Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FW: [40Whacks] the rhyme

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Tesch
    Muriel, I feel sorry for you. Your credibility is shot. You sound just like Arnold Brown when he defended his illegitimate son Billy Borden as the killer
    Message 1 of 4 , May 26, 2005



      Muriel, I feel sorry for you.  Your credibility is shot.  You sound just like Arnold Brown when he defended his”illegitimate son Billy Borden as the killer” theory.  Complete tunnel vision and cantankerous denial of any fact that doesn’t fit the contrived hypothesis. And yes, no one was convinced of that one either…


      1.  <As I said, Robinson never denied Lizzie tried to buy poison--he merely argued that it had an innocent use.>

         What lawyer would deny his client tried to buy poison.  Had he failed to get Bence's testimony kept out, maybe then he would have done his damnest to get the jury to discount his testimony or cast doubt on his credibility.


      ***Duh…  Abby feared she was being poisoned the day before her murder.


         2.  Frederick Hart and Thomas Kilroy testified at the inquest and hearing that it was Lizzie who attempted to buy prussic acid.

          I don't remember if it was Fred Hart or Frank Kilroy who was taken to the inquest where Lizzie was pointed out to him as she left the courtroom and asked if she wasn't the one who had been in Smith's drugstore trying to buy prussic acid.  How's that for a line-up?


      ***Hart & Kilroy were student drug clerks and very credible eye-witnesses.  They weren’t “taken” to the inquest, they testified there.  


      1. FACT:  The reporters had no time to behave like hack reporters.  It was all they could do to keep pace with the trial.


      ***they were on deadline and pressured to create new angles.  Every true crime writer worth his salt knows you can’t rely on the accuracy of newspaper accounts during the initial investigation phase.  They’re always rife with errors.  Which is why your “research” is so flawed…


      Jeff, I disagree with you about anyone being able to tell when a "wood break" is fresh or not.  I"ll stick with the wood dealers back then who claimed you could not.


      ***disagree all you want – a fresh wood break is easy to spot.


      <...You wake up! And read the FREAKIN TRANSCRIPT!  Here is what Bridget testified about the note...>

      Jeff, when are you going to wake up to the FACT that Bridget was an adroit and chronic liar?

          a)  Bridget claimed Lizzie told her about the note as she, Bridget, was washing the dining room windows.

          b)  Bridget did testify that Mrs. Borden told her about the note in the sitting room.

          c)  Bridget told reporters a few days after the murders that a note had come shortly before 9:00.

          d)  I'm not going to find Lizzie's inquest testimony, but I'm pretty sure she did not testify to telling her father                  about Mrs. Borden receiving a note, as Bridget claimed Lizzie had.


      ***Memo to group:  I have cited Bridget’s testimony regarding the note.  I challenge Muriel to cite the testimony she claims Bridget gave in b) above.  Problem is that she can’t – because Bridget never testified that Abby told her about the note.  When Muriel says she did she is either lying or mistaken – which casts all her other assertions in doubt.


      Why can’t Muriel just admit she’s wrong here?  Or that she’s confused Mrs. Churchill’s testimony with Bridget’s.  Bottom line – we cannot accept anything Muriel says at face value.  I personally think she just makes stuff up…


      I hope the group is getting as tired of this as I am.  It’s a waste of time and keystrokes, and JT won’t play if anymore after this.


      I’ll have a rather huge announcement for the group sometime in June regarding my Maplecroft project.






    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.