Tweet
Originally posted by GregBaron
View Post
Mike
-
Until they do, the witness and Topping are the same man and are shown in the photo. The burden of proof is on the Hutchinsonians. I would love it if they could prove their case. A solved crime would be a good thing. So far, they have nothing.
Mikehuh? -
The only Hutch?
Tsk, tsk, The Good Michael, such skepticism! Ye of little faith in the Hutchinsonians!Until they do, the witness and Topping are the same man and are shown in the photo. The burden of proof is on the Hutchinsonians. I would love it if they could prove their case. A solved crime would be a good thing. So far, they have nothing.
I must say I find in thrilling to look into the eyes of the guy who walked 20 miles without a pot to p*ss in, ran into his good friend MJK, saw the elusive Astro-Man and stayed out half the night in the rain observing!
Why would an ordinary bloke make up such a thing? I know this topic has been battered like a stepchild but if this is he, then Astro-Man becomes the number one suspect again in the murder of MJK.
We then have the clerk or BS man taking out Stride, the sailor taking out Eddowes and the middle aged shabby genteel taking out Chapman.
Hmmm, more fuel for Lynn Cates and his cabal of 2.1.1.1 reductionists!
Ha!
GregComment
-
If you don't understand the concept of wishful thinking, read this :
Originally posted by The Good Michael View PostComment
-
opposite of Mondrian
Hello Greg. So I've got a cabal, then? Is that better or worse than a cartel? (heh-heh)
Not sure I'd use "reductionist" here. Many would think it more like a maximalist approach. Perhaps Bronzino as opposed to Mondrian.
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Acording to the truthful Faircloughthe witness and Topping are the same man
....and this photo appears in the truthful "Ripper and the Royals".and are shown in the photo
If there is ever a "burden", which I doubt, it should be on those who blindly follow Fairclough.The burden of proof is on the Hutchinsonians
In my opinion we are all concerned. Hutch hasn't been identified yet, and how Fairclough did "find" Reg, how Reg accepted the use of his father's name to support a crazy royal theory, etc etc, should be cleared, whatever we think at the present time regarding Toppy.Comment
-
And what do you have, Mike ?Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
Fairclough's joke and Richard BBC programm that you have never heard.
And signatures on which experts etc etc etc.
As for "us", we are just logically looking for Hutch. It may be Toppy, it may be someone else. Time will tell, don't you think ?Comment
-
Hi Ruby
How do you know, please ?Originally posted by Rubyretro View Post
Have you examined the original ? Take care, it's a Fairclough document.Comment
-
Well, I posted on another thread the contact details for Fairclough and I'm amazed that everyone wants to carry on speculating and nobody wants to put some simple questions to him.In my opinion we are all concerned. Hutch hasn't been identified yet, and how Fairclough did "find" Reg, how Reg accepted the use of his father's name to support a crazy royal theory, etc etc, should be cleared, whatever we think at the present time regarding Toppy.
The only reason that I haven't done so is that I am clearly biased and if I made up the questions myself they might (even subconciously) be weighted, and also nobody would believe me if I came back with info which confirmed my own theories.
Since you can send an email to Fairclough's publishers, which could be sent on to him, why doesn't someone like Greg or Abby contact him ?Comment
-
Contact strategy...
I'd be happy to Ruby, but why us? Is he in America or something? Must we knock on his door? Or is it because we have no dog in this fight?Since you can send an email to Fairclough's publishers, which could be sent on to him, why doesn't someone like Greg or Abby contact him ?
GregComment
-
that TOPPY photo still doesn't look like from the 20s, i showed it too my family and they said the 60s and 70s, all our old 1920s family photos look like Dinosaurs in comparison to that...... photos from that era really do look old, hair, clothing, expressions etc.
that aint Toppy no way..... that photo was taken at the very earliest in about 1950 and it could be as late as 1978, behind him there's a curtain uuum.
he's probably an old drunk in a photo booth at Waterloo station in the 1070s, the only thing missing is a can of Tennants Extra and the stink of stale piss
Last edited by Malcolm X; 01-07-2012, 06:27 PM.Comment
-
Hi Malcolm
I wouldn't say he was an old drunk nor that it wasn't Toppy for sure, but I have to agree with you : it really doesn't look a 20s pic, at least to my eyes, and if more recent, then it cannot be Toppy.
I have an idea that this pic could be easier to date (even approximately) than the signatures to be compared.
Some will probably insist that a proven fake wouldn't prove Toppy was not the man, but at the same time, this may help them realize that all they believe concerning Toppy has the same (and dubious) provenance.Last edited by DVV; 01-07-2012, 06:59 PM.Comment
-
-
Malcolm & David - I think that it is loonyness bordering on the surreal to suggest that the photo of Toppy is a fake.Comment
-
A fellow casebooker had gone to visit Fairclough some 3 or 4 months ago, I can't remember precisely.
No news since.Comment
-
And I think it's the latest foolishness to pretend that it is a genuine pic of Toppy beyond doubt, since you haven't examined it and since it appeared in a so fanciful study.Originally posted by Rubyretro View Post
Moreover, I'm just saying that it doesn't look a 20s pic, to my eyes, and that was also the impression of Sam Flynn and others.Comment
Comment