View Single Post
Old 09-28-2017, 12:11 PM
Wolf Vanderlinden Wolf Vanderlinden is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 471

Hi Steadmund.

Are you the only one posting here? Or are you just ignoring what others have said?

Again.... who said that "the argument is made that offering money for testimony would be unthinkable. That seems incredibly naive. " or are you just putting words on peoples mouths...
Am I putting words into people’s mouths? :

What you are suggesting is a conspiracy involving ex-lovers to undertakers...I think we are getting into JFK territory where everyone has to be involved for this conspiracy to work.
But of course it was all part of the conspiracy.
Not sure if you want to push this, since your conspiracy theory has gaping holes in it.
I'll respond to your other posts in time, Steadmund, if that's all right with you.

Hi conspiracy debunkers.

It’s funny how some people jump on an argument, in this case that witnesses were probably paid to provide evidence that Tumblety was insane, label it “a conspiracy theory” and then, for whatever reason, believe that they have disproved the argument. High fives all around. In actual fact it’s just another example of intellectual laziness or, perhaps, the inability to debate the facts.

The word “conspiracy,” according to my OED, means simply to “conspire,” or to “combine [as in a group] for unlawful purposes.” That seems fairly simple and straightforward but, to some, apparently, not.

As I pointed out in my last post, “conspiracies” to defraud wills in probate are nothing new. Charles A. Dunham made a living out of challenging wills, providing false witnesses and fake family members in order to illegally acquire a cut from wills that were in probate. This falls quite obviously within the definition of a “conspiracy.” By calling this fact merely a “conspiracy theory” doesn’t change that fact or disprove it.

Let me put this another way. The argument that witnesses lied during the 1905 trial has been dismissed as merely a “conspiracy theory.” That it is “getting into JFK territory where everyone has to be involved for this conspiracy to work.” But, as I also wrote, there were witnesses put forward by the lawyers of the St. Louis will who rebutted the testimony from the Tumblety family’s witnesses (as I also said, presumably about Tumblety’s physical attributes).

These witnesses, described as St. John’s Hospital physicians, nuns and the hospital’s chaplain, must have been lying IF the family’s witnesses were telling the truth. But that couldn’t have happened because that would be “getting into JFK territory where everyone has to be involved for this conspiracy to work.” Slippery slope?

Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote