Originally posted by Michael W Richards
View Post
You’ve responded to none of the points about your joke theory I see. Then again you never do do you because you know what an embarrassing pile of tripe it is. You continue to use 2 witnesses and dishonestly claim them as multiple witnesses. You dishonestly claimed that Eagle called Gillman when it was the other way around and it happened at 1.00. Of course you haven’t had the decency to acknowledge this. I suppose we should be thankful that you’ve abandoned the invented witness Gillan.
Lamb is a perfect example of your manipulation of evidence. In the Times and Telegraph he said “around 1.00’ and “just before 1.00” which you try to twist to 12.50 for a bit of shoehorning. You dishonestly ignore the fact that he pointed out that he didn’t have a watch which anyone with a modicum of intelligence would take to mean that he was estimating his time (no mention of seeing a clock like Louis) but hey, you manipulate because you have too.
And talking of Diemschutz. Isn’t it convenient that you make a big point of no one seeing the Schwartz incident but you completely ignore the fact that not one person saw a man on a horse and cart with hooves echoing along the street. That’s fine though isn’t it. Missing a man on a horse and cart is possible but a thirty second incident, no way could hey have missed it This is the kind of biased bilge that you keep inflicting on us. And all the while you sit on your high horse claiming honesty! It’s staggering!
Go on then Michael. Will you finally answer? Why would these ‘plotters’ proceed with such a serious plot with such potentially serious ramifications when they hadn’t told everyone about it? People that they knew would be interviewed by the Police. Like Koz and Hosch. Louis returns with Spooner, knowing full well that he’ll be interviewed by the police and yet he forgets to say “by the way old chap, when the police ask, say that I met you around 1.00.”
Answer why he went through the streets shouting for a police officer, and then hoped and preyed that no one would here them and log the time?
Any answers? Those two points alone sink your theory stone dead.
Waffle all you like. Call me handicapped if that makes you happy. Call 2 ‘multiple’ if you think it’s relevant. Say it’s impossible to miss a 30 second incident but not impossible to miss a horse and cart. Twist, turn and lie all you like but you’re theory is dead. The two points above alone kill it but there’s more of course. I’m guessing that you won’t answer because you haven’t so far. Because there is no answer. It kills the theory.
Comment