Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Denial, Desperation and Dishonesty - Defending Stephen Knightís Nonsense

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hi Herlock,

    There was 13 years between Joseph Sickert's initial retraction in 1978 and the subsequent retraction of his retraction in 1991.

    Currently, there's a copy of Fairclough's book for sale at Abe Books for £100.94, so I guess a story doesn't necessarily have to be true in order for some poor sucker to believe it.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post


      On point 1, that's just your own justification for that carnage, there are no "obvious reasons" for an abdominal mutilator to remove the flesh from the victims thighs, or slash her face. Ill help you with Chapman and Eddowes, the first was killed by someone the police felt possessed surgical skills and anatomical knowledge, the same cannot be said for what happened to Kate. For you to use ANY external circumstances as a validator for your opinion, we first need to have some evidence that there were any. There aren't in Liz Strides murder, you could say light and short amount of time factored into Kates sloppy session. Severing a colon and releasing feces...amateur.

      Point 2, see above. There are NO indications, none, that ANY interruption happened, and... not just directed at you, but I wish everyone would quit trying to push a scenario that is wholly based on a fictional premise at this point. She could have been killed by mean spirited fairies too..theres as much evidence for that as there is an interruption prevented any additional injuries. Just look at her position, on her side, knees drawn in. See ANY other victim of Jack like that?

      3. Its very unique.

      And 4, its your right to disagree, no issue...Im just pointing out that creating storylines out of thin air....interrupted mutilations, escalated by temper, able to do more based on privacy...are not valid rebuttals to the existing facts...which are, again, NO victims within the Unsolved File have ever been proven to have been killed by the same man. None. Nada. Zero. The Canonical Group is a guess....if you like that guess, disagree with me, but don't expect some creative writing to explain away the myriad of reasons why Liz Stride is unlike any assumed Ripper victim, and Mary Kelly is unlike any others.
      That there were mutilations is enough. We can spend days nitpicking on what form those mutilations took or how much skill appeared to be involved but it changes nothing for me Michael. Four prostitutes having their throats cut and being horrifically mutilated within a very small area and over just two months. The odds of these not all being killed by the same man must be vanishingly small. The differences mean nothing unless we contend that the only way of connecting a series of murders would be if they were carbon copies.

      On Stride. I accept that we cannot simply assume that the ripper was interrupted just to shoehorn her into the series and I certainly accept that she might not have been a victim. At the very leat though we have to accept that itís a possibility that she was and that the ripper was interrupted. Then we, rather conveniently, have a second murder less than an hour later.

      Im sorry Michael but I find it rather rich that you can accuse me and others of creative writing when you yourself have come up with a wholly fictional conspiracy centred around club members to show why Stride wasnít a ripper victim. The Canonical Five is a very reasonable likelihood. In fact the chances against at least the four (minus Stride) not being committed by the same man would be, again, vanishingly small. The unsolved victims are irrelevant.

      What are the chances of one man doing a one-off murder (during a series of murder/mutilations) of such unbelievable viciousness? Iíll repeat - vanishingly small.

      Definitely 4 - probably 5 imo.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
        Hi Herlock,

        There was 13 years between Joseph Sickert's initial retraction in 1978 and the subsequent retraction of his retraction in 1991.

        Currently, there's a copy of Fairclough's book for sale at Abe Books for £100.94, so I guess a story doesn't necessarily have to be true in order for some poor sucker to believe it.

        Regards,

        Simon
        Hi Simon,

        I think that I have two copies of Faircloughís book! Iíll sell you one for £50

        I didnít realise that there was such a huge gap. Plenty of time for someone to have persuaded him to - get the band back together. I wonder why £££££
        Regards

        Herlock






        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

        Comment


        • Sorry, I already have one. Luckily I got it from a charity shop.
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • Sorry, you have lost me here, are you seriously objecting to people on a forum disagreeing with your opinion?




            Certainly not ,people can disagree all they like , its when people think you dont have a right to a certain opinion, thats what were dealing with here .
            Last edited by FISHY1118; 06-24-2019, 05:00 AM.

            Comment


            • You can debate any theory and post on whatever subject you like but you will never convince anyone that you are a genuine person with an interest in truth if you dishonestly ignore evidence. And the testimony of modern day forensic medical practitioners is set-in-stone, inarguable evi
              dence. There is no debate on this point. Only you on the entire planet are arguing against it.

              What evident did i ignore in relation to the time of death ? were the 3 doctors right ? yes was i dishonest by quoting any of their evident at the inquest ? . no... guess we can give this a rest now .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                You can debate any theory and post on whatever subject you like but you will never convince anyone that you are a genuine person with an interest in truth if you dishonestly ignore evidence. And the testimony of modern day forensic medical practitioners is set-in-stone, inarguable evi
                dence. There is no debate on this point. Only you on the entire planet are arguing against it.

                What evident did i ignore in relation to the time of death ? were the 3 doctors right ? yes was i dishonest by quoting any of their evident at the inquest ? . no... guess we can give this a rest now .
                See what I mean?

                If three doctors got a TOD correct the knowledge of the time this doesnít prove that they were always correct Fishy because the real forensic medical experts (certainly not you or I) tell us explicitly that the methods that they used were untrustworthy. This is a scientific fact. Of course they could be right occasionally but we shouldnít take their opinions to the bank and so when we see how unlikely it was for John Richardson to have missed seeing a mutilated corpse three feet away from him this seriously points to Philips being wrong. Iím not saying that he was 100% certain to have been wrong but likely.

                Surely you can understand this by now Fishy and be honest enough to admit itís correct.

                And again........where is your evidence that Simonís rebuttals of the Knight story were incorrect? Why are you avoiding posting them?
                Regards

                Herlock






                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                  Sorry, you have lost me here, are you seriously objecting to people on a forum disagreeing with your opinion?




                  Certainly not ,people can disagree all they like , its when people think you dont have a right to a certain opinion, thats what were dealing with here .
                  Everyone is entitled to an opinion of course. Disagreements are part and parcel of a forum but, and this is a big but, we should all try to be honest and logical. We all have our inherent biases but we have to accept that thereís a huge difference between a) interpreting facts and events differently and b) ignoring proven facts or the rules of logic.

                  When all forensic medical experts tell us that TOD estimations were little more than guesswork due to the lack of knowledge available at the time we cannot dispute this point by pointing out occasions where they appear to have gotten it right. Of course theyíre going to get it right occasionally.

                  Its not simply a difference of opinion if you dispute this. Itís far more important Fishy, itís a sign to everyone that you simply will not accept facts if you feel that they donít help the theory that you support (rather like Knight.) If you wish to continue posting with everyone seeing you as someone without integrity then thereís nothing I or anyone else can do about that.

                  I pointed out your error in interpreting Halse for example but you simply would not acknowledge it and so you ignored it. If someone points out a factual error that Iíve made Iíll acknowledge it. You should do the same.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                  Comment




                  • Well im comfortable with the way i interpret the facts . ill leave it at that .


                    If ive made a error with Halse fine, give me the details again and ill go back and check it out .

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      Well im comfortable with the way i interpret the facts . ill leave it at that .


                      If ive made a error with Halse fine, give me the details again and ill go back and check it out .
                      Post #2753

                      Its not about interpreting Fishy. Itís about excepting what every Forensic Scientist on the planet would tell you. That TOD estimates in the Victorian era and later where little more that guesswork.

                      And for the 6th or 7th time - where is the evidence that you said that you had which rebutted Simonís research that proved Knightís theory was melodramatic hogwash?
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                      Comment


                      • Was i interpreting the facts as to the accuracy of the doctors reports with Eddows ,Stride and Nichols as correct ? ... or course i was, because they were .


                        Now if you want to say that the medical evident and all the scientist on the planet claim the t.o.d in Victorian time was little more than guesswork, hey go for it, yell it from the highest mountain. They might be right in some or even more cases , But DEAD wrong in 3 jack the ripper murders, and thats just a fact. This topic is now ended for me .

                        Comment


                        • Oh you must mean simons claim that proves knights research wrong . Is that what your after . ?

                          Comment


                          • Hi Simon.

                            Here's another one for your collection. A shadowy reference to "Hutchinson," some talk about a "council," and, of course, "yours, truly."

                            https://www.ebay.com/itm/Jack-the-Ri...gAAOSw-K1c1GAb

                            Don't tarry. Only five days left!

                            Cheers, RP
                            Last edited by rjpalmer; 06-25-2019, 03:20 AM.

                            Comment


                            • "In modern English usage, "trolling" may describe the fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat"...

                              Comment


                              • Hi RJ,

                                It was very generous of you to think of me, but I fear you have the wrong person.

                                I suggest you forward it to someone who accepts as gospel the 'From Hell' letter, the Maybrick Diary, Dear Boss, Saucy Jacky, G.F. Abberline's Diary, the Macnaghten memorandum, the Swanson marginalia, the 17th September letter, the Royal conspiracy and anything Sir Robert Anderson ever committed to paper.

                                The Ripper mystery is already littered with far too much BS.

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X