"Crime Scene" Sketch.

[Phil Carter]

Oh yes, I do recall John.

And I provided the evidence to show that whistles were not standard issue to all regular City beat bobbies till 1889...and then there was silence from you.

Phil,

I know exactly when they were issued, why, the trial, the compund, tests, who made them and when.

No need to ask Mr Hutchinson.

Monty

Then you will know how rare his is. By the way- you arent the only one who knows those things. He was told it by me. In detail. 10years ago now maybe?
Shock! Horror! Phil never said! Cos Phil doesnt have to. Phil's just quiet about what he knows. You'd be surprised. Oh, and on that note, I genuinely have no idea of a 'vendetta' by anyone. I am not part of Italian ice cream wars,
- sorry- my mistake- thats Cornetto.

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Oh yes, I do recall John.

And I provided the evidence to show that whistles were not standard issue to all regular City beat bobbies till 1889...and then there was silence from you.

Phil,

I know exactly when they were issued, why, the trial, the compund, tests, who made them and when.

No need to ask Mr Hutchinson.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

As interesting as that is, I'm afraid you have no idea what I'm referring to.

As for whistles, I've my own collection and fully aware of their history.

Monty

allow me to guess. When the Met vis a vis the City were issued with whistles?

If so. As GG.

Best wishes

Phil

[Dr. John Watson]

What, you mean like you did with the whistles John?

Monty

Yes, the whistles! Surprised you remember that. If I recall right, the real bone of contention was my theory that if the three times were correct (release from jail, sighted w/suspect on Duke, found by Watkins), it would mean that Watkins may have caught Jack in the act and ran in terror to summon help from the watchman, letting Jack flee to freedom out the Mitre Street exit. I know you'll dispute that theory, but do you still reject the fact that some City Police were equipped with whistles at that time?

Friend John

[Phil Carter]

Oh for f*cks sake.....you serious Phil?

Do you realise how idiotic this post makes you look?

My goodness.

Monty

Hello Monty,

ahuh, but nowhere near Watkins not knowing the difference between a shoulder and an 'ugly cut throat'. Not part of his duty perhaps? Silly me. I should have realised.

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once"

Quietly ask the Guilford Ghost about his Met Police whistle aod it's age. I should know. He got it off me after being in my posession and my Grans before me.and her Mum before her. He got it with a WW2 air-raid wardens whistle. Hope it's still in great nick. Very rare it is too. I know the exact age and provenance.
Happy hunting.

Lol

best wishes

Phil

As interesting as that is, I'm afraid you have no idea what I'm referring to.

As for whistles, I've my own collection and fully aware of their history.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

What, you mean like you did with the whistles John?

Monty

Hello Monty,

"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once"

Quietly ask the Guilford Ghost about his Met Police whistle and it's age. I should know. He got it off me after being in my posession and my Grans before me.and her Mum before her. He got it with a WW2 air-raid wardens whistle (my Grandfather's). Hope it's still in great nick. Very rare it is too. I know the exact age and provenance. Until you have, no, I wont comment on Met Police Whistles. Dont like oneupmanship.

Happy hunting.

Lol

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Phil

Nice job of nailing Monty down, but judging from my past experience with him concerning questions of Watkins believability, he'll never admit he was wrong, even in the face of overwhelming proof.

John

What, you mean like you did with the whistles John?

Monty

[Dr. John Watson]

Phil

Nice job of nailing Monty down, but judging from my past experience with him concerning questions of Watkins believability, he'll never admit he was wrong, even in the face of overwhelming proof.

John

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

Before I go watch the footie- do excuse me-there is NO reference to a "Coal Hole" on that sketch. A "Coal-Plate" perhaps. A plate COVERS a hole. The Star and Watkins said HOLE, not plate. If ON the plate Watkins would have said so. He didnt. He said In a Coal-Hole.

If the plate was there in place as indicated, the head or any part of her body for that matter, would have been described as lying ON or ACROSS the plate. Watkins got the Coal bit right though, IN the hole her head was not. Fair dues.

Best wishes

Phil

Oh for f*cks sake.....you serious Phil?

Do you realise how idiotic this post makes you look?

My goodness.

Monty

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

Next time you think I am taking you apart, do let me know on beforehand....... Your one point here is not any point at all, because that the coal plate was NOT mentioned at the inquest, which is what I SPECIFICALLY referred to in my post.,,was it? I went on inquest material.

Exactly. Coal plate not mentioned at inquest yet apprears in Browns drawing made at the scene. The Star is MORE accurate than the Inquest notes.

And if I wanted to take "you apart".. believe me, you'd get told BEFORE it happened.... because like you, I could drag up something from somewhere to DELIBERATELY make you look a fool too.

Ha, like you havent tried today?

But I'm not into that. I'm just into facts, the man said knowingly. (irony)

Really? You being honest there Phil?

The left hand beat is unproven until otherwise. The Star report IS littered with mistakes, as indeed was you comment about Watkins LEAVING the Square, not entering it, from Church Passage. And THAT Monty, is what it was, a simple error on your part. So what? I found one..so what? I'm not crowing.. I don't dance on the ashes of it. Live with it. You made an error. So what?

Erm, no. The left hand beat is proven. Watkins stated it at inquest, others supported it.

A one word error in a post 7 years old. You actually trawled for that didnt you? OK, have that one Phil. Ive knocked plenty off you last night and today.

You really don't have to think the world and it's oyster are out to get you because they point out a mistake you made. Or two. Or ten for that matter!
That's NOT my game. It MIGHT be yours... but I don't play by those rules. I dont play that way period. If I did, you'd know. I don't regard this as a form of oneupmanship, being more knowledgable, being of a higher level or in a different league. I dont go hunting for anyone to shoot down. Some posters I have a distaste for, but don't go trying to make them look stupid either.

Phil, youve done nothing but try to get one over one me today. All due, I suspect, to my dismantling of your empty house theory and Trevors vendetta.

However, Im sure Im wrong....again.

Re Watkins.
1)*He didnt go to get Dr Sequiera. Incorrect. He stayed with the body. Holland went. The Star and Watkins are incorrect.

As Watkins stated exactly what happened at inquest, and was supported by others testimony, no he was not wrong. However the Star is incorrect. Its a slight error, just slight. Watkins did, in fact, send for Dr Sequeria.

2) He could not possibly have entered Mitre Square from Church Passage. That would be completely his own interpretation of a beat that only HARVEY did.. the Church Passage thing. Whether reversed or not. Ergo, Watkins and the Star are INCORRECT.

That is right, as I stated in the article you obviously havent read. However Watkins could have entered Mitre Square from St James passage, something the Reporter could have been confused over IF Watkins merely gestured to the passage and the report got confused.

And IF this is the case then it supports the suggestion his normal beat was right handed, as St James passage would have been his normal route into the square.

However, with such an intricate beat as Watkins, its most likely he altered his route slightly at times to make up for lost time or variation.

Watch this space...

I will

"It was just half-past one when I turned out of Aldgate and passed round the next corner into the square. "

3) Watkins is therefore saying that he took about 14 mins from Aldgate to Mitre Square? he must mean walking down Mitre Street.. it cannot be any other! This quote is ridiculous, unless you are going to make up some reason for him being delayed by about 11 minutes on the way.. but that doesnt marry either, because he stated he saw no one and nothing on the beat that night.. nothing. So he didnt stop.. he saw no one. To walk down Mitre Street from Aldgate in a straight line takes how long Monty? C'mon, you've done it often enough..so have I. ergo, Watkins' times here are wrong, and ergo, the Star is.

You have only presented part of the quote, therefore misleading our readers here. The report states -

It was just half-past one when I turned out of Aldgate and passed round the next corner into the square. At that time there was nothing unusual to be seen. I looked carefully in all the corners, as I always do, turning my lantern
light in every direction. I am positive there was nothing wrong at that time.

The report then continues....

"And when did you pass through the square again?" asked the reporter.

"At about a quarter before two."

So there we have it. Watkins and the Star are correct.

You have misread the passage and in your haste to prove me wrong have made another mistake. Watkins did not take 11 minutes to walk from Aldgate along Mitre Street to the square. He was, actually, referring to his previous round.

And the next turn out of Aldgate is Mitre Square.

Of course, I await your attempt to get out of that one.

4) "Anyone who knew the woman alive would never recognise her by her face." Great quote from Watkins that one isn't.
The question is.. how did John Kelly recognise her face then? Apparently "it wasn't there", quote Watkins. Another wrong'un.

Obviously this is an exaggeration, which is par for a tabloid. However, again, both are correct. Eddowes facial mutilations were extreme. And Kelly did not identify her on face alone, but in conjunction with the pawn tickets and other items.

Oh, thanks for the sketches... lovely. Very helpful.

Theres that sarcasm again Phil, the sarcasm you do not have.

5) Where are the entrails lying in the cut in the throat on the drawing Monty? You know, Watkins told the Star that too.... They end on the shoulder Monty. and are indicated as such. Portion of ear detached is nearest the throat. Ergo, Watkins and the Star are wrong...again.

Again, exaggeration Phil, bit of gore to draw. The entrails were out and exposed. Watkins was no doctor and I would hold him to account for all he felt he saw in that particularly stressful time. To recall every detail is unfair, however his beat is something Id expect him to know.

A REALLY reliable newspaper article. Not.

Really reliable? No, however its fairly accurate.

but lean on it if you wish.

Id prefer to lean on inquest tesimony. However there is other information not included in the inquest testimony which has been included in the News reports which have been proven to be correct, the Coal Plate for example.


Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

Before I go watch the footie- do excuse me-there is NO reference to a "Coal Hole" on that sketch. A "Coal-Plate" perhaps. A plate COVERS a hole. The Star and Watkins said HOLE, not plate. If ON the plate Watkins would have said so. He didnt. He said In a Coal-Hole.

If the plate was there in place as indicated, the head or any part of her body for that matter, would have been described as lying ON or ACROSS the plate. Watkins got the Coal bit right though, IN the hole her head was not. Fair dues.

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

Next time you think I am taking you apart, do let me know on beforehand....... Your one point here is not any point at all, because that the coal plate was NOT mentioned at the inquest, which is what I SPECIFICALLY referred to in my post.,,was it? I went on inquest material.

And if I wanted to take "you apart".. believe me, you'd get told BEFORE it happened.... because like you, I could drag up something from somewhere to DELIBERATELY make you look a fool too.

But I'm not into that. I'm just into facts, the man said knowingly. (irony)

The left hand beat is unproven until otherwise. The Star report IS littered with mistakes, as indeed was you comment about Watkins LEAVING the Square, not entering it, from Church Passage. And THAT Monty, is what it was, a simple error on your part. So what? I found one..so what? I'm not crowing.. I don't dance on the ashes of it. Live with it. You made an error. So what?

You really don't have to think the world and it's oyster are out to get you because they point out a mistake you made. Or two. Or ten for that matter!
That's NOT my game. It MIGHT be yours... but I don't play by those rules. I dont play that way period. If I did, you'd know. I don't regard this as a form of oneupmanship, being more knowledgable, being of a higher level or in a different league. I dont go hunting for anyone to shoot down. Some posters I have a distaste for, but don't go trying to make them look stupid either.

Re Watkins.
1)*He didnt go to get Dr Sequiera. Incorrect. He stayed with the body. Holland went. The Star and Watkins are incorrect.
2) He could not possibly have entered Mitre Square from Church Passage. That would be completely his own interpretation of a beat that only HARVEY did.. the Church Passage thing. Whether reversed or not. Ergo, Watkins and the Star are INCORRECT.
Watch this space...

"It was just half-past one when I turned out of Aldgate and passed round the next corner into the square. "

3) Watkins is therefore saying that he took about 14 mins from Aldgate to Mitre Square? he must mean walking down Mitre Street.. it cannot be any other! This quote is ridiculous, unless you are going to make up some reason for him being delayed by about 11 minutes on the way.. but that doesnt marry either, because he stated he saw no one and nothing on the beat that night.. nothing. So he didnt stop.. he saw no one. To walk down Mitre Street from Aldgate in a straight line takes how long Monty? C'mon, you've done it often enough..so have I. ergo, Watkins' times here are wrong, and ergo, the Star is.
4) "Anyone who knew the woman alive would never recognise her by her face." Great quote from Watkins that one isn't.
The question is.. how did John Kelly recognise her face then? Apparently "it wasn't there", quote Watkins. Another wrong'un.

Oh, thanks for the sketches... lovely. Very helpful.

5) Where are the entrails lying in the cut in the throat on the drawing Monty? You know, Watkins told the Star that too.... They end on the shoulder Monty. and are indicated as such. Portion of ear detached is nearest the throat. Ergo, Watkins and the Star are wrong...again.

A REALLY reliable newspaper article. Not.

but lean on it if you wish.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Phil,

You told me to put you right when you are wrong....so here I am putting you right where you are wrong.

Below is two drawings of Eddowes made in situ, and rotated for ease.

First photo is unaltered.

Second photo has the coalplate ringed in red. It also has the word 'coalplate' written in red above the original note in the drawing.

Ergo, The Star and Watkins were correct.

Next time you wish to try and take me apart Phil, please ensure you are fully au fait with the evidence before doing so....otherwise it can make you look very foolish.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

No sarcasm, just quoting you and what you have written... and no, the praise isn't apparent either.. it is as it is. The reference to the sarcasm obviously refers to my comment re 2005. It was a genuine wonder.. as I really hope that we don't have to re evaluate a lot of your stuff from around that period... which was excellent. I just you don't think otherwise.
So just take it for what it is told to you it is!

By the way, NOBODY is here to "constantly provide answers to questions nor justify their own" either, so asking people to "put up or shut up" "bring something to the table" for example, are as, if not more unreasonable as my request. Done in a different tone, I note. WITHOUT malice from my side I can assure you. Just straight..

Yes, it does clarify the matter, and the community will no doubt await and look forward to your findings. Thank you for making it clear.

Good luck with the article or book. If a book I hope that the deadline day isn't too pressing. Publishers normally are like that. As said, I wish you luck with it, whatever it is. That's called being polite, by the way.

To return to the point of the postings.. the Star article is totally unreliable. Watkins himself stating that HE went to get Sequiera is a clear indication of how unreliable quotes from Watkins are in this article. That together with a "coal hole", and him ENTERING Mitre Square from Church Passage too.
Sorry, these comments put the "left handed beat" comment into perspective. So yes, any info you bring to the table in the future to actually substantiate Watkin's word would certainly be of great value, wouldn't it?



best wishes

Phil