Time Of Death

[Michael W Richards]

Wow.

You call that proof?

Funny that being in France seems to be an excuse for being unavailable for the kills in London,... didn't seem to deter MacNaughten that one of his suspects was in Jail at the time. The fact is that the Ripper may well have come from France in the form of Vasiliev.

The very first books ever published about the crimes, the first being in late Nov/Dec 1888 I believe in New York..self published If I recall, named Vasiliev as the culprit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry, you have to be a complete brainlet to believe the Masonic conspiracy rubbish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Only in your own fantasy world where its the norm to ignore whats to hard to understand or interpret, especially when its been confirmed by one or more sources , the rest of us real researches know better.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry, you have to be a complete brainlet to believe the Masonic conspiracy rubbish.

brainlet. lol! and so true. the boards are spammed to death recently on all this fantasy crap-royal conspiracy, masonic, police. we even have now spirit world nonsense?!?

It almost makes one wish for the Diary Delusion

[jmenges]

Suspect Theory spamming is not allowed.
- turning every thread you post on into a debate/argument about your suspect theory.
If you’d like to argue your suspect theory please start new threads and keep such posts in the Suspects section of the boards.

Thanks

JM

[Harry D]

Sorry, you have to be a complete brainlet to believe the Masonic conspiracy rubbish.

[FISHY1118]

You might consider ‘thinking’ a bad habit but most of us don’t. It’s an improvement on merely accepting something as true without a shred of evidence. Just because a story exists and two people have told it we can’t just assume that it’s true. The normal method is to look at the background and check the facts. If we find one untruth it raises a doubt. Two untruths raise greater doubts. When you get to 5 or so we are on safe grounds in dismissing the story especially when consider how implausible the story is in the first place. The Knight/Sickert story has alarm bells going off with every sentence. It’s an invention with bits of truth in there to keep people interested. Luckily 99.9% look at the proper research that’s been done and recognise it for what it is....an obvious fantasy.

Only in your own fantasy world where its the norm to ignore whats to hard to understand or interpret, especially when its been confirmed by one or more sources , the rest of us real researches know better.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed when it comes to Walter Sickert people usually tend to just.... ''think'' .

You might consider ‘thinking’ a bad habit but most of us don’t. It’s an improvement on merely accepting something as true without a shred of evidence. Just because a story exists and two people have told it we can’t just assume that it’s true. The normal method is to look at the background and check the facts. If we find one untruth it raises a doubt. Two untruths raise greater doubts. When you get to 5 or so we are on safe grounds in dismissing the story especially when consider how implausible the story is in the first place. The Knight/Sickert story has alarm bells going off with every sentence. It’s an invention with bits of truth in there to keep people interested. Luckily 99.9% look at the proper research that’s been done and recognise it for what it is....an obvious fantasy.

[FISHY1118]

Maybe he just liked being ‘the man who knew?’ He was certainly eccentric, especially in his later years I think.

Indeed when it comes to Walter Sickert people usually tend to just.... ''think'' .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed
Only Walter was in a position to make it up .
Why he did so though is the mystery

Maybe he just liked being ‘the man who knew?’ He was certainly eccentric, especially in his later years I think.

[packers stem]

guess that it was simply a story created by Walter which possibly morphed over the years with re-telling. It even reads like a work of fiction.

Agreed
Only Walter was in a position to make it up .
Why he did so though is the mystery

[DJA]

Walter Sickert was on vacation in France at the time.

Wow.

You call that proof?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is such a thread Al but it’s virtually impossible to get a decent, honest answer on the subject and believe me I’ve tried. Put simply, Fishy claimed to be able to rebut Simon Wood’s published research showing the falsehoods in the story. I asked Fishy to present his rebuttals over a dozen times and not once did he answer a direct question or produce a shred of evidence. Simon Wood himself even offered to discuss the subject with Fishy via pm’s but unsurprisingly he didn’t take Simon up the the offer. It’s impossible to come up with a sensible suggestion apart from ignoring him and letting him post anything unchallenged which is probably the best idea.

And also ignoring the pointless, childish, content-free snipes from his supporter too.

[DJA]

New around here,aren't you

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Since this subject tends to infect everything, would it be worth starting a new thread: Provable faults in Stephen Knights book, why they are faults and the incontestable evidence.
That way, people can post such things as addresses not existing backed up with direct reference and or links to the sources. Likewise, if you've all just not researched properly, the same applies. Point people to the relevant sources that counter their claims. Seems fair?