Originally posted by moonbegger
View Post
Thing is, I seem to remember some time ago having very similar arguments with a poster who wrote something approaching your style of putting pen to paper so to speak. He/she was not known as Moonbegger. It could well be I am totally wrong in this assumption, and if I am then I apologise, but as I said, certain traits in your posting rang a few bells.
You know Moonbegger it takes two to create an argument, and I think if you look at the exchanges between us here in this thread, you'll see that the comments you have made have been as ill placed as mine. Take the passage above, apparently I have a crazy nonsensical attitude, that's a red rag to a bull, get my drift ? And nonsensical? I've just proved to you beyond any doubt that it was indeed the killer who placed Annie Chapman's comb etc, at her feet,
One thing in certain however, that is, I do not need to be enlightened by the likes of you, I must admit that I had a little chuckle to myself when I read this.
I also found this section of your last post amusing
And secondly your venomous and ( bully boy ) style ramblings , roughly disguised as facts, or should i say ( your opinion of them )
Ramblings disguised as facts ???? haha. The killer placed Annie Chapmans belongings at her feet, that's a fact. Mr's long saw Annie Chapman with her killer that's a fact. Cadosh heard Annie Chapman fall against the fence of No 29 Hanbury street that's a fact. And finally the much maligned Richardson, he told the truth, that's a fact.
What is not fact, is your rather bizarre theory that Mr's Long saw an entirely different couple outside of 29 Hanbury street at 5:30, on the morning of the 8th August.
That it can be ascertained, beyond any doubt that the murder took place sometime between 4:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. this on the say so of Dr Philips using decidedly unscientific methods.
That the body of Annie Chapman lay in the yard as Richardson checked the locks of No 29.
That what Cadosh heard at roughly 5:30 a.m. namely someone exclaim "no", and then a sound as if someone was falling against the fence was indeed Annie Chapman and her killer, not another prostitute and her client. The "no" exclaimation actually being the fully alive and well well second prostitute expressing her distaste, as her client robbed poor Annie Chapman of her two rings. He then apparently ransacks her pockets and places her two combs, and a piece of muslin at her feet in a neat orderly fashion, it must have been him, as none of the attending police officers or Dr Philips performed this task.
And you accuse me of roughly disguised facts, I don't know hahaha.
Listen Moonbegger, I'll admit, I do get a little bit hot under the collar, this website is a little bit of light relief in my life, that's all, so I shouldn't be as aggresive. If you look at my various posts though you'll see that I agree with lots of people on this site, it's just that most of them don't come up with ridiculous theories such as your own. But dream on my friend ,dream on, it provides us with a little bit of entertainment. and I don't mean this in a bad way.
Au revoir Moonblagger
best regards
Observer
Comment