Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Key question regarding the BBC 1973 series and the graffito

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Hi Simon,

    It appears possible then, even likely, that they simply took Josephís word for this? Did Sickert have any surviving descendants at the time? If not, would Joseph have been aware of the fact?
    Hi Herlock, literary agencies aren't renowned for treating the estates of their authors in a cavalier way and I think it is highly unlikely that a respectable literary agency would have simply accepted Joseph's word that he was Walter's son and paid him the royalties. Nor, as far as I am aware, was there any record of Walter's estate objecting to the payment. Also, I think it is important to take into account the Andrina Schweder letter, which is open to interpretation but nonetheless interesting. None of it makes Joseph the son of Walter, but it would be interesting if Walter's gariatric ramblings were the origin of the whole story.

    Comment


    • #77
      Hi Herlock, literary agencies aren't renowned for treating the estates of their authors in a cavalier way and I think it is highly unlikely that a respectable literary agency would have simply accepted Joseph's word that he was Walter's son and paid him the royalties. Nor, as far as I am aware, was there any record of Walter's estate objecting to the payment. Also, I think it is important to take into account the Andrina Schweder letter, which is open to interpretation but nonetheless interesting. None of it makes Joseph the son of Walter, but it would be interesting if Walter's gariatric ramblings were the origin of the whole story.

      Hi paul, by any chance could you post a link to the Andrina Schweder letter ?

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


        Hi paul, by any chance could you post a link to the Andrina Schweder letter ?
        Patricia refers to it in her book. It's a letter written to Stephen Knight basically rebuking Joseph for repeating stories told him by Walter in his dotage.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
          Fairclough , Joseph Sickert and Gull, and t.o.d, you had your chance and you refused to listen to these topics which you were wrong about , and as explained you don t get a second chance to discuss them with me, feel free to yell it from the highest roof top to anyone else ,
          As I predicted....more repetition and avoidance. Why do you keep saying ...you had your chance? A chance of what? Watching you avoiding answering questions by falsely claiming that youíve already answered them but without being able to point anyone in the direction of those answers? I wasnít wrong on any of these topics, you were. Your arguments were childish and rather embarrassing. Steve has torn your TOD opinion to shreds and yet you keep going on and on along the same false track; not out of any desire to get to the truth but purely and simply out of a desperation to prop up the Knight/Sickert story.

          How can you mention Fairclough? You do realise that he no longer believes the Sickert story?

          You continue to be a dishonest poster with no integrity. You have made a claim against the veracity of Simonís research. Such a claim should be backed up by evidence. You repeatedly refuse to do so. This is not the action of someone deserving of respect.
          Regards

          Herlock






          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by PaulB View Post

            Hi Herlock, literary agencies aren't renowned for treating the estates of their authors in a cavalier way and I think it is highly unlikely that a respectable literary agency would have simply accepted Joseph's word that he was Walter's son and paid him the royalties. Nor, as far as I am aware, was there any record of Walter's estate objecting to the payment. Also, I think it is important to take into account the Andrina Schweder letter, which is open to interpretation but nonetheless interesting. None of it makes Joseph the son of Walter, but it would be interesting if Walter's gariatric ramblings were the origin of the whole story.
            Thanks for that Paul. Iíll dig out my copy of Cornwell and read the letter. It didnít ring any bells to be honest.
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • #81
              As I predicted....more repetition and avoidance. Why do you keep saying ...you had your chance? A chance of what? Watching you avoiding answering questions by falsely claiming that youíve already answered them but without being able to point anyone in the direction of those answers? I wasnít wrong on any of these topics, you were. Your arguments were childish and rather embarrassing. Steve has torn your TOD opinion to shreds and yet you keep going on and on along the same false track; not out of any desire to get to the truth but purely and simply out of a desperation to prop up the Knight/Sickert story.

              How can you mention Fairclough? You do realise that he no longer believes the Sickert story?

              You continue to be a dishonest poster with no integrity. You have made a claim against the veracity of Simonís research. Such a claim should be backed up by evidence. You repeatedly refuse to do so. This is not the action of someone deserving of respect.
              Steve did no such thing, you wish he could prove t.o.d. wrong , he cant, no one can because they were right , you also totally ignored the possibility of the wolf vanderlinden dissertation, you also chose to ignore the different opinion about gulls stroke and lastly you continue to say Joseph Sickert made the whole story up when he retracted that statement to Patrica Cornwall .

              So ill post this again so you and Simon can try work out how this is all fake too . seeings how neither of you commented on it the first time .

              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?
              ​​​​​​​

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Thanks for that Paul. Iíll dig out my copy of Cornwell and read the letter. It didnít ring any bells to be honest.
                Yes, I think it's unfortunate that Patricia didn't really develop the good stuff her researches tuned up. The Schweder letter and the royalties don't prove anything, but they are both very interesting. Add in the picture "Boy Joss" and... well, it's something to think about. Joseph is too quickly dismissed as an out and out charlatan, which he might well have been, but if not... Nobody ever seems curious about the annotated press cutting book Patricia bought either. Because she concentrates so heavily on Walter Sickert being the Ripper, these "discoveries" get overlooked.

                Comment


                • #83

                  Steve did no such thing, you wish he could prove t.o.d. wrong , he cant, no one can because they were right
                  A perfect example of your complete lack of reason Fishy.

                  For the millionth time........please try and understand.......no one is saying that Phillips was definitely wrong. No one. All we are saying is that itís a serious possibility.

                  Come on Fishy. This is the simplest of concepts
                  .
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    A perfect example of your complete lack of reason Fishy.

                    For the millionth time........please try and understand.......no one is saying that Phillips was definitely wrong. No one. All we are saying is that itís a serious possibility.

                    Come on Fishy. This is the simplest of concepts.

                    Why then when i say that Phillips was possibly right do you just up and down like cut cat.? When i posted the Wolf Vanderlindens article which is what i was basically saying all along, no one says jack about it .

                    So the way i see it, his allowed to have his opinion when it come the chapman murder and the possibilities that may or may not have happened, but im not . Is that it ? cause it sure like look like it to me.

                    All you had to say from the very start was, ''fishy i disagree with what you are saying and i think your mistaken in some of your theories, but your entitled to you opinion as we all are on this forum'' , But you didn't, you continued to mock , belittle ,criticize my comments [i.e V.W] just because they didnt agree with the common thinking when it comes to jtr
                    Last edited by FISHY1118; 07-26-2019, 01:38 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                      Why then when i say that Phillips was possibly right do you just up and down like cut cat.? When i posted the Wolf Vanderlindens article which is what i was basically saying all along, no one says jack about it .

                      So the way i see it, his allowed to have his opinion when it come the chapman murder and the possibilities that may or may not have happened, but im not . Is that it ? cause it sure like look like it to me.

                      All you had to say from the very start was, ''fishy i disagree with what you are saying and i think your mistaken in some of your theories, but your entitled to you opinion as we all are on this forum'' , But you didn't, you continued to mock , belittle ,criticize my comments [i.e V.W] just because they didnt agree with the common thinking when it comes to jtr
                      But you know thatís not the case Fishy. I fully accept that I can be sarcastic but when I mentioned the fact that TOD estimates could be wildly inaccurate it was you who did the mocking despite the fact that I was only repeating the opinions forensic experts. Your position has been that because doctors got the three other TODís correct then the point about forensic knowledge on TODís was wrong. Surely you can see how thatís incorrect?

                      The reason that Iíve become frustrated in my comments Fishy is due to your refusal to back up your very specific claims. The ones that Iíve mentioned. Forget Gull, forget TODís, forget Eddowes. Youíve given your opinion on those issues (whether I agree or not is not relevant) You know the points that Iím talking about because Iíve pressed you on them often enough. Itís not so much the Knight/Sickert theory which of course you are perfectly entitled to support and argue for itís the constant refusal to respond. The changing of subjects. The claim that youíve answered specific questions when you havenít (youíve given answers to other questions.) On a Forum, if you make a claim, itís usual to back that claim up with evidence then it can be debated. You cant expect posters just to accept these things at face value.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        . just up and down like cut cat.?
                        Ive never heard that one before
                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X