Denial, Desperation and Dishonesty - Defending Stephen Knight’s Nonsense

[Herlock Sholmes]

How far should we go in defending a theory before integrity kicks in? How many hammer blows can a theory survive? What creates the kind of desperation that encourages someone to carry on no matter what?

Lets be honest here. I’m not averse to a disagreement. I’ve disagreed strongly with quite a few posters on here and I’m even going to name a couple. Fisherman for example believes that Lechmere is the strongest suspect; I don’t. If it were shown, with undeniable facts and evidence, that Lechmere wasn’t guilty would Fish hold his hands up and say - ok I was wrong? Yes I think he would. Trevor Marriott thinks that Carl Feigenbaum is a very likely suspect; I don’t. If evidence proved him innocent would Trevor accept it? Yes I think that he would. There comes a point when you have to take it on the chin. We’ve all been wrong. I certainly have.

So why, after being repeatedly torn to shreds, would anyone persist with Knight’s ludicrous, palpably dishonest fairy tale? How far can obsession take us? Is it a personal failing that leaves certain people incapable of admitting error? It might of course simply be that the Knight story is an enjoyable horror romp that we would love to be true and so some find it too heart-rending to abandon?

When the Knight book emerged Simon Wood decided to do a bit of research. He found that the whole story was a fabrication. I’ll recap a few points.

Annie Crook was a Catholic according to Knight and this was an important factor in the conspiracy - no she wasn’t.

To tie Annie Crook to 6 Cleveland Street Knight claimed that she and Elizabeth Cook were one and the same - Simon showed that Cook was still living in Cleveland Street long after the Conspiracy ended. They were not one and the same.

The building that Crook was supposed to have lived in did not exist.

Sickerts studio where Prince Eddy was supposed to have met Annie did not exist.

And the hospital that Knight said that Crook was taken to by the Freemasons to be operated on by the evil Gull, you guessed it, did not exist.

Can anyone think of a theory that could survive these hammer blows?

And just to top it off we have our chief ripper Sir William Gull. Gull died in 1890. He’d had a debilitating stroke sometime at the end of 1887. A stroke that was so serious that he could no longer practice. And let’s not forget, Gull wasn’t a surgeon requiring dexterity and a steady hand. He wasn’t even fit enough to carry out a doctors duties. Basically seeing patients, examining them and making a diagnosis. If that not very physical task was beyond him I’d say that it’s rather difficult to imagine him killing and mutilating prostitutes. Frankly it’s preposterous!

No one of reason, knowledge, common sense or basic integrity could even hope to perpetuate this tissue of drivel. Even the originator of the story admitted that he’d made it up. We can all disagree or agree with each other on various topics. Debate is good. But my final question is - does anyone really see any way that the Royal Conspiracy has even the tiniest morsel of merit?

I certainly don’t. It’s long overdue for this story to be shelved next to the Hans Christian Anderson’s and the Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

Time to end the farce.

[GUT]

Go read a Van Gogh thread then you will know how blinded to facts s9me allow themselves to become. But I get where you’re c9m8n* from. Man6 theories work if you ignore the convenient facts and evidence.

[Abby Normal]

ironically I just saw a new documentary on the ripper last night on the Travel Channel ?!? that had Arthur Conan Doyle as the ripper. LOL! will the nonsense ever cease?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Go read a Van Gogh thread then you will know how blinded to facts s9me allow themselves to become. But I get where you’re c9m8n* from. Man6 theories work if you ignore the convenient facts and evidence.

I posted on there myself GUT. I think the guy was called Dale Lerner? Utterly dishonest. Hidden pictures in Van Gogh’s Sunflowers! Even the fact that Van Gogh was completely penniless in Arles at the time of the murders didn’t deter him. His book hasn’t surfaced yet so it looks like no one wanted to contribute financially. Have you tried writing a cheque whilst wearing a straight-jacket?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Aren't we supposed to be getting more Diary buffoonery as well? Another limited edition and all that.
Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

ironically I just saw a new documentary on the ripper last night on the Travel Channel ?!? that had Arthur Conan Doyle as the ripper. LOL! will the nonsense ever cease?

I got the book on the subject Abby. A father and son team I seem to remember. I only bought it because I collect Holmes/Doyle stuff. Absolutely baseless waffle. There aren’t many authors that we know more or even as much about than Doyle. A travesty of a book. And this is the kind of thing that I mean. I can cope with a conspiracy. I can cope with someone saying that the ripper might have had an accomplice or that the police covered things up but plucking Doyles name out of thin air is a bridge way too far.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aren't we supposed to be getting more Diary buffoonery as well? Another limited edition and all that.
Regards Darryl

Yes, Abby and Sam can’t wait

[GUT]

I posted on there myself GUT. I think the guy was called Dale Lerner? Utterly dishonest. Hidden pictures in Van Gogh’s Sunflowers! Even the fact that Van Gogh was completely penniless in Arles at the time of the murders didn’t deter him. His book hasn’t surfaced yet so it looks like no one wanted to contribute financially. Have you tried writing a cheque whilst wearing a straight-jacket?

He tried to fund it on Kickstarter, I think he got three takers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He tried to fund it on Kickstarter, I think he got three takers.

That many?

[GUT]

I got the book on the subject Abby. A father and son team I seem to remember. I only bought it because I collect Holmes/Doyle stuff. Absolutely baseless waffle. There aren’t many authors that we know more or even as much about than Doyle. A travesty of a book. And this is the kind of thing that I mean. I can cope with a conspiracy. I can cope with someone saying that the ripper might have had an accomplice or that the police covered things up but plucking Doyles name out of thin air is a bridge way too far.

My take on the celebrity/witness suspects is that some are desperate to put a “Name” to the killer, so latch onto any known person, connected to the case or not, as Dale showed us, and some of the conspiracy stuff follows along, even the fact they weren’t in the country, or where severely handicapped doesn’t stop them.

it seems many just can’t accept the most likely answer “MR U.N. KNOWN”

[GUT]

That many?

And I suspect that was him and his mum, I know he didn’t get far, but I also recall that here he told us he had a publisher, guess once they knew what they were going to publish they pulled the plus, that’s if he had a publisher at all. But then I’ve seen you discussing Gull with Fishy and clearly facts don’t matter.

[harry]

Herlock,
Theoretically one can go as far as the possibilities allow.Which is what? The theorists rely on what could happen. For instance George Hutchinson could have lied.He could have gone into Kelly's room and killed her. Could have. Cross could have lied.He could have arrived earlier and killed Nichols.Could have.So theories,in most cases rely on the truth not being known.All ripper theories rely on the truth not being known.So Knight,like the rest,are reversing the onus of proof.Which means the possibilities they put forward can be sustained unless their claims can be proven impossible.Can any theory on the ripper be proven to be impossible?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,
Theoretically one can go as far as the possibilities allow.Which is what? The theorists rely on what could happen. For instance George Hutchinson could have lied.He could have gone into Kelly's room and killed her. Could have. Cross could have lied.He could have arrived earlier and killed Nichols.Could have.So theories,in most cases rely on the truth not being known.All ripper theories rely on the truth not being known.So Knight,like the rest,are reversing the onus of proof.Which means the possibilities they put forward can be sustained unless their claims can be proven impossible.Can any theory on the ripper be proven to be impossible?

I take your point Harry. I’d say Prince Eddy because Court circulars Place him elsewhere. Cream because he was in prison in Chicago. But even then we’ve had someone saying that Cream used a doppelgänger. Some would say that court circulars were forged. There’s no end to it really. So even when 6 major props of the theory (and there are more) are knocked away a conspiracy theorist like Fishy can always invent something to try and keep the suspect in the game.

At least we know that Valentine’s School existed.

Only joking.

But you’re right of course. If we cannot categorically disprove then someone will always latch on to it and try to keep it alive as long as possible. Fishy is probably the last flag-bearer unless he’s a member of a group of conspiracy theorists that worship at the alter of Stephen Knight?

[mpriestnall]

Hello Herlock and all,

One aspect re Stephen Knight's "Final Solution" that intrigues me is the Scotland Yard officer who, I believe, supplied SK with some info.

Not expecting any answers, but I love to know:

1. His identify.
2. What info he supplied.

and most of all:

3. Why.

Martyn

[Busy Beaver]

You kind of wonder if that whole wicked quarter mile was actually defending someone "big" in the area, hence all their, I didn't see his face, I only saw the back of him, I wouldn't recognise him if I saw him again, it was really dark etc etc. It really wouldn't be surprising at all if quite a few residents knew who Jack was and they got told if they said anything or stepped out of line they would be next. I still cannot fathom how Jack got away in such small time frames and not be heard, seen nor caught when there were police and local men out patrolling the streets of Whitechapel every night. Jack is certainly a contender for most elusive criminal in history.