Coincidence?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good to see you've accepted that it was neither the killer or Annie Chapmans body that made the noise codosch claimed hit the fence at 5.28 am.

I have said no such thing Fishy so there’s really no other way of putting this except that you have simply made this up.

As you well know I have said, and said it very recently by the way, that the ‘no’ could simply have been a response to a question. We cannot specifically state the context. I’ve also said that I believe that the noise against the fence was possibly/probably the killer brushing against the fence whilst doing the mutilations.

So perhaps you might like to explain how you can get from the above to me accepting that the killer didn’t make the noise?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed JM

[jmenges]

point taken, with respect to the threads and ripperology ill do my bit.

Please start by limiting your use of emoticons and bold type. We might address the content later.
Baby steps.

JM

[FISHY1118]

why is it that seemingly every single thread lately has turned into a vicious argument about whether the victims were killed elsewhere then dumped and stephen f-ing knight???

Without passing judgment on the body dump theory or ‘the final solution’ i would like to remind you all that casebook.org is one of the main public faces of ripperology. For better or worse. Lately, due to the fact that seemingly every single thread spirals downwards into infighting like we see above- it’s for the worse, fellas. When the public reads in some glossy glamour magazine that an author believes ripperologists are all obsessive, immature lunatics and they come here to see for themselves-they won’t be disappointed.

I wish that we could keep the level of debate on these message boards civil. Professional, even. Knowing that your words posted on this public forum are representing all of us in the field of ripperology...don’t make us all look like whack jobs.
I’ve about had enough of it. I feel a purge coming on.

Jm

point taken, with respect to the threads and ripperology ill do my bit.

[FISHY1118]

You complain about me attacking your integrity? I can point any poster toward the post where you, on at least 4 occasions you claimed that I accepted that I believed that the ‘no’ that Cadosch heard was the beginning of the attack and that the noise was Annie falling against the fence giving us an unreasonable time gap. Three or four times I’ve explained to you that that isn’t what I believe happened and yet you went on to post the same untruth again. Three or four times! Is that honest posting Fishy? Or a lie? It’s a lie.

Good to see you've accepted that it was neither the killer or Annie Chapmans body that made the noise codosch claimed hit the fence at 5.28 am.

And that indeed the killer was on Chapmans right hand side when he cut her throat[ you worked out it cant be dont from her left hand side didn't you , from left to right , as Gavin Bromley rightfully suggested,

If the “no” came from Annie then I’d tend toward the fact that she said it before she died, yes.
you said this

a) The ‘no’ didn’t have to have been the start of the attack. It’s a word. It can be used in many contexts and in answer to a billion questions.
and then this . ..... oh dear

on at least 4 occasions you claimed that I accepted that I believed that the ‘no’ that Cadosch heard was the beginning of the attack

Three or four times I’ve explained to you that that isn’t what I believe happened and yet you went on to post the same untruth again. Three or four times! Is that honest posting Fishy? Or a lie? It’s a lie.[/QUOTE]

OR IS IT A FACT ?

[jmenges]

Why is it that seemingly every single thread lately has turned into a vicious argument about whether the victims were killed elsewhere then dumped and Stephen f-ing Knight???

Without passing judgment on the body dump theory or ‘The Final Solution’ I would like to remind you all that Casebook.org is one of the main public faces of Ripperology. For better or worse. Lately, due to the fact that seemingly every single thread spirals downwards into infighting like we see above- It’s for the worse, fellas. When the public reads in some glossy glamour magazine that an author believes Ripperologists are all obsessive, immature lunatics and they come here to see for themselves-they won’t be disappointed.

I wish that we could keep the level of debate on these message boards civil. Professional, even. Knowing that your words posted on this public forum are representing all of us in the field of Ripperology...Don’t make us all look like whack jobs.
I’ve about had enough of it. I feel a purge coming on.

JM

[FISHY1118]

again fishy you react as if i’m attacking the honour of a close relative. Why???

All that i’m saying, and i really don’t see how you can dispute this very obvious point, is that the vast majority of ripperologists dismiss knight’s theory because of the research that has been done by simon and others. When we see the massive howlers it’s hardly surprising that this is the case. I’m unaware of anyone that takes the theory seriously apart from you? Even melvyn fairclough has disowned it. You are of course entitled to believe what you want fishy but it’s hardly honest to deny that you are in a vanishingly small minority.

and again ive already discussed both simons theory and melvyns book with you but you refuse to listen , your problem .

[FISHY1118]

Or when you stated as a fact that Annie’s killer was on her right and so couldn’t have brushed against the fence. I pointed out that you couldn’t possibly know this then you denied saying it!

What i said was that the killer was on her right when he cut her throat, which means he could not have hit the fence while doing that , you know why he wasn't on her left when he cut her throat now dont you ? YES OF COURSE YOU DO.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just ignore my posts Fishy. I could have reported you when you called me a moron but I didn’t.

Dont take it so personally if I criticise Knight. Rebut my criticisms with facts not hysteria.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed. The state is only one possible player - other groups and associations could well have their own motives - but not specifically talking about freemasons, though not to ignore them either.

The problem for me though Eten is that no one is being specific. No one will say what they believe happened or why or who they believe was involved. In the absence of anything approaching solid all that we’re doing is finding coincidences.

I prefer to look at likelihood’s. A case in point is whether the killer had time to do what he did? I’ve no doubt that it would have been tight but there’s no conclusive evidence that he couldn’t have done it. In a very good post elsewhere Jeff Hamm illustrated how there could have been more time available (as we all know about the pitfalls of timings) and so, for me, I ask what’s more likely - some form of conspiracy or that the killer had a couple of minutes more than was actually stated? It’s the latter for me every time unless something more concrete is put forward. It’s difficult to debate a theory when we don’t actually know what that theory involves. So I’m in the dark as to what this conspiracy involved or who was involved or why it occurred.

[jmenges]

Seriously Jmenges , how can this attack be allowed , im now ludicrous and childish and now im called an embarrassing lair who cant make a serious post .... ever . talk about a vicious attack on ones integrity on a public forum just for sharing my opinion on the jack the ripper murders .

You need to put a stop to this , other posters have had the same treatment from this person for far too long now .

Well, for starters you didn’t report the post.
If you’d like to bring something to my attention- that’s the way to do it.
I can’t follow you two around 24/7

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Seriously Jmenges , how can this attack be allowed

Finally Fishy, this is seriously ironic from a man that called me a moron recently.

Lets just try and ignore each other? Why don’t you put me on ‘ignore?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n724742]

So your speaking for the entire people who have ever read knights book are you now ? well thats so clever of you .

And you can obviously prove its all a made up story can you ? Hmmmm thats a ''NO'' right there

It began forty years ago and is still today a very strong and well accepted theory to the murders , I Suggest you research it again if your not sure , in case you missed something.

Again Fishy you react as if I’m attacking the honour of a close relative. Why???

All that I’m saying, and I really don’t see how you can dispute this very obvious point, is that the vast majority of ripperologists dismiss Knight’s theory because of the research that has been done by Simon and others. When we see the massive howlers it’s hardly surprising that this is the case. I’m unaware of anyone that takes the theory seriously apart from you? Even Melvyn Fairclough has disowned it. You are of course entitled to believe what you want Fishy but it’s hardly honest to deny that you are in a vanishingly small minority.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Seriously Jmenges , how can this attack be allowed , im now ludicrous and childish and now im called an embarrassing lair who cant make a serious post .... ever . talk about a vicious attack on ones integrity on a public forum just for sharing my opinion on the jack the ripper murders .

You need to put a stop to this , other posters have had the same treatment from this person for far too long now .

And now your reduced to this Fishy

Just for once try simply debating the subject to hand. It’s neither vicious nor an attack Fishy. Your last two posts had no real content and didn’t add to the discussion. They were just digs at me. Try discussing the subject reasonably like everyone else.

You complain about me attacking your integrity? I can point any poster toward the post where you, on at least 4 occasions you claimed that I accepted that I believed that the ‘no’ that Cadosch heard was the beginning of the attack and that the noise was Annie falling against the fence giving us an unreasonable time gap. Three or four times I’ve explained to you that that isn’t what I believe happened and yet you went on to post the same untruth again. Three or four times! Is that honest posting Fishy? Or a lie? It’s a lie.

Or when you stated as a fact that Annie’s killer was on her right and so couldn’t have brushed against the fence. I pointed out that you couldn’t possibly know this then you denied saying it!

You complain about my accusation of childishness. Where do I start? When Forensic authorities, in standard text books on the subject, tell us that Rigor Mortis And Algor Mortis are unreliable methods (in black and white) you argue that because doctors occasionally get TOD’s correct then this shows that all of the authorities are wrong! How’s that for grown up opinions?

You also claim that because Cadosch was cautious about the ‘no’ but confident about the noise then we should consider him unreliable and dismiss his hearing the noise. How’s that for ‘logic.’

I can back up everything I say Fishy. I’ve pretty much been trolled by you and The Baron for months but I’m now attempting not to react and get on with posting (as evidenced by my Cadosch thread/poll) but you can’t resist having a dig. I try to discuss the case calmly and logically but, unfortunately, you for some reason take any disagreement with Knight as. Some kind of personal slur.

Im tired of these arguments Fishy. Why the hell cant you discuss the case. Defend your theory with reason. Answer and ask questions. Stop twisting and dodging. I’m willing to stop the pointless arguing so why do you insist on continuing it?

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE]

That only you believe in. Don’t you get some kind of hint from that Fishy? That you might have a bit of a fixation on Knight? No one believes it. Its a very obviously made up story with more holes in it than your average string vest. Hundreds of people interested in the case and only you still taken in by Knight. Wake up Fishy. It was over 40 years ago.

So your speaking for the entire people who have ever read knights book are you now ? well thats so clever of you .

And you can obviously prove its all a made up story can you ? Hmmmm thats a ''NO'' right there

It began forty years ago and is still today a very strong and well accepted theory to the murders , I Suggest you research it again if your not sure , in case you missed something.