Time Of Death

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n717540]

.
How about yes fishy its a very good piece, and certainty leads one to examine that more than one possibility to how the murder were committed . And that long and codoschs testimony doesn't necessarily mean/prove that it was committed between 5.15am to 5.30pm .. thats just for a start .

I said that it was very good in post #261! I’ve also repeatedly stated that I’ve never said that Phillips was definitely wrong Fishy. Only that he might have been and that, in my opinion, the three witnesses add weight to that suggestion. Why do you persist in misrepresenting my post and opinions? If there’s one issue that I regularly comment on on these boards it’s over-confidence so I’m always cautious about considering how likely something is to have been true.

How about we stick to that fact about where Joseph Sickert claimed he was told the story in the first place by Walter Sickert , by which Florence Pash also tells the same story. Remember it was all about Joseph making the whole story up on his own , which is clearly untrue . So ill stand by what ive said about inaccurate and incorrect, according to Simon and others. Back to a slab of concrete if you dont mind .

Firstly, on Simon being inaccurate. You know that these are not the issues that I’ve been trying to get you to respond to Fishy and it’s simply dishonest to keep responding to points other than the ones in question.

Secondly, we can of course discuss the origin of the Sickert story but we have no way of knowing for certain. It’s difficult for me to include Pash in my conversations because it’s been such a long time since I read Overton-Fuller. I’ll accept whatever you say that she said about Pash. The origin of the story is of course of interest but my absolute main interest is whether the story was true or not and the evidence is overwhelming that the story isn’t true. This doesn’t of course mean that there wasn’t a kernel of truth there somewhere in connecting Sickert and Alice Margaret. I don’t know. Stories can change down the years often not deliberately but simply from person to person. Sickert was known to have an interest in murder in general and Jack the Ripper specifically. He also appears to have been a strange man; more so in his later years. So he may have simply concocted this story by himself. The point that I return to though is that the story itself is not believable.

I didt say that he was a picture of health , your word not mine , all im saying is
despite all this, according to the medical men of the day who reported that sir William Gull made a full recovery , gull saying that he was never the same man after his stoke could be interpreted in any number of ways .It doesn't necessarily mean in a physical capacity now does it . So again open to interpretation. Gull could have just as easily been a candidate for jack the ripper based on what we know about him . His age and his MINOR STROKE, shouldn't be used to rule him out.

Where did I suggest that Gull was a picture of health Fishy? Why have you said your word not mine? Point me to where I’ve said this. All that I’ve done is made an entirely reasonable suggestion. I’ll repeat, Gull had a stroke that was serious enough to mean that he could even continue a job that was hardly physically taxing and that even though he largely recovered over a relatively short period he never resumed his career. He also said of his health that he didn’t feel the same man. There’s no ther reasonable interpretation of this Fishy. Gull was also approaching 72 which was, by the measures of period, near the end of his life expectancy or even past it.

Yet again though Fishy, I’ve never said that this made it impossible for Gull to have done what you are suggesting. I merely state that by anyone’s reasoning this is incredibly unlikely. I might also add, think of the resources that the government/Freemasons would have had at their disposal? Would the natural, logical choice have been a 72 year old man?

You mean 3 . Joseph Sickert and William Gull . Based on the conclusion that Sickert didn't make the whole thing up, and Gull was certainly capable of the murders . These are two common misconceptions authors make when discussing jtr.

This is the most annoying part of discussing these issues with you Fishy. Blatant dishonesty. Have you no sense of shame? You know the points that I keep asking that you to back up yet you persist in answering other questions. I have answered every singly one of your questions Fishy. Every single one. You may not agree with or like my answers but I’ve answered them to the best of my knowledge and ability. You keep avoiding though. Here goes again......

Please respond to the following.......nothing else........just the following.......ok......understand?

SIMON WOOD SHOWED, BY PROPER RESEARCH OF PRIMARY SOURCES, THE FOLLOWING...

1. THAT ANNIE CROOK WAS NOT A CATHOLIC.

2. THAT SHE COULDNT HAVE BEEN LIVING WHERE SICKERT AND KNIGHT CLAIMED.

3.THAT SHE AND ELIZABETH COOK WERE NOT ONE AND THE SAME AS KNIGHT CLAIMED.

4. THAT SICKERTS CLEVELAND STREET STUDIO DID NOT EXIST.

5. THAT THE HOSPITAL THAT CROOK WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO DID NOT EXIST AT THE ADDRESS CLAIMED.

6. THAT THE NEWSPAPER STORY ALLEGING THAT NETLEY RAN OVER ALICE MARGARET WAS ENTIRELY UNCONNECTED.

You claimed, on these boards, to be able to prove that Simon’s research was wrong and that the above 6 discoveries were wrong. You have failed to provide that proof.


Now, just to be clear Fishy as I don’t wish you to get confused...

Im not asking about Gull’s health.
Im not asking about Chapman’s TOD.
Im not asking about Eddowes mutilations.
Im not asking about Wolf Vanderlinden dissertation.
Im not asking about England’s 1966 World Cup winning team.
Im not asking about the history of juggling.


Im asking about the very specific 6 issues listed in capitols above. The 6 very specific issues where you claimed to be able to prove Simon wrong.

So, I’ve answered your questions Fishy.

Will you finally back up your claim and reply honestly......

Drum roll........

[FISHY1118]

Ive answered it. What do you want me to say about it? I’m quite happy to discus the dissertation in detail. I never avoid questions. I might say that I don’t know but I won’t avoid them.

How about yes fishy its a very good piece, and certainty leads one to examine that more than one possibility to how the murder were committed . And that long and codoschs testimony doesn't necessarily mean/prove that it was committed between 5.15am to 5.30pm .. thats just for a start .

How can you be certain of anything? Rumour, word of mouth, Chinese whispers, Sickert’s exaggeration, someone misinterpreting what someone else said. Your on a bed of sand.

How about we stick to that fact about where Joseph Sickert claimed he was told the story in the first place by Walter Sickert , by which Florence Pash also tells the same story. Remember it was all about Joseph making the whole story up on his own , which is clearly untrue . So ill stand by what ive said about inaccurate and incorrect, according to Simon and others. Back to a slab of concrete if you dont mind .

More attempted misdirection. I never said that Gull’s stroke made it impossible for him to have been involved only that it increased the unlikeliness. Because it was said that Gull largely recovered you’re trying to make it appear that he became a picture of health when this wasn’t the case.

Firstly, we have the fact that Gull’s stroke forced him to give up a not very physically taxing profession. And the fact that, even though he largely recovered, never resumed his practice.

and Secondly we have Gull himself saying that he was never the same man again after his stroke.

With the fact that he was nearly seventy two (which was right at the end of life period for that time) we have, by anyone’s reasonable reckoning, a very, very unlikely ripper.

I didt say that he was a picture of health , your word not mine , all im saying is
despite all this, according to the medical men of the day who reported that sir William Gull made a full recovery , gull saying that he was never the same man after his stoke could be interpreted in any number of ways .It doesn't necessarily mean in a physical capacity now does it . So again open to interpretation. Gull could have just as easily been a candidate for jack the ripper based on what we know about him . His age and his MINOR STROKE, shouldn't be used to rule him out.

Answer the 5 very specific points about Simon’s research. Be honest for once. Everyone can see this Fishy. Back up your statements or admit that they were untrue.

You mean 3 . Joseph Sickert and William Gull . Based on the conclusion that Sickert didn't make the whole thing up, and Gull was certainly capable of the murders . These are two common misconceptions authors make when discussing jtr.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n717493]

. like you just ignored my first paragraph of that post .

Ive answered it. What do you want me to say about it? I’m quite happy to discus the dissertation in detail. I never avoid questions. I might say that I don’t know but I won’t avoid them.

[B]1.Yes we can be sure , both Florence Pash and Joseph Sickert confirm thats where the story originated from , so there 1 piece of simons evidence that was incorrect /inaccurate

How can you be certain of anything? Rumour, word of mouth, Chinese whispers, Sickert’s exaggeration, someone misinterpreting what someone else said. Your on a bed of sand.

[B]2.The misconception that gull couldn't have committed the murders due to his stroke and age , again inaccurate and incorrect as shown by medical journals at the time .

More attempted misdirection. I never said that Gull’s stroke made it impossible for him to have been involved only that it increased the unlikeliness. Because it was said that Gull largely recovered you’re trying to make it appear that he became a picture of health when this wasn’t the case.

Firstly, we have the fact that Gull’s stroke forced him to give up a not very physically taxing profession. And the fact that, even though he largely recovered, never resumed his practice.

and Secondly we have Gull himself saying that he was never the same man again after his stroke.

With the fact that he was nearly seventy two (which was right at the end of life period for that time) we have, by anyone’s reasonable reckoning, a very, very unlikely ripper.

. moving along

As you always try and do. None of the above were the points that I mentioned Fishy. Obvious avoidance.



Answer the 5 very specific points about Simon’s research. Be honest for once. Everyone can see this Fishy. Back up your statements or admit that they were untrue.

[FISHY1118]

like you just ignored my first paragraph of that post .



1.Yes we can be sure , both Florence Pash and Joseph Sickert confirm thats where the story originated from , so there 1 piece of simons evidence that was incorrect /inaccurate

2.The misconception that gull couldn't have committed the murders due to his stroke and age , again inaccurate and incorrect as shown by medical journals at the time .

moving along

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course Wolf Vandelindens dissertation was good that why i posted it , but before i did , if you go back and read my Long v Codosch posts, those were some of the points i was trying to make all along, which you basically said was rubbish. So it was good enough for W.V why not for me ? Hardly a fixation, more like trying to bring it into the discussion as its well worth looking at the Chapman murder in other ways it might have been committed.







Yes we can be sure , both Florence Pash and Joseph Sickert confirm thats where the story originated from , so there 1 piece of simons evidence that was incorrect /inaccurate .

Avoidance.

Of course you know that I’ve repeatedly asked about the 5 very specific points about Simon’s research. The 5 very specific points that you keep ignoring.

[FISHY1118]

Of course Wolf Vandelindens dissertation was good that why i posted it , but before i did , if you go back and read my Long v Codosch posts, those were some of the points i was trying to make all along, which you basically said was rubbish. So it was good enough for W.V why not for me ? Hardly a fixation, more like trying to bring it into the discussion as its well worth looking at the Chapman murder in other ways it might have been committed.







Yes we can be sure , both Florence Pash and Joseph Sickert confirm thats where the story originated from , so there 1 piece of simons evidence that was incorrect /inaccurate .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I thought you were going , welcome back .

What about wolf vanderlindens position, is his a reasonable one ?????????? you forgot this one

So now your saying Walter made the whole thing up, is that it ? Cause it sure sounds like thats what your saying . which means that the story didn't originate with Joseph Sickert did it ?

And that Florence Pash confims the same story suggest to me at the very least that Joseph didnt make the whole thing up . did he ?

Ah, it’s the change the subject tactic...ok.

Wolf Vanderlinden dissertation is very good. And of course, as I’ve stated numerous times, we cannot know for certain what went on. Wolf’s raises points that have to be considered and discussed. We do not have to automatically agree with everything that he writes unlike you who, naturally, have fixated on it. We can disagree on issues within it though like the issue of someone leaving the scene covered in blood. What if the killer wore an overcoat which he removed to do the mutilations and then put back on before he left covering any blood. What if he wore gloves? It absurd to assume that the killer walked through the streets dripping in blood.

On Sickert. Of course we cannot be certain who made the story up. Maybe Walter said something and Joseph elaborated over the years. We know that Walter had an interested in the case. We know that it’s been suggested that Walter told a few tall tales in his later years. The origin of the story, whilst perhaps interesting in itself, is secondary to the validity of the story itself. That’ is what anyone interested in the case is interested in. Whether it was true or not. And the evidence that has been produced show the story to have been a fabrication.

Again, I have responded by directly responding to your question as posters should. So......your turn.

For the 21st time Fishy. Please provide you evidence which proves that Simon’s research was inaccurate on the five points concerning the Sickert/Knight story.

[FISHY1118]

I thought you were going , welcome back .

What about wolf vanderlindens position, is his a reasonable one ?????????? you forgot this one

So now your saying Walter made the whole thing up, is that it ? Cause it sure sounds like thats what your saying . which means that the story didn't originate with Joseph Sickert did it ?

And that Florence Pash confims the same story suggest to me at the very least that Joseph didnt make the whole thing up . did he ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

ill just post this again shall
or maybe Joseph Sickert was indeed Walter Sickert son , which if true poses a interesting question , Walter died in 1942 ,Joseph maintained he was told the story by he father Walter when he was 13/14 . Joseph being born in 1925 would make it 1938/9.

Now again, if this is true it means Joseph Sickert, a man nobody ever heard of who lived a life of a virtual recluse, who by Walters account was told an incredible story about who the whitechapel murderer was , then decided to wait 35 years to tell knight so they could both make a few bucks ?

Add to this Jean Overton Fullers mother Violet Fullers life long companion Florence Pash, who claimed Walter Sickert who she associated and spent time with and was a painter in her own right , told her the same story he told Joseph.

So another question beckons , why on earth would Jean Overton Fuller go to all the trouble of researching and publishing her 1991 book based on a story which by that time was being debunked as a made up fantasy by every ripperoligist on the planet ?. One wonders her motives as to why she would expose herself to the same ridicule that both joseph and knight came under....... just for a few bucks

Finally , lets take Joseph out of the picture altogether and go with the theory he lied and made the whole thing up. How then do we explain Florence Pashs exact same lie she told to violet fuller in 1948? according to Jean Overton Fuller.

So now, do we have two people who most likely never met, never knew the other existed ,who were told the same lie from the same source in Walter Sickert 50 years apart?

Also ignored ... 3 times

3 ignores compared to your 20+. Ok I guess that’s close in your world.

Its impossible for anyone to know the answer to this one Fishy. The fact that Walter might have told the same made up story to more than one person doesn’t make it true. So what we have to do is investigate the story itself. We do this by checking the alleged facts by research and seeing if the story holds water. This is what Simon did in 1976. And what did he find. That Annie Crook wasn’t a Catholic. That the place that she lived didn’t exist. That she and Elizabeth Cook were not one and the same. That Sickert’s studio didn’t exist. And that the hospital she was allegedly taken didn’t exist. Those facts in themselves are enough for any reasonable person to dismiss the fantasy. Then we can add the ludicrousness of the Queens Physician being involved (a man that was nearly 72) Then we can add the ludicrousness of men carrying mutilated corpses around to dump them in insanely risky spots without being seen. Then we can add the extreme unlikeliness of them leaving no blood evidence on the journey from coach to dumping place. Then we can add that no one saw or heard a coach and horses anywhere near the murder sites. How much more do we need. Theories have been dismissed on a quarter of this and if it wasn’t so late at night I could come up with more objections.


Ive answered your question Fishy (one that you’d only asked 3 times) so come on. Your turn. Show us your evidence for rebuttal of Simon’s research.

Will you?

Of course not.

Why?

Because you can’t?

So what tactic this time Fishy? Ignore the question, change the subject? You choose.

[FISHY1118]

ill just post this again shall
or maybe Joseph Sickert was indeed Walter Sickert son , which if true poses a interesting question , Walter died in 1942 ,Joseph maintained he was told the story by he father Walter when he was 13/14 . Joseph being born in 1925 would make it 1938/9.

Now again, if this is true it means Joseph Sickert, a man nobody ever heard of who lived a life of a virtual recluse, who by Walters account was told an incredible story about who the whitechapel murderer was , then decided to wait 35 years to tell knight so they could both make a few bucks ?

Add to this Jean Overton Fullers mother Violet Fullers life long companion Florence Pash, who claimed Walter Sickert who she associated and spent time with and was a painter in her own right , told her the same story he told Joseph.

So another question beckons , why on earth would Jean Overton Fuller go to all the trouble of researching and publishing her 1991 book based on a story which by that time was being debunked as a made up fantasy by every ripperoligist on the planet ?. One wonders her motives as to why she would expose herself to the same ridicule that both joseph and knight came under....... just for a few bucks

Finally , lets take Joseph out of the picture altogether and go with the theory he lied and made the whole thing up. How then do we explain Florence Pashs exact same lie she told to violet fuller in 1948? according to Jean Overton Fuller.

So now, do we have two people who most likely never met, never knew the other existed ,who were told the same lie from the same source in Walter Sickert 50 years apart?

Also ignored ... 3 times

[FISHY1118]

What about wolf vanderlindens position, is his a reasonable one ??????????

speaking of ignoring ??? , whos doing the wriggling and twisting when it come to this ?

After all of this time I think I’m done here. Debating with you is like wrestling an eel. Some much twisting, slipperiness and deceit makes reasoned discussion impossible. Your simply not an honest poster Fishy. The evidence for that is simply overwhelming. Post after post of wriggling, obfuscation and avoidance. You are not at all interested in the case for its own sake. All that you want to do is to search for and cling onto absolutely anything that you feel might bolster the Knight/Sickert theory. Anything that contradicts this must be wrong. Whatever drivel you might use in response to this post is irrelevant. You have consistently derided the inaccuracy of TOD estimates despite the testimony of experts being overwhelming. Not 60%. Not 90%. But 100% of experts. And yet you Fishy believe that you know better and you base this startling insight on the fact that doctors got 3 TOD’s correct! Everyone can see that this opinion is a joke. It’s just not a funny one though. It’s sad.

Another long winded post about nothing, again these points have been discussed already. So best its time you do move on and let people have their say oh how they wish to determine what the evidence and witnesses and the inquest testimonies say about the jtr murders.

So farewell to you

[Herlock Sholmes]

After all of this time I think I’m done here. Debating with you is like wrestling an eel. Some much twisting, slipperiness and deceit makes reasoned discussion impossible. Your simply not an honest poster Fishy. The evidence for that is simply overwhelming. Post after post of wriggling, obfuscation and avoidance. You are not at all interested in the case for its own sake. All that you want to do is to search for and cling onto absolutely anything that you feel might bolster the Knight/Sickert theory. Anything that contradicts this must be wrong. Whatever drivel you might use in response to this post is irrelevant. You have consistently derided the inaccuracy of TOD estimates despite the testimony of experts being overwhelming. Not 60%. Not 90%. But 100% of experts. And yet you Fishy believe that you know better and you base this startling insight on the fact that doctors got 3 TOD’s correct! Everyone can see that this opinion is a joke. It’s just not a funny one though. It’s sad.

Hopefully my final point. You stated, a considerable time ago, that you could show that Simon Wood’s research ( showing the massive holes in Knight’s theory) was full of errors. That you could rebut Simon’s rebuttal. When posters make claims like this they will be pressed for their evidence. Most posters would then provide their evidence. I’ve asked you to provide your evidence around 20 times!!! And every single time you’ve ignored my request or simply changed the subject. Simon himself has even offered to read your points in a pm. You ignored his offer too. This is not honest posting Fishy. This is not the action of someone with integrity looking to discus and debate. You must see this surely?

I would advise all other posters to avoid wasting their time by engaging in discussion with you. It’s up to the individual of course but they will simply be wasting their time if they try to treat you as someone that is genuinely interested in the case and genuinely willing to discuss all points honestly and openly. You are transparently not.

[FISHY1118]

And so, to put it simply, I feel that Richardson and Cadosch are believable witnesses. I cannot be 100% certain of course. It’s my opinion based solely on my own assessment.

And i will say its my opinion that they are not, and wolf vanderlinden also makes a good case against them to which i agree with, but neither of us are 100% certain.

i seriously think you should abandon all hope in relation to .t.o.d ,as its clear you have misunderstood the entire subject where this is concerned [ see wolf vanderlinden ] .

My position, unlike yours is, is a reasoned one:

What about wolf vanderlindens position, is his a reasonable one ??????????

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n717428]

1. This is an incorrect statement by you again. ive never said modern forensic expert were flat out wrong only that the doctors in 3 murders were correct when they gave their estimates in t.o.d when asked to do so .

ive never said that Phillips was categorically wrong. Only that he might have been

and that the witness statements tend to add weight to this)



2''wildly inaccurate and guesswork at best''[ thats what you said] And the same ambiguity with the witness statements could also add weight to him being correct

How much wriggling can one poster do? I’m quite happy for anyone to read back and check what was said and the very obvious intention behind your comments. When it was mentioned by me that TOD’s could be wildly inaccurate you repeatedly quoted the 3 doctors. You were in effect saying - how could TOD estimates have been in doubt when doctors got three correct? There could be no other interpretation of your comments. You openly mocked the statement about TOD’s.

I don’t know why you stress the wildly inaccurate and guesswork comments? These have both been used in actual textbooks to describe TOD estimates. They are not my words.


My position, unlike yours is, is a reasoned one:

1. Phillips might have been right, he might have been wrong. We cannot know for certain. I do wish you would acknowledge that I’ve never said that Phillips was definitely wrong.

and so are there any other factors that might help to point us in the right direction? Yes, the witness statements.

2. We have 3 witnesses. Two can exist together with no issue - Richardson and Cadosch. But one witness, Long, conflicts with the other two. All three conflict with Phillips.

And so, to put it simply, I feel that Richardson and Cadosch are believable witnesses. I cannot be 100% certain of course. It’s my opinion based solely on my own assessment.

[FISHY1118]

When I pointed out what modern forensic experts said about TOD estimations you tried to claim (and have repeatedly done the same) that they were wrong simply because doctors got the TOD correct on 3 occasions.

1. This is an incorrect statement by you again. ive never said modern forensic expert were flat out wrong only that the doctors in 3 murders were correct when they gave their estimates in t.o.d when asked to do so .

[QUOTE]ive never said that Phillips was categorically wrong. Only that he might have been and that the witness statements tend to add weight to this)



2''wildly inaccurate and guesswork at best''[ thats what you said] And the same ambiguity with the witness statements could also add weight to him being correct