Originally posted by DJA
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Coincidence?
Collapse
X
-
To call someone’s work - not worth the paper it was written on - based on nothing?
Simon did actual research that proved that Knight didn’t just make errors; he lied. There was evidence available to him at the time which he left out of his book because it was inconvenient to his theory
The story relied on the 'testimony' of Joseph Gorman, who publicly stated that he made it up?'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
Comment
-
Originally posted by packers stem View Post
Prove it .
Find a similar case .
Two men can carry a body a few feet from an empty house ..... I can guarantee you that is possible.
Find me a similar case of a killer removing organs, outside, in darkness in apparently a few short minutes .
There is no evidence whatsoever, other than opinion ,that what happened to Eddowes could possibly occur on the spot other than blind faith that you are dealing with some sort of super human phantom killer.
To me ,this is what is ludicrous..... not two fellas carrying a dead body, that happens every day
Take all the time you need
TristanBest wishes,
Tristan
Comment
-
Originally posted by etenguy View Post
I think we can be reasonably confident the murders and mutilations occurred where the bodies were found. The evidence supports that theory both in terms of interruptions (Stride), sightings (Chapman, Eddowes) and discovery so close to TOD (Nichols). Kelly's murder was inside and speaks for itself.
It does not follow, though, that this was necessarily a lone killer nor that there was no possible cover up / conspiracy involved. It is true that no entirely convincing evidence-based conspiracy has been articulated that satisfies the majority of those interested in the case, but that does not mean one did not exist. Any such theory would need to explain why such sensational murders were involved, and that is an extremely difficult hurdle to jump. The royal conspiracy falls down here completely in my view. You do not keep something quiet by shouting about it. But there may be a reason that just isn't clear, yet.
TristanBest wishes,
Tristan
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
Can you set out roughly in a few sentences what you believe happened? I am rather intrigued!
Tristan
Something very similar for Chapman also
You're looking for a serial killer in the modern sense for which there's no evidence .
Once you realise the links with the timings of the Whitehall torso discoveries coincide with Chapman and Eddowes you change your thinking.
unless you believe the torso killer was another on the spot serial killerYou can lead a horse to water.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
Can you think of any other serial killer case that has any kind of conspiracy theory linked to it? Or one that involved some kind of cover up? I can't think of any? The fact is that in this case so many things are missing, most notably the identity of the killer, so we try and fill in the gaps, which give rise to these wild theories. If we had more evidence, clear photographs or things that could be tested, these gaps would be diminished and the opportunity for different theories to develop would be limited.
Tristan
You're right about the gaps in our knowledge and that we might fill these with our own stories. This may of course lead to compelling but inaccurate versions of what occurred. While I do not have a conspiracy theory of my own, there are indicators / coincidences which suggest, to me at least, that some kind of cover up may have occurred. I still on balance believe it was a serial killer acting under their own demons, but I still have room for a different explanation.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by etenguy View Post
If the cover ups / conspiracy worked, we would not know about them. However, there are countless cases of individuals being killed by a State and sometimes more than one, though not a serial killer in the way we think about JtR. I'm not sure I can remember the names, but there have been a couple of Russians killed (or attempted murder) in the UK - the last I know about is the poison perfume in Salisbury attempt. Another famous one was the guy who was poisoned with an umbrella tip crossing a bridge in London and of course the polonium poisoning case. There was also the spy found in a suitcase. I'm sure we could find more. But I cannot think of a serial killer version of State killings, but perhaps they were good at covering them up.
You're right about the gaps in our knowledge and that we might fill these with our own stories. This may of course lead to compelling but inaccurate versions of what occurred. While I do not have a conspiracy theory of my own, there are indicators / coincidences which suggest, to me at least, that some kind of cover up may have occurred. I still on balance believe it was a serial killer acting under their own demons, but I still have room for a different explanation.
TristanBest wishes,
Tristan
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by packers stem View Post
What I believe happened is that she was taken to a 'meeting' at an empty house in that corner of the square, killed and carried outside.
Something very similar for Chapman also
You're looking for a serial killer in the modern sense for which there's no evidence .
Once you realise the links with the timings of the Whitehall torso discoveries coincide with Chapman and Eddowes you change your thinking.
unless you believe the torso killer was another on the spot serial killer
TristanBest wishes,
Tristan
Comment
-
Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
Ask Simon, he would know, thats what he said about knights work . suggest you take it up with him.
But the difference is that Simon read Knight’s work before he criticised it. You’ve chosen to disparage Simon’s bookand research without actually reading it.
Show me such evidence and prove that knight left it out of his book on purpose.
To adopt your approach Fishy - I have posted this stuff many times and you’ve ignored it. Of the top of my head I’ll mention the fact that Knight said that Cook and Crook were one and the same but by checking the rate books Simon found that Cook continued living in Cleveland Street long after Annie Crook was supposed to have been operated on by Gull. Those rate books were available to Knight. Also we know that the hospital didn’t exist at the address that Knight claimed. This information was available to Knight.
And this is the problem right here , 99 .9 % of people who use this to discredit knights work have know idea why he said that. ive explained it to you herlock , but i no longer have the time or energy to keep doing it with newbies im afraid. let them work it out themselves .
But your explanation is not a solution. Like Mike Barrett, Joseph disclaimed the story then (when another book was in the offing) he claimed that it was true but different. So the question is: how can we know when Joseph was being truthful?
A story where a person’s religion is central to the story but the writer got her religion wrong. Where the writer had her living in a building that didn’t exist at the time. He states that this woman and another were one and the same but the evidence clearly shows that they weren’t. He has an artist living at a studio that didn’t exist at the time and he has the woman taken to a hospital that didn’t exist at the time. He then describes an accident as being connected but the evidence shows that it wasn’t. Not only this but he has the Queens Physician involved, who was a 71 year old recovering stroke victim, mutilating East End prostitutes in a carriage with two other men carrying the corpse around to dump it in some public place. And part of the evidence used to support this is an obviously forged Abberline diary.
Can you be surprised when someone says - hold on, this sounds slightly unbelievable.
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by packers stem View Post
What I believe happened is that she was taken to a 'meeting' at an empty house in that corner of the square, killed and carried outside.
Something very similar for Chapman also
You're looking for a serial killer in the modern sense for which there's no evidence .
Once you realise the links with the timings of the Whitehall torso discoveries coincide with Chapman and Eddowes you change your thinking.
unless you believe the torso killer was another on the spot serial killer
You are simply creating a scenario which you believe fits the facts. It’s a work of imagination, and whilst imagination is important, it shouldn’t override common-sense.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
You’re looking for a serial killer in the modern sense for which there is no evidence.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Can you think of any other serial killer case that has any kind of conspiracy theory linked to it? Or one that involved some kind of cover up? I can't think of any?Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment