blamed by Richard (no one at the time)

That Thompson was violent - this is nonsense as Richard is trying to claim that works of fiction are proof that someone is violent. We don’t have a single piece of evidence of Thompson ever being violent in any way.

That Thompson was Smith’s suspect (claimed as a fact by Richard) - categorically disproved. We even have the statements of the actual police officers who arrested the man. He was Oswald Puckeridge.

His biographer Walsh said that around mid-October he was admitted to hospital and stayed for around 6 weeks. If accurate then this eliminates him as the murderer of Mary Kelly.

That his incarceration matched the cessation of the murders - utter nonsense. The evidence tells us that he was out of hospital some time in December and free to murder.

That he was searching for his prostitite girlfriend in Whitechapel - he never mentions doing this and why would he? She was a West End prostitute.

That he resented/hated her for abandoning him - nonsense. He never wrote of her or spoke of her but with kindness and love.

Thompson cannot be considered a suspect as it’s just another example of someone who was ‘around at the time.’ The fact that Richard refuses to answer questions is proof that he has no answers. He’s been caught out.

[Lewis C]

Another problem with Richard's argument is that Smith said that his suspect passed polished farthings instead of sovereigns. Thompson found a couple of coins in the street. These are 2 completely different things, but Richard claimed that this is a match.

And there's the problem that Richard is trying to make a case against Thomspon by arguing that he was Smith's suspect, when Smith said that his suspect had an alibi.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another problem with Richard's argument is that Smith said that his suspect passed polished farthings instead of sovereigns. Thompson found a couple of coins in the street. These are 2 completely different things, but Richard claimed that this is a match.

And there's the problem that Richard is trying to make a case against Thomspon by arguing that he was Smith's suspect, when Smith said that his suspect had an alibi.

The whole ‘case’ against him is nonsense Lewis.

[FISHY1118]

He posted absolutely zero evidence that the traits Major Smith considered to be possessed by his suspect were traits possessed by The Ripper. Also Smith praised Sagar as the very best detective he knew, and Sagar apparently was convinced JtR was a butcher and not a poet! Did you also read, analize and study the very powerful evidence submitted that Richard's sources seem to have been incorrect?

What evidence did Sagar produce that convinced him JTR was a butcher .? So what if he did ,I think as did some Dr's at the time he was a medical man or at least someone who had medical knowledge based on the evidence, big deal. Means nothing, in the its just an opinion


"Powerful evidence"

Incorrect according to whom?


Richard evidence on Thompson was only ever challenged with counter arguments with opinions on other people's .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richard evidence on Thompson was only ever challenged with counter arguments with opinions on other people's .

No. They were countered by provable facts which you would know if you had taken the time to examine the evidence.

[Enigma]

To get back on track.

Herlock have you collated the votes yet? Like me, no doubt many are eager to see the result and who we consider the prime suspects.

[FISHY1118]

No. They were countered by provable facts which you would know if you had taken the time to examine the evidence.

No they weren't, because they couldn't be proven , they were merely disagreement and an alternative view based solely on someone else's interpretation of the same evidence.

[FISHY1118]

I really can’t see why you aren’t getting this point Fishy. Richard has made his points and so have I. You can see how we differ. So the only way to form a valid opinion is to look at the original evidence itself and see which one of us is giving a truthful representation of the facts. We can’t both be right Fishy. And it’s not only me Fishy, others on here have posted how Richard has manipulated the evidence. Surely that should make you suspicious…and no…it’s not a matter of interpretation…it’s a matter of truth. Richard claims things as facts…

That Thompson was definitely staying in London at the time of the murders - this is proven an untrue statement by evidence and I have shown how he has managed to make this false claim.

That Thompson was an arsonist - this ludicrous claim has been exposed by revealing the three ‘incidents’ upon which it was blamed by Richard (no one at the time)

That Thompson was violent - this is nonsense as Richard is trying to claim that works of fiction are proof that someone is violent. We don’t have a single piece of evidence of Thompson ever being violent in any way.

That Thompson was Smith’s suspect (claimed as a fact by Richard) - categorically disproved. We even have the statements of the actual police officers who arrested the man. He was Oswald Puckeridge.

His biographer Walsh said that around mid-October he was admitted to hospital and stayed for around 6 weeks. If accurate then this eliminates him as the murderer of Mary Kelly.

That his incarceration matched the cessation of the murders - utter nonsense. The evidence tells us that he was out of hospital some time in December and free to murder.

That he was searching for his prostitite girlfriend in Whitechapel - he never mentions doing this and why would he? She was a West End prostitute.

That he resented/hated her for abandoning him - nonsense. He never wrote of her or spoke of her but with kindness and love.

Thompson cannot be considered a suspect as it’s just another example of someone who was ‘around at the time.’ The fact that Richard refuses to answer questions is proof that he has no answers. He’s been caught out.

I hope with this on point you get it Herlock. His biographer Walsh said " that around mid October Thompson was admitted to hospital and stayed for around six weeks ". Great where the documents that make that s fact ? Why don't we question Walshs claim and all others for that matterwith the same scrutiny that you all do with Richards?. Instead of believing everything you read and accept as gospel that contradicts Richard ? why don't we see any hard evidence? Heres why ... there isn't any that proves Richard is wrong .

Thompson is as good a suspect as any ,until we can eliminate him with asurity then peoples objections are really just opinion orientated, and not based on fact.