Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Watkins or Harvey?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I see that another thread has entered Packer’s Twilight Zone. There are enough mysteries in this case without more being invented.
    Twilight zone ?
    This thread concerns Watkins testimony and that at no stage was Harvey mentioned .
    Only Holland along with singular suggesting words like He or Him .Prior to Holland arriving followed by Sequeira he was alone .

    Others have refused to see this and resorted to the tried and tested 'repeat a lie long enough and it eventually becomes the truth'
    This has actually surprised me as there are some on casebook who can usually find a far more acceptable response than trying to confuse the testimony by claiming Watkins was talking about being alone before the initial arrival mentioned by Harvey .This is quite clearly not the case as shown by the singular emphasis surrounding Holland .

    I understand that you find it unpalatable to consider discussing anything that rocks the ripperology boat , but I will raise issues if I feel they warrant discussion .


    You can lead a horse to water.....

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      It’s all hints and nudges. I’ve yet to hear Packer tell me what he thinks happened in Mitre Court or Hanbury Street. It’s impossible to debate vague suggestions.
      Tried to tell you twice
      You haven't taken it on board so you can't blame me for that
      You can lead a horse to water.....

      Comment


      • #48
        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.
        The first step is realisation
        Then you look for the reasons behind it
        I don't care who wielded the knife/s

        What I won't do is throw a theory up or suspect and then distort the facts to suit said theory.


        try something different ....
        Accept the obviously correct evidence ... such as Maxwell ,and then work on how that could be ...

        What you will find is that my so called ' twilight zone' offerings will not be dismissing strong testimony whilst accepting weak testimony as certain
        You can lead a horse to water.....

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by packers stem View Post

          Tried to tell you twice
          You haven't taken it on board so you can't blame me for that
          No you haven’t.

          i can read.

          i haven’t seen it.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by packers stem View Post










            The first step is realisation
            That the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that there was a man killing prostitutes. If modern police were looking at the same circumstances they would, without a shadow of a doubt, have linked these crimes.

            Then you look for the reasons behind it
            Something that we cannot possibly hope to achieve unless we discover the culprit and even then we might not find out why he did it.

            I don't care who wielded the knife/s
            Knife - singular.

            No motive available without a culprit. Only conjecture no matter how reasonable.

            What I won't do is throw a theory up or suspect and then distort the facts to suit said theory.
            No. You decide on conspiracy then attribute sinister connotations to error or quibble. There was no conspiracy. Not a single solitary chance.

            try something different ....
            Like throwing logic and reason to the wind. Like rejecting things because their too prosaic or sensible.

            Accept the obviously correct evidence ... such as Maxwell ,and then work on how that could be ...
            Staggering. A woman is found dead in Mary Kelly’s room. Mary Kelly is the only woman seen entering the room. She is identified by a man that lived with her. She isn’t seen again after the murder. Now let’s see.....

            Maxwell made an error or she lied.

            What you will find is that my so called ' twilight zone' offerings will not be dismissing strong testimony whilst accepting weak testimony as certain
            Like Maxwell’s which flies in the face of the rest of the evidence?

            No conspiracy and very obviously so. There’s simply no creditable evidence in the face of a Mount Everest of evidence against it.







            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              No you haven’t.

              i can read.

              i haven’t seen it.
              Unfortunate that it went over your head then
              Maybe next time
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



                That the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that there was a man killing prostitutes. If modern police were looking at the same circumstances they would, without a shadow of a doubt, have linked these crimes.
                I've not said they weren't linked .
                Just not a 'serial killer' in the modern sense of the term .
                The evidence is against



                No. You decide on conspiracy then attribute sinister connotations to error or quibble. There was no conspiracy. Not a single solitary chance.
                Because the bull*it makes the cover up obvious
                Been obvious to me for 30 years and everything I read confirms it


                Staggering. A woman is found dead in Mary Kelly’s room. Mary Kelly is the only woman seen entering the room. She is identified by a man that lived with her. She isn’t seen again after the murder. Now let’s see.....

                Maxwell made an error or she lied.



                Like Maxwell’s which flies in the face of the rest of the evidence?
                lol
                everything she says is backed up
                You use Cox' evidence of 'proof' she was seen entering her room and Maxwell is an idiot or a liar ?
                pathetic use of available evidence.
                You're picking cherries like there's no tomorrow in an attempt to back up the idea that a random loon attacked her .

                Identified ????? You're having a laugh
                Eyes and ear .... and as the ears were supposedly partially severed and the eyes can't be seen ?? The eyebrows removed ....
                Who can identify an eyeball from peeping through a window do you think ?
                it was an identification of convenience, an identification by location and nothing more
                Carry on believing everything you're told .

                You say she wasn't seen again .

                yes she was ....
                By Maxwell twice
                Maurice Lewis twice
                The unnamed woman in the times .

                more people than saw her after 8 on Thursday


                If you want to discuss this further move it to a Kelly thread


                No conspiracy and very obviously so. There’s simply no creditable evidence in the face of a Mount Everest of evidence against it.
                Your opinion
                Not fact





                [/QUOTE]
                You can lead a horse to water.....

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                  [/QUOTE]

                  .
                  Because the bull*it makes the cover up obvious
                  Been obvious to me for 30 years and everything I read confirms it
                  Well your obviously a genius then PS because none of those that have spent years meticulously researching this case have ever spotted this apparently obvious fact.

                  Of course everything you read confirms it. Try taking off the conspiracy goggles and you might be able to see the wood for the trees.

                  I've not said they weren't linked .
                  Just not a 'serial killer' in the modern sense of the term .
                  The evidence is against
                  I know that you won’t take a suggestion from me of all people but I’ll make one anyway.

                  Why don’t you just tell us all what you think happened and why instead of just dropping hints? I would genuinely like to know.

                  . lol
                  everything she says is backed up
                  You use Cox' evidence of 'proof' she was seen entering her room and Maxwell is an idiot or a liar ?
                  pathetic use of available evidence.
                  You're picking cherries like there's no tomorrow in an attempt to back up the idea that a random loon attacked her .
                  I wouldn’t have believed Cox if she’d seen Kelly walking around like a zombie!

                  Talk about cherry-picking! Some random woman is killed in Kelly’s room. Barnett identifies her as Kelly. Then, after she was supposed to be dead, does Kelly go into hiding? Nope, she wanders the streets and has a chat with Caroline Maxwell who doesn’t appear to be at all surprised that Kelly was still alive. Give us all a break PS!

                  Carry on believing everything you're told .
                  And there we have one of the conspiracy theorists favourite mantras. Those that aren’t disciples are simply pawns at the hands of authority. Only the conspiracy theorist can see clearly. We’ve heard it all before PS. Serial killer. Simple. Painfully obvious.

                  . You say she wasn't seen again .

                  yes she was ....
                  By Maxwell twice
                  Maurice Lewis twice
                  The unnamed woman in the times .

                  more people than saw her after 8 on Thursday
                  An many people claim to have seen Elvis. How do we treat them?

                  They saw no one. She was dead. End of.

                  If you want to discuss this further move it to a Kelly thread
                  I might pass. It’s really wearying trying to discus things in a world where black is white.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                  “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


                    Well your obviously a genius then PS because none of those that have spent years meticulously researching this case have ever spotted this apparently obvious fact
                    [/QUOTE]

                    Who gave you the power to speak for all those who have meticulously researched ?
                    Many have


                    Of course everything you read confirms it. Try taking off the conspiracy goggles and you might be able to see the wood for the trees.
                    Again , you have refused to listen .
                    Cover up and conspiracy are different beasts .

                    I have stated no cover up prior to Stride
                    Cover up from that point and Millers Court is different .
                    It's up to you how you take that .


                    I know that you won’t take a suggestion from me of all people but I’ll make one anyway.

                    Why don’t you just tell us all what you think happened and why instead of just dropping hints? I would genuinely like to know.
                    No you wouldn't


                    I wouldn’t have believed Cox if she’d seen Kelly walking around like a zombie!

                    Talk about cherry-picking! Some random woman is killed in Kelly’s room. Barnett identifies her as Kelly. Then, after she was supposed to be dead, does Kelly go into hiding? Nope, she wanders the streets and has a chat with Caroline Maxwell who doesn’t appear to be at all surprised that Kelly was still alive. Give us all a break PS!
                    Why on earth would Maxwell be surprised to see Kelly alive?
                    Why would Kelly go into hiding before discovery?

                    You dismiss 5 sightings to support your theory , in favour of ...... Barnett's 'peek'

                    As for identification , why don't you do yourself a favour and check out Mrs Malcolm and the woman from Rotherhithe for identification issues of dead bodies , with minimal facial mutilation in comparison .

                    And there we have one of the conspiracy theorists favourite mantras. Those that aren’t disciples are simply pawns at the hands of authority. Only the conspiracy theorist can see clearly. We’ve heard it all before PS. Serial killer. Simple. Painfully obvious.



                    An many people claim to have seen Elvis. How do we treat them?

                    They saw no one. She was dead. End of.



                    I might pass. It’s really wearying trying to discus things in a world where black is white.
                    And there we go , the time honoured tradition of weak attempts at ridicule towards anyone who sees that the serial killer hypothesis doesn't fit the known facts of JTR .
                    Leave the profiling in the latter 20th century where it belongs
                    Elvis is dead
                    Don't mix up JTR with strange conspiracies , but don't delude yourself into believing that cover up and conspiracy weren't rife in Victorian England .

                    Yes , pass if you wish .... sounds good
                    Last edited by packers stem; 06-17-2019, 06:25 PM.
                    You can lead a horse to water.....

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by packers stem View Post



                      Well your obviously a genius then PS because none of those that have spent years meticulously researching this case have ever spotted this apparently obvious fact
                      Who gave you the power to speak for all those who have meticulously researched ?
                      Many have




                      Again , you have refused to listen .
                      Cover up and conspiracy are different beasts .

                      I have stated no cover up prior to Stride
                      Cover up from that point and Millers Court is different .
                      It's up to you how you take that .



                      No you wouldn't



                      Why on earth would Maxwell be surprised to see Kelly alive?
                      Why would Kelly go into hiding before discovery?

                      You dismiss 5 sightings to support your theory , in favour of ...... Barnett's 'peek'

                      As for identification , why don't you do yourself a favour and check out Mrs Malcolm and the woman from Rotherhithe for identification issues of dead bodies , with minimal facial mutilation in comparison .



                      And there we go , the time honoured tradition of weak attempts at ridicule towards anyone who sees that the serial killer hypothesis doesn't fit the known facts of JTR .
                      Leave the profiling in the latter 20th century where it belongs
                      Elvis is dead
                      Don't mix up JTR with strange conspiracies , but don't delude yourself into believing that cover up and conspiracy weren't rife in Victorian England .

                      Yes , pass if you wish .... sounds good
                      [/QUOTE]

                      whats your theory? who what and why? explain it otherwise its nothing but smoke and mirrors.
                      "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


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                        Unfortunate that it went over your head then
                        Maybe next time
                        Like a flying pig
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          whats your theory? who what and why? explain it otherwise its nothing but smoke and mirrors.[/QUOTE]

                          I think that Packers has given his theory out subliminally Abby. He’s said that he’s told me what it was. But he hasn’t. I’m no memory man but I’m not that bad
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by packers stem View Post



                            Well your obviously a genius then PS because none of those that have spent years meticulously researching this case have ever spotted this apparently obvious fact
                            Who gave you the power to speak for all those who have meticulously researched ?
                            Many have




                            Again , you have refused to listen .
                            Cover up and conspiracy are different beasts .

                            I have stated no cover up prior to Stride
                            Cover up from that point and Millers Court is different .
                            It's up to you how you take that .



                            No you wouldn't



                            Why on earth would Maxwell be surprised to see Kelly alive?
                            Why would Kelly go into hiding before discovery?

                            You dismiss 5 sightings to support your theory , in favour of ...... Barnett's 'peek'

                            As for identification , why don't you do yourself a favour and check out Mrs Malcolm and the woman from Rotherhithe for identification issues of dead bodies , with minimal facial mutilation in comparison .



                            And there we go , the time honoured tradition of weak attempts at ridicule towards anyone who sees that the serial killer hypothesis doesn't fit the known facts of JTR .
                            Leave the profiling in the latter 20th century where it belongs
                            Elvis is dead
                            Don't mix up JTR with strange conspiracies , but don't delude yourself into believing that cover up and conspiracy weren't rife in Victorian England .

                            Yes , pass if you wish .... sounds good[/QUOTE]



                            Just for once Packers. Why don’t you just tell us all what you think occurred? It’s soooo obvious that none of us appear to have picked up on it. That’s probably because we’ve been so blinded by the fact that over a period of 2 months and within the space of a few streets 5 prostitutes were murdered by throat-cutting and 4 of them were horribly mutilated in the streets. The mutilation of one victim was far worse than the rest - can we come up with a sensible reason for this - err, yes we can. She had her own room. I mean, how can anyone think that these murders were the work of a serial killer?

                            More chance of them being suicides than a conspiracy.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Any chance someone would lay out a short paragraph abstracting the argument here.

                              I can't follow the argument anymore; you guys are jumping each other's individual sentences and everything now sounds (at least to me) out of context. I need someone to restate the theory you are all debating so I have a bench mark to work of.

                              Thanks

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                only on casebook eh ?
                                Herlock I never at any point said i'd told you of any theory , either outright or subliminally .
                                I told you where I thought Chapman and Eddowes were killed .

                                Do not demand of me
                                I don't demand your theory , I'm not interested !
                                That goes for Abby too .
                                I'm too busy looking for important info to be worrying about the thoughts of others .
                                There doesn't HAVE to be a full blown theory available for you to attempt to pick apart in with alternative explanations .It's tiresome.
                                All I do is point out the issues with the serial killer myth in the hope that something may register .

                                I'll keep bringing up points and discussing issues , that is why we are all here isn't it ?
                                You can lead a horse to water.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X