Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Watkins or Harvey?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I will however , offer you a ' get out of jail free card '
    Although I don't think you'll like it lol

    On the 1st Watkins walked his beat with a Star reporter .
    He told this reporter that it was he who went to fetch Sequiera .
    Now , that would alter everything .
    What if an arse covering exercise goes into operation as Watkins 'should' have stayed with the body .
    Before the inquest they sort out their stories , but Watkins forgets that Harvey was meant to be with him .
    It's possible if the Star was correct and explains a lot .
    This however would make them all unreliable

    Other than that Harvey needs looking at
    End of .....
    You can lead a horse to water.....

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by packers stem View Post
      I will however , offer you a ' get out of jail free card '
      Although I don't think you'll like it lol

      On the 1st Watkins walked his beat with a Star reporter .
      He told this reporter that it was he who went to fetch Sequiera .
      Now , that would alter everything .
      What if an arse covering exercise goes into operation as Watkins 'should' have stayed with the body .
      Before the inquest they sort out their stories , but Watkins forgets that Harvey was meant to be with him .
      It's possible if the Star was correct and explains a lot .
      This however would make them all unreliable

      Other than that Harvey needs looking at
      End of .....
      Ha ha! Good one. Sigh, I have to learn to better spot when people are just having fun and not being serious.

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        Ha ha! Good one. Sigh, I have to learn to better spot when people are just having fun and not being serious.

        - Jeff
        Original post is serious enough .
        The Star report is your alternative reality option to brighten your day if you refuse to accept the testimony of Watkins ....
        You can lead a horse to water.....

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by packers stem View Post

          Original post is serious enough .
          The Star report is your alternative reality option to brighten your day if you refuse to accept the testimony of Watkins ....
          ha ha! I see what you're doing there! Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • #35
            Harvey went to Mitre Square with Morris and the others.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
              Harvey went to Mitre Square with Morris and the others.
              That's what is being discussed Scott .
              He said he did .
              Watkins didn't notice him being there ..... he was alone
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • #37
                Well thank you for reminding me it's a "discussion" - and a convoluted one to say the least. Watkins never said Harvey wasn't there.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                  Well thank you for reminding me it's a "discussion" - and a convoluted one to say the least. Watkins never said Harvey wasn't there.
                  He said he was alone until Holland arrived ... (he) was followed by Sequeira
                  You can lead a horse to water.....

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    and who else was with Holland when Holland arrived?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                      and who else was with Holland when Holland arrived?
                      According to Watkins ... nobody .
                      Sequeira followed him
                      You can lead a horse to water.....

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I'm an outsider looking in; I have no prior knowledge of this Watkins-Harvey issue and have read nothing except what has been posted on this thread.

                        With that said and for what my HO is worth, I am with the school of thought that Watkins' use of 'alone' refers to the period before Holland (with Harvey) arrives for the first time. When Watkins states that Sequeria arrived later he simply doesn't bother to note that Holland left and then returned with the doctor in tow. Watkins has no reason to note Holland's 'return' as an arrival.

                        If asked about Holland's 'arrival,' Watkins would attribute that word to Holland's first appearance on the scene, only. From Watkins point of view Holland can only 'arrive' at the scene once, after that anything Holland does is Holland just doing his job. I.e. any of Holland's subsequent actions, e.g. going and coming back with a doctor, would not register in Watkins's mind as an arrival.

                        Watkins was alone before Holland and Harvey arrived. That's what he is saying; Harvey just isn't important enough for Watkins' to mix into his answer when asked about Holland's arrival.



                        So anyway, what if Harvey was lying what could he gain from it; what could he have possibly been trying to hide?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by APerno View Post
                          I'm an outsider looking in; I have no prior knowledge of this Watkins-Harvey issue and have read nothing except what has been posted on this thread.

                          With that said and for what my HO is worth, I am with the school of thought that Watkins' use of 'alone' refers to the period before Holland (with Harvey) arrives for the first time. When Watkins states that Sequeria arrived later he simply doesn't bother to note that Holland left and then returned with the doctor in tow. Watkins has no reason to note Holland's 'return' as an arrival.

                          If asked about Holland's 'arrival,' Watkins would attribute that word to Holland's first appearance on the scene, only. From Watkins point of view Holland can only 'arrive' at the scene once, after that anything Holland does is Holland just doing his job. I.e. any of Holland's subsequent actions, e.g. going and coming back with a doctor, would not register in Watkins's mind as an arrival.

                          Watkins was alone before Holland and Harvey arrived. That's what he is saying; Harvey just isn't important enough for Watkins' to mix into his answer when asked about Holland's arrival.



                          So anyway, what if Harvey was lying what could he gain from it; what could he have possibly been trying to hide?
                          You have to take Watkins testimony as 'stand alone' as we would with absolutely any other witness in the case and not try to make it match that of Harvey .
                          Every report only mentions Holland (and words like He or Him) followed by Sequeira .
                          Never an indication of any sort that there was Holland and another ,never .

                          It was pointed out that in the Star report ...



                          Did you touch the body? - No, sir. I ran across the road to Messrs. Kearley and Tonge's warehouse and called the watchman inside, a man named Morris. He came out, and I sent him for assistance.

                          Did you remain by the side of the body till the arrival of Police-constable Holland? - I did.

                          Was there anyone about but yourself? - No one till Holland arrived. He was followed by Dr. Sequeira, and Inspector Collard arrived about two.

                          DR. GORDON BROWN,


                          the police surgeon, followed.


                          Shows Crawford ask about Holland .
                          This though , is the first mention of Holland , someone who was not due to testify so unless Crawford had taken up mind reading as a hobby then Holland had already been mentioned but the Star had omitted the line .
                          So even after being questioned regarding Holland and Watkins given time to think ..... we are still singular..... Holland , he was followed by Sequeira .

                          Taking Watkins testimony alone there is no possible way that anybody could deduce that more than one PC joined him prior to Sequeira .
                          You are only reaching this based upon Harvey's testimony and convincing yourselves he must have been telling the truth .

                          That isn't the way I work.....
                          Maybe he got the wrong night like gets thrown at Maxwell .....

                          As for where he could have got to , who knows but what I am sure of is that he wasn't in Mitre Square unless Watkins was lying
                          and neither were the convenient passers by that legged it to Bishopsgate who's information Collard accepted without question and telegraphed his superiors .

                          Something stinks , and it's not fish and potatoes
                          You can lead a horse to water.....

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I see that another thread has entered Packerís Twilight Zone. There are enough mysteries in this case without more being invented.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              I see that another thread has entered Packerís Twilight Zone. There are enough mysteries in this case without more being invented.
                              lol. itd be one thing if they had a some sort of theory to describe and debate, but they have none-its the phantom theory theory.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                                lol. itd be one thing if they had a some sort of theory to describe and debate, but they have none-its the phantom theory theory.
                                Itís all hints and nudges. Iíve yet to hear Packer tell me what he thinks happened in Mitre Court or Hanbury Street. Itís impossible to debate vague suggestions.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X