How did JtR see in the dark?

[FISHY1118]

Id be happy to BB , way back in 1973 the BBC in London ran a six part documentary on jack the ripper which is on you tube , i strongly suggest you watch it . The lead researcher on that series was one Stephen knight , his 1976 book JTR The Final Solution is based on the claims of Joseph Sickert who appeared on the finale and told his story about who jack the ripper really was as told to him by his father Walter Sickert. i believe his book offers the only possible explanation as to how the murders were committed AND BY WHO.The motive is very complicated ,which i wont get into on this post ,however its the manner in which the women were killed is that which ill stick too just for now .Now let me clarify something right from the start, for people who didn't do there research it was easy for them to dismiss this story and knights book on the basis that ,1st Joseph Sickert made claims some years later that he made the whole thing up. 2nd that Joseph couldn't be Walter Sickerts son because Walter could not father children. 3rd that the main perpetrator of crimes on all 5 women was a physician who had suffered a minor stroke and couldn't possibly have been the murderer. In 2002 Patricia Cornwells book Ripper The Secret Life Of W.S. Cornwell contacted Joseph to ask him about his father, and if he would like to add something or even proposed they write a book together , when asked about his comments after the knight book he stated ''it was something he had regretted saying and wished he hadn't made that claim''. Walter Sickert had a operation on his parts when his was five years old . In Jean Overton Fullers book Sickett And The Ripper Crimes ,she more than proves that he was certainly capable of fathering children, which by the way he had two sons , all be it just a little more uncomfortable than most men do it. Lastly chapter 11 of knight book the final solution is by far the most comprehensive evaluation the physician and his involvement in the murders that cannot be overlooked simply because of a minor stroke and his age at the time. Bearing in mind it wasn't the first time this physician was accused of being involved. 1888 and 1895 to be precise. Having hopefully cleared up the main reason for people dismissing knight book and i sure there are others i could answer too if needed , i will tell you why i believe his work to be an accurate account of the murders, its because his research back in 1973 to 1976 gave him access to files that were not made available to the public at that time and as far as im aware ive yet to read any book that pre or post dates his that the same inquest and police and witness statements and coroner reports that are from the originals ive read so many different versions of what claim to be from ripper inquest, statements eyewitness reports that are different from knight version and its just small difference but it changes the entire narrative to fit in to what ever the author want people to believe his version of JTR to be the correct one. There cant be 300 jack the rippers for 300 different books, but most authors use unsubstantiated internet versions ,newspaper reports of what claim to be official documents, even the casebook inquest reports slightly differ from the originals . Robin Odells book Jack the Ripper Fact or Fiction and Cornwells JTR Portrait of a Killer . These five book together have solved the JTR murders completely THE HOW , THE WHO, AND THE WHY .

[Wickerman]

Which only serves to exemplify that a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Id be happy to BB , way back in 1973 the BBC in London ran a six part documentary on jack the ripper which is on you tube , i strongly suggest you watch it . The lead researcher on that series was one Stephen knight , his 1976 book JTR The Final Solution is based on the claims of Joseph Sickert who appeared on the finale and told his story about who jack the ripper really was as told to him by his father Walter Sickert. i believe his book offers the only possible explanation as to how the murders were committed AND BY WHO.The motive is very complicated ,which i wont get into on this post ,however its the manner in which the women were killed is that which ill stick too just for now .Now let me clarify something right from the start, for people who didn't do there research it was easy for them to dismiss this story and knights book on the basis that ,1st Joseph Sickert made claims some years later that he made the whole thing up. 2nd that Joseph couldn't be Walter Sickerts son because Walter could not father children. 3rd that the main perpetrator of crimes on all 5 women was a physician who had suffered a minor stroke and couldn't possibly have been the murderer. In 2002 Patricia Cornwells book Ripper The Secret Life Of W.S. Cornwell contacted Joseph to ask him about his father, and if he would like to add something or even proposed they write a book together , when asked about his comments after the knight book he stated ''it was something he had regretted saying and wished he hadn't made that claim''. Walter Sickert had a operation on his parts when his was five years old . In Jean Overton Fullers book Sickett And The Ripper Crimes ,she more than proves that he was certainly capable of fathering children, which by the way he had two sons , all be it just a little more uncomfortable than most men do it. Lastly chapter 11 of knight book the final solution is by far the most comprehensive evaluation the physician and his involvement in the murders that cannot be overlooked simply because of a minor stroke and his age at the time. Bearing in mind it wasn't the first time this physician was accused of being involved. 1888 and 1895 to be precise. Having hopefully cleared up the main reason for people dismissing knight book and i sure there are others i could answer too if needed , i will tell you why i believe his work to be an accurate account of the murders, its because his research back in 1973 to 1976 gave him access to files that were not made available to the public at that time and as far as im aware ive yet to read any book that pre or post dates his that the same inquest and police and witness statements and coroner reports that are from the originals ive read so many different versions of what claim to be from ripper inquest, statements eyewitness reports that are different from knight version and its just small difference but it changes the entire narrative to fit in to what ever the author want people to believe his version of JTR to be the correct one. There cant be 300 jack the rippers for 300 different books, but most authors use unsubstantiated internet versions ,newspaper reports of what claim to be official documents, even the casebook inquest reports slightly differ from the originals . Robin Odells book Jack the Ripper Fact or Fiction and Cornwells JTR Portrait of a Killer . These five book together have solved the JTR murders completely THE HOW , THE WHO, AND THE WHY .

I’m finding it difficult to believe that this is a serious post? Can you honestly think that posters on here haven’t heard of Stephen Knight? There are researchers and writers on here that met him.

Now let me clarify something right from the start, for people who didn't do there research it was easy for them to dismiss this story

His theory has very comprehensively been researched and conclusively debunked by Simon Wood. No one has taken it seriously for years. Knight mentions buildings that didn’t exist at the time amongst other things. The whole theory was predicated on Annie Crook being a Catholic but it has been shown that without a doubt she wasn’t one. If you check out Simon’s book Deconstructing Jack it has a whole chapter devoted to debunking this nonsense.

will tell you why i believe his work to be an accurate account of the murders,

Its because you’ve only read books that have been thoroughly discredited by proper researchers. Knight has been proven a liar. He ignored any evidence that went against his theory.

Id advise you to take off the conspiracy theorist goggles and read some of the more balanced, properly researched books on the case. Believe me, this theory has been dead in the water for 20 years or more. No one takes Cornwell seriously either. Though Robin O’Dell is much respected.

[FISHY1118]

Then your belief mechanism is at an all time low , i suggest you adjust it some what. Seriously.... buildings and Annie crook not being a catholic, my word thats more than enough to send knights works down the **** shoot surely you can do better than that . the whole theory was based on Joseph Sickert telling knight what his father told him when he was 14 in 1939, Walter Sickert died in 1942 that means good old Joseph decided to wait 31 years before he told BBC and knight his story . yer right, if my old man told me that story i wait 30 years and not tell the world too . As i recall Joseph never made himself available to the bbc they contacted him . He had no interest the BBC documentary at the time .Now just for good measure there was another, Florence Pash who was an artist in her own right who new walter sickert very well, who waited 50 years before she told her daughter that ,Walter Sickett had told her the same story . Two different people with the same story without each one of them knowing the other existed. You say knight was a liar who ignored the evidence, well what evidence would the be ? . The ripper files? , inquest?, coroners report?, eyewitness accounts? [not the internet ones] he had access to make a serious case to his claim the murders weren't committed where they were found. Eddows and Chapman dont add up, as far as time of death and witness reports, and police discovering of the body especially with Eddows. As for Simon and others go im glad they met knight it would have been a great experience im sure , but seeings how knights dead i cant put too much truth in what people say about him and his book while his not around to have right of reply now can i .... just as Joseph recanted his claim that he made the whole thing up ive a hunch knight would stand by his work also . for Simon to come out and say knights books wasn't worth the paper it was written on and ill quote him ''i knew it and he knew it'' is just downright disrespectful . So on we go, tell how Gull couldn't be the murderer after after being suspected during the ripper crimes and in 1892 which by the way had nothing to do with Joseph telling knight... that was sixty years before Joseph even heard the story in the first place so my point is this, even if knight didn't write his book shouldn't Gull be at least considered a reasonable suspect ?. Im happy to read Simons book and that chapter you mentioned, ive read many books on the subject as im sure you have i just dont think knights was one of them. its all about the evidence that knight had to prove that Joseph was telling he truth, change the source and the actual evidence and you change the whole outcome.

[GUT]

Which only serves to exemplify that a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.

Yep. (Extra crackers)

[Herlock Sholmes]

..

. Then your belief mechanism is at an all time low , i suggest you adjust it some what. Seriously.... buildings and Annie crook not being a catholic, my word thats more than enough to send knights works down the **** shoot surely you can do better than that .

By your own words you are condemning yourself. You can never hope to be taken seriously if you make comments dismissing points about evidence which has been proven false.

. the whole theory was based on Joseph Sickert telling knight what his father told him when he was 14 in 1939, Walter Sickert died in 1942 that means good old Joseph decided to wait 31 years before he told BBC and knight his story . yer right, if my old man told me that story i wait 30 years and not tell the world too . As i recall Joseph never made himself available to the bbc|

Exactly...yer right.

they contacted him . He had no interest the BBC documentary at the time .Now just for good measure there was another, Florence Pash who was an artist in her own right who new walter sickert very well, who waited 50 years before she told her daughter that ,Walter Sickett had told her the same story . Two different people with the same story without each one of them knowing the other the whole theory was based on Joseph Sickert telling knight what his father told him when he was 14 in 1939, Walter Sickert died in 1942 that means good old Joseph decided to wait 31 years before he told BBC and knight his story . yer right, if my old man told me that story i wait 30 years and not tell the world too

The above quote has no merit as far as I can see.

. As i recall Joseph never made himself available to the bbc. You say knight was a liar who ignored the evidence, well what evidence would the be ? . The ripper files? , inquest?, coroners report?, eyewitness accounts? [not the internet ones] he had access to make a serious case to his claim the murders weren't committed where they were found.

What planet are you on? Whatever planet you do inhabit it must be a very lonely one because, as far as I can tell, you are the only person interested in the case that gives this drivel a seconds consideration. What proper researchers do is to go and look at the sources, the sources that were available to Knight. And when that research knocks out huge chunks of Knights fantasy why would you go on believing? It’s simply dishonest. It’s wish thinking. You want it to be true. Sorry, it’s just not.

. Eddows and Chapman dont add up, as far as time of death and witness reports, and police discovering of the body especially with Eddows.

A strange generality. Whatever you think doesn’t add up....does.

. .As for Simon and others go im glad they met knight it would have been a great experience im sure , but seeings how knights dead i cant put too much truth in what people say about him and his book while his not around to have right of reply now can i .

The facts don’t change just because Knight is no longer around. You are quite free to go and check the same sources that Simon did.

. just as Joseph recanted his claim that he made the whole thing up ive a hunch knight would stand by his work also .

Yes, because he was dishonest.

. for Simon to come out and say knights books wasn't worth the paper it was written on and ill quote him ''i knew it and he knew it'' is just downright disrespectful

No, manipulation of evidence is what’s disrespectful. Ignoring the real facts is what’s disrespectful. You don’t simply agree with errors and lies out of respect.

. So on we go, tell how Gull couldn't be the murderer after after being suspected during the ripper crimes and in 1892 which by the way had nothing to do with Joseph telling knight... that was sixty years before Joseph even heard the story in the first place so my point is this, even if knight didn't write his book shouldn't Gull be at least considered a reasonable suspect ?.

Do you mean how could a man in his 70’s who had recently recovered from a stroke kill and mutilate prostitutes? Well I suppose that it’s not entirely impossible but.....come on!

. . . Im happy to read Simons book and that chapter you mentioned, ive read many books on the subject as im sure you have i just dont think knights was one of them. its all about the evidence that knight had to prove that Joseph was telling he truth, change the source and the actual evidence and you change the whole outcome.

I don’t know how old you are Fishy but I’m 53. I read Knight’s book in the early eighties. I still have it (hardback and paperback versions) also Melvyn Fairclough’s ludicrous The Ripper And The Royals. I have Jean Overton Fuller too as well as Prince Jack by Frank Spiering as well as other book citing various combinations and conspiracies. All provable nonsense.

It is all about the evidence. Evidence cannot be ignored when it disproves the theory that you support. And the evidence categorically, without a shadow of a doubt, disproves Knights theory. You cannot build a theory when it’s been shown that the nuts and bolts aren’t up to the job.


And talking about evidence I’ll just briefly list some of the points from Simon’s research. But I’ll begin with a very simple point of my own.

Isn't it rather strange that, at time of heightened awareness and with an increased police presence, at a time when prostitutes and rough sleepers would have been out and about at all hours, no one mentioned seeing a posh horse drawn coach anywhere. No one saw any men taking a prostitute into this coach. And very conveniently no one saw anyone dumping a mutilated corpse in these over populated areas. Maybe someone did see this happen but simply forgot to mention it to anyone?

Stephen Knight came to the conclusion that Elizabeth Cook And Annie Elizabeth Crook were one and the same. He was wrong. From late 1886 to early 1888 Annie Elizabeth Crook couldn’t not have been living at 6 Cleveland Street because the buildings between 4 and 14 had been demolished to be replaced by Cleveland Residences which are still there. According to the rate books Elizabeth Cook was still living there in 1893 and so she couldn’t have been the woman allegedly dragged off to Guy’s.

In Knight’s fantasy he has Prince Eddy being forcibly removed from Sickert’s studio at 15 Cleveland Street by two men. Unfortunately for him in 1886 no’s. 15 and 17 had been demolished to make way for Middlesex Hospital Trained Nurses Institute. As Simon rightly says ““”Clearly the Cleveland Street raids as described by Stephen Knight could not have taken place. The incident is a complete fabrication.”””

Simon provides other evidence that Cook And Crook were not one and the same. The admission form to the Endell Street Workhouse from January 22nd 1889 where Crook and her daughter were admitted after being bought there by a Constable (number 453D) She was destitute had been last living No 9 Pitt Street, Tottenham Court Road. At this time Cook was living at 6 Cleveland Residencies.

Knight states in his book that “ “The St George’s Club ran a hospital at 367 Fulham Road, where Annie Elizabeth Crook died. This new evidence indicates how the Freemasons in charge of the cover up could have handled the incarceration of Annie Elizabeth.””

Unfortunately for Hans Christian Knight Simon received information from Alan Neate, the Record Keeper at The Greater London Record Office saying:

“ “Knight’s statement that the St. George’s Club ran a hospital at 367 Fulham Road in the period under review is quite untrue....” At the time in question this was the address of the Fulham Road Workhouse.”

There was no evidence that Crook’s mental decline was due to any sinister operation. She had epilepsy like her mother.

In the register of the Marylebone Workhouse (in 1885) both Annie and her daughter were registered as ‘Church of England.’ Knight’s theory is entirely predicated on Annie being a Catholic. She wasn’t.

How much more do you need? She wasn’t a Catholic. The place where she was supposed to have lived didnt exist. Sickerts studio where the action centred didn’t exist. The hospital where she was supposed to have been taken didn’t exist.

Do the honest thing and give it up.

[Ginger]

Honestly... Horse-drawn vehicles are LOUD. The horses wear steel shoes, and the coaches run on rigid wheels with steel rims, and the suspension, such as it is, will absorb big bounces, but does little if anything to dampen rattle and harmonics. The woodwork of the coach acts like a sounding board. Modern people tend to think of horse-drawn vehicles as being a sort of analogue for the automobile, where you can drive around a neighborhood quietly, and... you can't. It simply is not possible to sneak around in a coach and four.

Better scholars than I have addressed Knight's errors of fact. For me, the most glaring absurdity in all of this is the idea that the murderers can drive stealthily around London at 3am in a horse-drawn vehicle. I would have trouble accepting that in a novel. In a historical theory, it's a non-starter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Honestly... Horse-drawn vehicles are LOUD. The horses wear steel shoes, and the coaches run on rigid wheels with steel rims, and the suspension, such as it is, will absorb big bounces, but does little if anything to dampen rattle and harmonics. The woodwork of the coach acts like a sounding board. Modern people tend to think of horse-drawn vehicles as being a sort of analogue for the automobile, where you can drive around a neighborhood quietly, and... you can't. It simply is not possible to sneak around in a coach and four.

Better scholars than I have addressed Knight's errors of fact. For me, the most glaring absurdity in all of this is the idea that the murderers can drive stealthily around London at 3am in a horse-drawn vehicle. I would have trouble accepting that in a novel. In a historical theory, it's a non-starter.

Couldn’t agree more Ginger. Then we have to add the nonsense of depositing mutilated corpses. In Hanbury Street for example in the early hours of the morning when people like Mrs Long were out and about along with men on their way to work and Constables patrolling. No one saw a carriage and two blokes carrying a corpse into number 29? It’s laughable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No response to #141 I see.

[FISHY1118]

You people do make me laugh, just cant except the fact that the Eddows and Chapman were not murdered where they were found .you just wont do your research, thats why your still looking for jack today .ill give you all a clue ,go read Trevor Marriotts book THE REAL TRUTH chapter 8 'The Medical Experts' then sit back and make up some silly reason why there all wrong too . The key too this mystery is Mitre Square... figure that out and the rest is easy .

[FISHY1118]

just for good measure ginger, horse drawn carriages were very common in the day and night even in the early hours of the morning. just because nobody came forward to say they seen or heard one around the time of the murders doesn't mean they weren't there so honestly your comment is speculation at best.

[FISHY1118]

Now Sherlock this one for you .. tell me please how Dr George Bagster Phillips testified that when he arrived at Chapmans murder scene at 6.30am he clearly states that Chapman had been dead for TWO HOURS PROBABLY MORE . which if my maths is correct that make the time of death at 4.30am so who did the good mrs long see at aprrox 5.30 ..... she was mistaken just like Lawende was when he identified Eddows at Mitre square theses are the facts you cant change them ,

[Herlock Sholmes]

You people do make me laugh, just cant except the fact that the Eddows and Chapman were not murdered where they were found .you just wont do your research, thats why your still looking for jack today .ill give you all a clue ,go read Trevor Marriotts book THE REAL TRUTH chapter 8 'The Medical Experts' then sit back and make up some silly reason why there all wrong too . The key too this mystery is Mitre Square... figure that out and the rest is easy .

Ahhhh now I understand. You believe Trevor. Well that’s two of you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

just for good measure ginger, horse drawn carriages were very common in the day and night even in the early hours of the morning. just because nobody came forward to say they seen or heard one around the time of the murders doesn't mean they weren't there so honestly your comment is speculation at best.

Speculation!!! No one saw a carriage or two men lugging a mutilated corpse into the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street? You’re simply embarrassing yourself Fishy.

[Michael W Richards]

It seems that according to the records the murder dates Sept 8th, Sept 30th, and Nov 8th were dates that the moon phase was waxing crescent. the ambient light on those nights would be minimal.