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

[FISHY1118]

.

There’s nothing difficult about the Foreword in Fairclough’s book. Sickert explains why he confessed to making up the story. Ok....we understand why he said that he did it. Why can’t you understand that this does not prove that he was now being honest

What it proves is that he ''wasnt'' lying about knights book there by making people think it was fake in relation to the whopping big fib /made the who thing up line.... he said what he said about the book because knight changed things he wasnt happy with . Fine so be it . But Faircloughs forward makes it clear that his believed in his original story as it was told to him. so was he lying in regards to kinghts book? NO. if you believe he lied to fairclough thats up to you .

We have never denied that 3 doctors might have been right as you well know

Yer you did , and steve might as well be a plumber in this for all its worth, it makes no differences, i dont need him to tell me what i already know to be a fact, and that is they were correct with there own and not BY ASKING WITNESSES WHAT TIME THEY FOUND THE BODIES but by their expert medical opinion .

How would this look at the inquest? . Doctor can you advise us on the t.o.d ? ..no i cant form any opinion even tho im a medical expert , but the witness says he found the body at 1.45am and it wasn't there at 1.30am so lets go with approx 1.40 shall we.

Its more likely he gave an opinion on the t.o.d first WHICH HE WAS RIGHT and then with the witness statements afterwards confirmed it.

3. I overlooked nothing about Gull’s illness and I’ve been er even said that it was physically impossible for him to have done what Knight claimed; just unlikely in the extreme. Gull had to give up a job that wasn’t particularly strenuous due to his stroke. He never took up his profession again. He himself said that he never felt his old self again. To imply that this wouldn’t have affected him is dishonest nonsense.

Gull was certainly capable , REMEMBER A MINOR STOKE doesn't men your on your death bed . words used to describe his illness ''which he fully recovered '' ''and ''made a rapid recovery.''.

just waffle, lies and the constant avoidance of answering questions

waffle ?.... hardly...... lies? certainly not. so when you show a little respect my opinions [and that goes both way i agree] and stop s.hit canning them, maybe ill answer some of your questions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You and Simon the guru didnt understand Faircloughs book forward , you completely ignored the 3 doctors who were completely right with t.o.d , you overlooked gulls minor stroke ,on top of all that theres cadosch and long that doesn't prove jtr was in the back yard at 29 hanbury at 5.15 to 5.26 so i dont bother with you because you still looking for the man with the Gladstone bag .

1. There’s nothing difficult about the Foreword in Fairclough’s book. Sickert explains why he confessed to making up the story. Ok....we understand why he said that he did it. Why can’t you understand that this does not prove that he was now being honest. An explanation is not proof. A child could understand this concept Fishy, and this is the problem. I just don’t believe that you are misunderstanding. It’s impossible. You are being deliberately dishonest.

2. We have never denied that 3 doctors might have been right as you well know. This does not make Phillips correct. I’ve told you and, even better, you’ve had Steve (with his medical background) tell you how TOD estimations were little more than guesswork at the time. This is an undeniable fact backed up by the whole weight of medical science. Yet you still harp on about Phillips. You cannot possibly not understand this. You are being dishonest again.

3. I overlooked nothing about Gull’s illness and I’ve been er even said that it was physically impossible for him to have done what Knight claimed; just unlikely in the extreme. Gull had to give up a job that wasn’t particularly strenuous due to his stroke. He never took up his profession again. He himself said that he never felt his old self again. To imply that this wouldn’t have affected him is dishonest nonsense.

4. Of course Cadosch and Long don’t prove that Jack was in the yard at Hanbury Street but a mutilated corpse does I’m afraid. The notion that someone carried a mutilated corpse from a coach across the pavement and down a passageway is laughable. We can’t be certain of Cadosch of course but what would have been the odds that he heard someone say no and then fall against a fence and then they find a dead body in the next yard against a fence and the 2 incidents were unconnected?! Come on Fishy. Even someone as hopelessly biased and wilfully dishonest on this subject as you should be able to see this.

5. Gull is the only unbelievable Gladstone Bag Man.


By the way, any answers to the questions?

Thought not.

Because you have no answers just a joke conspiracy that everyone else saw through years ago.

Just waffle, lies and the constant avoidance of answering questions.

[FISHY1118]

You and Simon the guru didnt understand Faircloughs book forward , you completely ignored the 3 doctors who were completely right with t.o.d , you overlooked gulls minor stroke ,on top of all that theres cadosch and long that doesn't prove jtr was in the back yard at 29 hanbury at 5.15 to 5.26 so i dont bother with you because you still looking for the man with the Gladstone bag .

[FISHY1118]

Thats because you cant interpret the obvious .

[Herlock Sholmes]

300 books... enough said

Neither I nor any other poster on this forum can possibly understand the meaning behind your post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was for our seafood friend

Sorry Packers.

[FISHY1118]

300 books... enough said

[Michael W Richards]

its to complex for you to understand i get that now , you need to dig a little further and maybe just maybe youll figure it it out . but i doubt it . you just haven't read the right books, and if your going to limit yourself to simons book then you are truly lost . i can give you a list of the top 7 jack the ripper books if you like .

Just the already discredited ones whose theories you believe, or do you have some lesser known ones too?

[Simon Wood]

Fishy quoted the theoretical physicist Richard P. Feynman.

So I thought I'd return the compliment—

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

[Herlock Sholmes]

its to complex for you to understand i get that now , you need to dig a little further and maybe just maybe youll figure it it out . but i doubt it . you just haven't read the right books, and if your going to limit yourself to simons book then you are truly lost . i can give you a list of the top 7 jack the ripper books if you like .

I have over 300 books on the subject. That’s not including privately produced pamphlets on the subject collected over around 35 years so I’d guess that my reading has been rather more extensive than your own. You’ve obviously focused on the conspiracy based books which the rest of ripperology has read, researched and dismissed. It should go without saying that I have Knight, Fairclough and Overton-Fuller too. I’d hazard a guess that you couldn’t name a book that I don’t own.

As for what I do understand Fishy I understand that you cannot continue with the dishonest approach of making statements then continually refusing requests for evidence. I have repeatedly asked you to back up two claims but you simply refuse to do so therefore all posters are free to make the very obvious deduction. That you have no such evidence and are just in the habit of making baseless assertions in the face of hard evidence.

I asked you where you got your evidence that Gull was questioned by The Whitechapel Murders. Steve also asked the same question. I make this around 8 or 9 requests flatly ignored. This is dishonesty writ large.

I also asked you where was your actual evidence that Simon’s rebuttal of Knight’s theory was wrong? You stated it. Another badeless assertion that you expect others to take at face value. Simon can And does provide sources for his research. Provable, hard evidence. Apparently a foreign concept to you.

I also showed that you were wrong on your interpretation of Halse’s words. You asked me show you the post so that you could respond. I did, you didn’t!

As for your next post I fully expect another, answer-free, waffle-ridden journey over to a padded cell on Fantasy Island.

[FISHY1118]

its to complex for you to understand i get that now , you need to dig a little further and maybe just maybe youll figure it it out . but i doubt it . you just haven't read the right books, and if your going to limit yourself to simons book then you are truly lost . i can give you a list of the top 7 jack the ripper books if you like .

[Herlock Sholmes]

you can't prove that Sickert never had a Cleveland Street studio or that Annie Crook never lived on Cleveland street, those are negatives (not that Knight ever proved they did)

You can If the buildings that Sickert/Knight specifically mentioned didn’t actually exist.

[packers stem]

My thinking process is broad enough to encompass the evidence. Knight’s theory was a royal theory. Prince Eddy, Gull, the Freemasons.

All proven nonsense. No further investigation is merited until Simon’s research is rebutted (which it won’t be) or new evidence is discovered (which it won’t be)

It was for our seafood friend

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not royal
Broaden your thinking process

My thinking process is broad enough to encompass the evidence. Knight’s theory was a royal theory. Prince Eddy, Gull, the Freemasons.

All proven nonsense. No further investigation is merited until Simon’s research is rebutted (which it won’t be) or new evidence is discovered (which it won’t be)

[packers stem]

It's not royal
Broaden your thinking process