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

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

I fear that all you will elicit is that Fishy's first language is not English.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wilkes and Bettany,sBiographical History of Guy's Hospital

"Sir william gull had two or three short illnesses before the one which was the commencement of his fatal malady, but at this time he was well and enjoying himself in Scotland, near killiecrankie, when he was seized with slight paralysis on the right side of and aphasia. this was in October 1887. he recovered in great measure and returned to London, where he remained for some months comparatively well. friends who then saw him did not discern much difference in his looks and manner but he said he felt another man and gave up his practice. he subsequently had three ereturned to London, where he remained for some months comparatively wellpileptiform attacks, from which he rapidly recovered, but on January the 29th 1890 he was suddenly seized with a apoplectic attack, fell into a coma , and gradually passed away.''

Make up your own mind packer, but take note of the words ''he recovered in great measure'' and had three epileptiform attacks, from which he rapidly recovered, and friends who then saw him did not discern much difference in his looks and manner.

The queens physician in ordinary killing and mutilating prostitutes is a possibility

Ok I This is the tactic is it? Of the points that I’ve raised you’re fixating on the least important in the hope I’ll forget about the others.

he recovered in great measure

This is not a complete recovery but an good recovery. It’s a small point but it’s an important distinction which you deliberately seek to ignore to suit your own purposes.


returned to London, where he remained for some months comparatively well

Note the word comparatively. It means - to a moderate degree as compared to something else.

As he remained in London for some months, when we add those some months onto October 1887 we get closer to Ripper time of course.


friends who then saw him did not discern much difference in his looks and manner but he said he felt another man and gave up his practice.

Hope your keeping up Fishy? And so in this period, the months after October 1887 which take us close to August 1888, Gull said that he felt a different man (which means not himself - which means unwell.) The effects of this illness meant that he was forced to give up his practice. Now - Gull wasn’t a surgeon requiring a steady hand or manual dexterity or great hand/eye coordination - he was a Physician, a very senior one, but a Physician nonetheless. This work as a very senior physician would not have been a very physically taxing one. Probably just examining, diagnosing and giving the benefit of his experience. And yet his illness meant that he couldn’t even do that.

And so to sum up - we have a man who was nearing 72 at a time when 72 would have been significantly over the average lifespan (accepted that someone of Gull’s wealth would be expected to have lived longer than a poorer person.) A man for whom a stroke had made it impossible to even continue with a job that wasn’t physically taxing. An illness that had made him feel like a different man. We have him mutilating prostitutes in the East End according to some Freemasonic plan? Surely they would have had younger, fitter doctors (even surgeons) ready to have undertaken the task? Come on.


And so Fishy. You will still say that this was perfectly reasonable behaviour of course and so we have nowhere else to go with it. Are you going to continue with this blatant obfuscation tactic?


Now, for the umpteenth time are you going to back up your claims and answer the questions. Long and Cadosch are irrelevant to this thread (post it elsewhere and, unlike you, I won’t dodge the question)

Where do you get your information that Gull was interviewed by Abberline over The Whitechapel Murders?

Do you accepts that Victorian TOD’s could be wildly inaccurate?

Do you accept that you were wrong on the Halse issue?

And finally...

Will you provide the proof that you claimed to have that proved that the hospital was where Knight said that it was?

And will you provide the rest of your proof to show that Simon’s research was wrong when he rebutted Knight’s theory?


Im wondering how you will avoid answering this time?

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

Stop press . . .

The Hutchinson in Gull's 1882 letter was the Quaker and surgeon Jonathan Hutchinson [1823-1913], who wrote a ten-volume work Archives of Surgery.

"Bartender, two pina coladas, please . . . with umbrellas."

Regards,

Simon

[FISHY1118]

Wilkes and Bettany,sBiographical History of Guy's Hospital

"Sir william gull had two or three short illnesses before the one which was the commencement of his fatal malady, but at this time he was well and enjoying himself in Scotland, near killiecrankie, when he was seized with slight paralysis on the right side of and aphasia. this was in October 1887. he recovered in great measure and returned to London, where he remained for some months comparatively well. friends who then saw him did not discern much difference in his looks and manner but he said he felt another man and gave up his practice. he subsequently had three epileptiform attacks, from which he rapidly recovered, but on January the 29th 1890 he was suddenly seized with a apoplectic attack, fell into a coma , and gradually passed away.''

Make up your own mind packer, but take note of the words ''he recovered in great measure'' and had three epileptiform attacks, from which he rapidly recovered, and friends who then saw him did not discern much difference in his looks and manner.

The queens physician in ordinary killing and mutilating prostitutes is a possibility

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not wanting to get too involved in your spat with each other but you can't state he was incapable of carrying on as a doctor.
There is no evidence for that .
Like most older people , he probably simply decided he wanted to take his retirement after his illness .
He was not short of a few bob and didn't have to put off his retirement any longer

It’s stated that he had to give up his work. There’s no evidence that he fully recovered in fact it’s stated that he didn’t fully recover. We have his age too. The queens physician in ordinary killing and mutilating prostitutes is insanity.

[packers stem]

Wrong - Gull suffered a stroke in October 1887 which meant that he became incapable of even continuing his hardly strenuous job of a doctor. If he’d have recovered fully he’d have taken up his job again. But he didn’t. Because he couldn’t. Murdering and mutilating prostitutes is far more physical than sitting behind a desk

Not wanting to get too involved in your spat with each other but you can't state he was incapable of carrying on as a doctor.
There is no evidence for that .
Like most older people , he probably simply decided he wanted to take his retirement after his illness .
He was not short of a few bob and didn't have to put off his retirement any longer

[FISHY1118]

With respect Elamarna ,you have come into this conversation way to late, this has been going on for weeks, went through all that, but it didnt matter so this is whats happens in the end , but thanks anyway .

[FISHY1118]

Nope thats not in their statements, i think your interpreting all it wrong.Try again .

[Elamarna]

Already had this discussion and proved it already. If you keep ignoring that , thats your problem . i dont particularly care what other people think, its you having this conversation with and youve been proven wrong. so move on nothing to see here end of topic for you .

I am really sorry, but just because yo say something is so, does not mean you are correct or that you have proved anything.

From what you have posted, i have to tell you that you have proved nothing, speculated yes, suggested yes, proved not at all.

I am finding this thread verging on the comical, when people disagree you say you are entitled to your view on a public forum, ignoring that they are entitled to theirs.


Steve

BTW, it would make following easier if the quote facility was used, or at the very least, who's post is being quoted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

New topic now is .Long v Codosch , anyone care to comment on there statements at the inquest ?.

Dishonest clown.

[FISHY1118]

New topic now is .Long v Codosch , anyone care to comment on there statements at the inquest ?.

[FISHY1118]

Already had this discussion and proved it already. If you keep ignoring that , thats your problem . i dont particularly care what other people think, its you having this conversation with and youve been proven wrong. so move on nothing to see here end of topic for you . rinse and repeat. end of topic.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Already had this discussion and proved it already. If you keep ignoring that , thats your problem . i dont particularly care what other people think, its you having this conversation with and youve been proven wrong. so move on nothing to see here end of topic for you .

Utterly pathetic.

You are a perfect example of the title of this thread - Denial, Desperation And Dishonesty.

Answer the three questions in post #244

Youve stated that you can do so.

Well do so.

[FISHY1118]

Already had this discussion and proved it already. If you keep ignoring that , thats your problem . i dont particularly care what other people think, its you having this conversation with and youve been proven wrong. so move on nothing to see here end of topic for you .

[Herlock Sholmes]

. . [/B]

. R[B]ight on time of death

Wrong - you said : one can’t be sure about Dr Phillips with Chapmans murder.

Those are your own words Fishy. How can you now deny them?

. right on gull and i proved that 100% .

Wrong - Gull suffered a stroke in October 1887 which meant that he became incapable of even continuing his hardly strenuous job of a doctor. If he’d have recovered fully he’d have taken up his job again. But he didn’t. Because he couldn’t. Murdering and mutilating prostitutes is far more physical than sitting behind a desk in a consulting room.

R[B]ight on j.s retracting his statment, fairclough forward proof of that

Wrong- Giving an explanation for Sickert’s retraction (that we all knew about anyway) is not proof of anything especially when he was involved in a second book which he and the author were promoting as genuine. Evidence, proof, logic, honesty - simply foreign concepts to you.

. AND YES RIGHT ON LONG V CADOSCH WHICH YOUR IGNORING

Wrong - I’m not ignoring anything because I didn’t make any comment on them in the first place. I didn’t bring them into the conversation. You’re using them as a very obvious delaying tactic.


Do you realise that others are reading this. I’ll ask again Fishy.

1. What evidence do you have that Sir William Gull was interviewed by Abberline over The Whitechapel Murders?

2. Where is the evidence, that you claimed to have which proved that Simon was wrong and that the hospital existed where Knight said it did.

3. Where is you’re other evidence which proves that the rest of Simon’s rebuttal of the Knight fantasy?


How long can you keep avoiding this Fishy? It’s becoming embarrassing.