Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Tom_Wescott]

Simon,

You're correct, I do know I'm correct in saying that Packer was lying. Swanson and Anderson knew they were right in saying that Packer was lying. Every respectable Ripper author has known he was right in saying that Packer was lying. I have a feeling you also know we're right. It's not open for debate.

Keep in mind that if you believe Packer really say a couple standing in the rain like he says, then you are saying he was lying to PS White. So we ALL agree that Packer was lying to someone. The rest comes down to irrefutable evidence and common sense. And I only assert myself in saying I'm correct when I know that I am. You on the other hand assert yourself when you have no evidence to back your point, or in situations such as on this thread, when you've down absolutely no research on the subject, but stubbornly persist in your flawed view, even after having been proved wrong.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Well done.

Yet once again you've failed to grasp the argument.

Stop listening to yourself and read what others have to say.

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

Simon Wood wrote:
But equally there may have been a number of corpses at the mortuary that morning and, shown just their faces, Packer was asked, "Are any of these women the one you saw on Saturday night?"
Simon, you can't not know that the procedure for Packer to view Stride's remains would've NEVER been such as you describe. Come on, this is BASIC police procedure, and it hasn't changed from 1888 to today. As I've tried to say yesterday night and as Stewart Evans pointed to you twice, when one is asked over to the morgue to identify a dead body, one is shown only one body, the actual body in question. Period.The police was not trying to frame Packer.In my opinion, desperate as they were, they might have even been too keen to believe whatever he said.
Please don't mix it up with the completely different procedure of identifying a suspect, ALIVE, from a row of “similar looking“ individuals. This is a whole another procedure.
And by the way, where do you imagine such an abundant number of female corpses for Packer to have seen at the mortuary? This was Whitechapel in 1888, not Ausschwitz in 1945! The only other female remains lying at that morgue would have been Eddowes.
If you really are so keen in presuming a police cover-up on this, asking nonfigurative questions is not gonna cut it. You suspect PC Stephen White? So go research him and his connection to his associates and supervisors. Find something tangible and tell us. I for myself expect that, were there such a hint in the sources already consulted by Stewart Evans, he would have seen it himself and disclosed it already.
I have to put my stuff in order and rehearse a conference paper for tomorrow morning, but later on I might try going through the different sources posted on this thread by Mr. Evans and see for myself.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yet once again you've failed to grasp the argument.

This is called projecting, Simon. I don't have everyone from the newbies to the best selling authors repeatedly explaining themselves to me because I'm missing the point. That's you, good sir. I get the impression you think everyone under 40 is an idiot.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Scott Nelson]

They are, aren't they?

[Abby Normal]

Simon,

You're correct, I do know I'm correct in saying that Packer was lying. Swanson and Anderson knew they were right in saying that Packer was lying. Every respectable Ripper author has known he was right in saying that Packer was lying. I have a feeling you also know we're right. It's not open for debate.

Keep in mind that if you believe Packer really say a couple standing in the rain like he says, then you are saying he was lying to PS White. So we ALL agree that Packer was lying to someone. The rest comes down to irrefutable evidence and common sense. And I only assert myself in saying I'm correct when I know that I am. You on the other hand assert yourself when you have no evidence to back your point, or in situations such as on this thread, when you've down absolutely no research on the subject, but stubbornly persist in your flawed view, even after having been proved wrong.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

"Keep in mind that if you believe Packer really say a couple standing in the rain like he says, then you are saying he was lying to PS White. So we ALL agree that Packer was lying to someone."

Unless he was telling the truth and White never questioned him (in which case White lied about questioning him). It really comes down to who you beleive and i think that all things considered a reasonable person would conclude (IMHO with all due respect and so forth) that Packer was full of ****.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Abby,

Simon is a writer, as am I. Stewart Evans might also be called a writer, although not nearly as distinguished. When writing history, we shouldn't feel we have the luxury to twist facts. To say White was lying without foundation, when we have indisputable proof of Packer lying numerous times, and to try to twist the argument in favor of Packer, would be an unforgivable offense by the writer.
It's not that big of a deal on a message board, where ideas are tried out, but if Simon were to try and publish something calling White a liar and Packer a paragon of virture, he would not enjoy the same respect within the Ripper community that he now has.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Maria,

Boy o boy, you've really got it in for Packer.

That there was more than one female corpse at the mortuary was merely a supposition to challenge Stewart's assumption that Stride was alone. We don't know, and it doesn't really matter. Packer identified Stride, and the Senior Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police recorded the fact.

When did it become a lie?

By the way, Eddowes was at a different mortuary–Golden Lane– which Packer visited on 3rd October.

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

“Yet once again you've failed to grasp the argument.“
Tom, Stewart Evans posted the above to Simon Wood, not me!
And I thought that everyone OVER 40 (OK, maybe everyone over 48) is a dirty lying bastard/indolent, clueless baby-boomer with an insipid sense of security and entitlment. (Yeah, I know, a lot of adjectives here...)

[Tom_Wescott]

Scott,

NO!

Maria,

Lord, I don't know why I quoted you there, I meant to quote Simon. LOL.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

To Simon Wood:
I definitely don't “got it in“ with Packer, and I'll openly say that at the present state I don't have the slightest clue if he lied or not. I haven't read any of the articles on this yet (neither Examiner 2, nor the Ripper Notes, not even the sources posted on this thread by Stewart Evans yet!). The only things I know about Packer was what he looked like (i.e., small-framed, old like the mountains, and with biggish ears , from the numerous sketches of him), that he sold fruit, and that he changed his police statement. For everything else I have no opinion formed yet.
Terribly sorry for putting Eddowes at the wrong mortuary! (And I've wondered about that at the very moment I typed about her, he he!!) And I've also often wondered if Packer went to see Eddowes too, besides Stride (what a busy week he had! No doubt these were his “15 minutes of fame“, Victorian-style, I think Packer was the Cato Kaelin of 1888!), so thank you very much for corroborating this to me, Simon.

Tom Wescott wrote:
Stewart Evans might also be called a writer, although not nearly as distinguished.
Tom, I LOVE your sense of irony. Best of all though is the way the man himself signs his posts (“Treat me gently, I'm a newbie). I think I'll start signing my posts with “Philip Sudgen“. So at least people stop thinking I'm the late David Radka.

[Tom_Wescott]

small-framed, old like the mountains, and with biggish ears

Watch out for flying staplers from Stewart and Simon. Packer was 58.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Research...and respect

.... but if Simon were to try and publish something calling White a liar and Packer a paragon of virture, he would not enjoy the same respect within the Ripper community that he now has.

Hello Tom,

I hope that was another example of your timeless wit and irony... because I would respectfully remind you that Simon Wood has been researching this far longer than most and has contributed far more than most of us have on the subject.
I do not know what Simon is writing, but I do know this...seemingly trying to fish out of another author what he or she has in mind in any projected publication, by wangling a tempting rebuttal to try to open his or her hand is most unproffessional. I sincerely hope you aren't trying to do that. Because that, Tom, is the very essence of disrespect towards another researcher, historian or writer.

As you are a "writer" Tom, I respectfully, and keenly await the book you stated on Ancestry.com in 2001 the "book" you were "writing", when trying to track down relatives of certain people within families connected to the ones from 1888. Is this the same book you tell us you are currently writing?

As I have said, politely before, your efforts would be greatly enhanced if you spent less time attacking people and more on your excellent research. You do yourself no favours. Your Examiner No.2 piece has in the eyes of some holes in it. I respectfully suggest you try repairing the holes with even better research instead of attacking respected researchers like Simon Wood.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

Self-righteous much?

I do not know what Simon is writing, but I do know this...seemingly trying to fish out of another author what he or she has in mind in any projected publication, by wangling a tempting rebuttal to try to open his or her hand is most unproffessional. I sincerely hope you aren't trying to do that. Because that, Tom, is the very essence of disrespect towards another researcher, historian or writer.

I seriously doubt Simon is publishing anything on Packer. His lack of knowledge on the topic tells me it's not a particular area of interest for him. I was merely using him as an example because he's the one I'm going back and forth with at the moment. Where in the world you got the paranoid notion that I was trying to 'wangle' info out of him, I have no idea.

As you are a "writer" Tom, I respectfully, and keenly await the book you stated on Ancestry.com in 2001 the "book" you were "writing", when trying to track down relatives of certain people within families connected to the ones from 1888. Is this the same book you tell us you are currently writing?

You're googling me? That's not creepy at all. And yes, I'm writing a book. I've in the interim published about 15 essays, which in order to publish I first had to 'write', hence the term 'writer'. When my book comes out I will graduate to 'author'. Capiche?

Your Examiner No.2 piece has in the eyes of some holes in it.

Any suspect piece that does not provide definitive proof of the suspect's guilt has 'holes' in it. And that would be all of them. Your point?

As I have said, politely before, your efforts would be greatly enhanced if you spent less time attacking people and more on your excellent research.

My efforts are what they are. They'll speak for themselves. I'm not considered a crank in the Ripper community. And please don't bring up this ficticious group of people who are constantly PMing or e-mailing you, or so you claim. They don't exist. There's three of them and we know who they are. I might add you're the only one who thinks I've 'attacked' anybody, so if I ignore self-righteous insults from a minority of one, you'll please excuse me.

Now, if you'd like to actually ADD to our various discussions instead of playing referee, I'm sure we'd all be much obliged.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Phil "

"but if Simon were to try and publish something calling White a liar and Packer a paragon of virture, he would not enjoy the same respect within the Ripper community that he now has."

Incidentally, Phil, this is a fact. IF Simon were to make this argument, only a handful of you ninnies would fall for it. The rest would roll their eyes. Having said that, I don't believe for a minute that Simon will EVER publish anything calling White a liar and Packer a paragon of virtue. So if you must be a cyberbully, please be so at the expense of someone who is actually guilty of the offenses you're publicly accusing them of, or else you'll find yourself going the way of Michael Richards. Congratulations, your attempt to piss me off has worked.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott