Watkins or Harvey?

[packers stem]

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 .

[packers stem]

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

[packers stem]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[packers stem]

No you haven’t.

i can read.

i haven’t seen it.

Unfortunate that it went over your head then
Maybe next time

[packers stem]

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]

[Herlock Sholmes]

[/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.

[packers stem]

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

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unfortunate that it went over your head then
Maybe next time

Like a flying pig

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[APerno]

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

[packers stem]

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 ?