Originally posted by Uncle Jack
View Post
What are your main argument against Herfort's theory ?
(I see bad faith here...)
According to me, she gathered good points :
1 . Sophie Herfort worked with experts (Interpol, criminologists...) and documents : police reports, letters (from National Archives) ...
2. Her work obtains a certain public credibility (Museum in Docklands of London, french interviews TV radios, press),
So, what the serious searchers are expecting from persons without qualifications like you ? Who are you ? EXPERTS ? CRIMINOLOGISTS ? Who are you to decide what's right what's wrong in this case ?
There's no mistaking the signs. If her theory wasn't a worthwile research, this thread wouldn't exist because nobody granted a credibility to her. Many french websites (few are vietnamien and spanish) are talking about her work... The critics gave her a rough ride on Casebook but the real specialists (Experts) accept her theory as a fact, you like it or not ! THAT'S A FACT. Her work was selected among all the bullshits proposed as suspects on this ******* website !
So, why such a thread ? What the main interest ? I notice a whole lack or argument here (against or for Herfort's theory) ! It's easy to criticize and to make childish comments when a person spend 20 years to investigate. He book is released in pocket if you're interesting...
A READER WHO READS THE WORK THAT HE CRITICIZES... .
"She Strong "

Leave a comment: