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

[FISHY1118]

i read the chapter Simon wrote where he talks knights book , his made many errors . there for i cant take it seriously

[Herlock Sholmes]

i read the chapter Simon wrote where he talks knights book , his made many errors . there for i cant take it seriously

Anyone can say that.

Name the errors with your evidence proving that they’re errors.

Im guessing that an - I’m not telling you - will follow, or a - find them yourself - type comment. If you could rebut Simon’s research then you’d have done it by now. You have nothing except blind faith.

[FISHY1118]

Well heres one... j.s certainly retracted his'' i made the whole thing up and it was a whopping big fib'' statement. he clearly made that plainly obvious he didnt in the forward of Faircloughs book . So yes Simon got that wrong. would you like another? Refrain from saying the fib and the forward were both wrong that wont do any good , according to j.s they were not, and it doesn't matter that you think they were, thats not what were talking about . 1X ERROR

[packers stem]

Well heres one... j.s certainly retracted his'' i made the whole thing up and it was a whopping big fib'' statement. he clearly made that plainly obvious he didnt in the forward of Faircloughs book . So yes Simon got that wrong. would you like another? Refrain from saying the fib and the forward were both wrong that wont do any good , according to j.s they were not, and it doesn't matter that you think they were, thats not what were talking about . 1X ERROR

I'm sure Simon pointed out to you earlier that Fairclough no longer believes any of it to be true .
I know he didn't take too kindly to me asking what he thought now that everyone agreed the diaries were fake in the 96 conference ,whilst standing at the bar .
He shouted "they're not" quite angrily and ripped my name tag off me

Nobody would get their own initials the wrong way round !!

However ....

Few ,putting the time and effort to copy Abberline's handwriting, would make such a stupid mistake either .

There is one person though , who did enjoy playing around with his own initials , signature , writing in mirror fashion .... who may have been responsible

So the jury is out for me on who actually did write it ,but it certainly wasn't Fred lol

[FISHY1118]

With all due respect packer, it really doesn't matter what Fairclough thinks, the simple point im making is that j.s believed his story to be true. The forward in his book proves that in 91 he had changed his earlier'' fib i made the whole thing up statement'' he made about knights book . so in conclusion when people use this j.s fib line to denounce knights book there simply wrong .

[Michael W Richards]

What this story demonstrates is that people have been for too long looking for some fictional connection between the five canonical victims. To have a Jack the Ripper, you have to have a Ripper trail, and this Canonical Group has been presumed to be that "trail" for over 130 years. Too many books using a Canonical conclusion as a starting point. Knights is just one of many of these. As flawed as the rest.

And yet people fight me here when I suggest that we have 5 murders in a Canonical Group without any tangible link to each other or any specific killer.....a virtual cart before the horse in spades.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With all due respect packer, it really doesn't matter what Fairclough thinks, the simple point im making is that j.s believed his story to be true. The forward in his book proves that in 91 he had changed his earlier'' fib i made the whole thing up statement'' he made about knights book . so in conclusion when people use this j.s fib line to denounce knights book there simply wrong .

And that’s it?

With all the proper points of research categorically proving Knight, not only wrong, but wilfully dishonest in suppression information that didn’t fit his theory, this is the best you can do? Even Fairclough himself accepted that the story was complete guff.You point to JS retraction.

He first said the story was true then he admitted that it was false.

According to you (and JS) this admission was false.

He then retracted his admission and said that it was true.

The next question is childishly obvious Fishy:

“If he was lying when he admitted it was made up, how do you know that he wasn’t lying when he changed his mind and said that it was true?”



You've also stated that you can prove Simon’s rebuttals wrong. Excuse me (and the rest of the world) if I don’t simply take your word for it but I haven’t seen any evidence from you yet. Is it a secret?

Please tell Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What this story demonstrates is that people have been for too long looking for some fictional connection between the five canonical victims. To have a Jack the Ripper, you have to have a Ripper trail, and this Canonical Group has been presumed to be that "trail" for over 130 years. Too many books using a Canonical conclusion as a starting point. Knights is just one of many of these. As flawed as the rest.

And yet people fight me here when I suggest that we have 5 murders in a Canonical Group without any tangible link to each other or any specific killer.....a virtual cart before the horse in spades.

Four of the five were obviously connected. Stride may or may not have been. The idea that a convention of throat cutting, abdominal mutilating prostitute murderers being in town on a two month convention is preposterous! The flaw that allowed the Knight theory to flourish is the disease of conspiracy theorist thinking. Poking around in corners looking for coincidences, seeing sinister connotations in simple human errors, projecting incredulity into these murders and not accepting that we weren’t there. Occam’s Razor. Simplest solution. No leaps of faith.

Whitechapel. Prostitutes. Serial killer. One man. Never caught. This is who we’re looking for. All else is a complete and utter waste of time. But of course everyone is free to waste their own time.

[Simon Wood]

Elizabeth Stride is the keystone to the WM. Don't bother asking yourself whether or not she was a Ripper victim. Rather, ask yourself why she had to be included as part of the Ripper tally. Approaching it this way around puts the WM in a whole new light.

I'll move this to a new thread - The Keystone Cops.

[Michael W Richards]

Four of the five were obviously connected. Stride may or may not have been. The idea that a convention of throat cutting, abdominal mutilating prostitute murderers being in town on a two month convention is preposterous! The flaw that allowed the Knight theory to flourish is the disease of conspiracy theorist thinking. Poking around in corners looking for coincidences, seeing sinister connotations in simple human errors, projecting incredulity into these murders and not accepting that we weren’t there. Occam’s Razor. Simplest solution. No leaps of faith.

Whitechapel. Prostitutes. Serial killer. One man. Never caught. This is who we’re looking for. All else is a complete and utter waste of time. But of course everyone is free to waste their own time.

13 victims in the Unsolved File, only 5 assumed to be by Jack, only 3 of which have abdominally focused mutilations. 1 has none. Torsos before during and after the JtR series.

People use Occams Razor incorrectly so often here, it doesn't claim to suggest linking disparate entities so you can have a "simple" solution to be happy with. I believe in its strictest interpretation, the application of this theory would dictate that unlike events, actions or activities are likely unrelated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

13 victims in the Unsolved File, only 5 assumed to be by Jack, only 3 of which have abdominally focused mutilations. 1 has none. Torsos before during and after the JtR series.

People use Occams Razor incorrectly so often here, it doesn't claim to suggest linking disparate entities so you can have a "simple" solution to be happy with. I believe in its strictest interpretation, the application of this theory would dictate that unlike events, actions or activities are likely unrelated.

5 of the 13 assumed to be by Jack. I exclude the 8. Torso’s unconnected. So that leaves 5.

5 murders, all prostitutes, all throat cutting, 4 with mutilations. Abdominally focused??

For the murder without the mutilations we have a very plausible possible reason for that which is strengthened by another, more vicious murder, a short distance away and an hour later.

All killed over a two month period and within a short area.

All killed in the street except for one and again we have a very plausible, indeed obvious, reason for that.

Even the most plodding modern police officer looking at this case would say.....serial killer.

Its pretty obvious.

[FISHY1118]

Both you and Simon have used the'' i made the whole thing up it was a whopping big fib'' statement many times and you both obvious believe it . The forward in Faircloughs books proves it wasn't , again what Fairclough believes is irreverent , so by definition 1 x error . You asked for an error i gave you one , simple as that. case closed move on.

[Simon Wood]

What makes you so certain that Joseph Sickert's foreword to Melvin Fairclough's book wasn't also a whopping fib?

[FISHY1118]

1st , what makes you certain that it was . 2nd, Fairclough chose to publish his book with the j.s forward , are you seriously saying Fairclough would have j.s fib again in his book after what he had said about knights?

''Even Fairclough himself accepted that the story was complete guff''.BUT HE LET THE FORWARD IT BE PUBLISHED ANYWAY , sounds like he didn't give a toss either way or was he just using it to promote his book

[Herlock Sholmes]

Both you and Simon have used the'' i made the whole thing up it was a whopping big fib'' statement many times and you both obvious believe it . The forward in Faircloughs books proves it wasn't , again what Fairclough believes is irreverent , so by definition 1 x error . You asked for an error i gave you one , simple as that. case closed move on.

You can’t expect to come onto a Forum and expect to get away with such babyish nonsense as this.

The forward in Fairclough’s book proves nothing. The forward in no book that has ever been written on the subject constitutes proof of anything. The forward was written by a person with self interest. It is not proof of anything.

The question remains:

Why was Sickert telling the truth when he retracted his admission but lying when he first made it? We have no facts from which to make a deduction.