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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Exactly.

[FISHY1118]

you obvious haven't read my reply , not exactly at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

You’re getting very mixed up in your efforts to limbo dance underneath the truth here. Fairclough rejected this theory after the book was published. I’d suggest that it was a considerable time after but I don’t actually know. Simon might.

Your are blatantly quibbling to avoid proving your unfounded claim that you could rebut Simon’s research.

[FISHY1118]

its truly amazing how you keep asking the same thing when ive already posted the answer, it not my fault you cant interpret it properly. You asked for an error you got one , move on nothing left to see here

[Herlock Sholmes]

its truly amazing how you keep asking the same thing when ive already posted the answer, it not my fault you cant interpret it properly. You asked for an error you got one , move on nothing left to see here

Pathetic.

Fishy Logic - Joseph Sickert explained why he’d admitted that he’d made it all up so that proves that he was telling the truth.

Thats like when you ask a Muslim how he knows that the Koran is the word of god and he replies - because it says so in the Koran!

This is troll-like talk I’m afraid. No genuine, thinking adult could possibly have made post #94. Nothing that you say is serious. Your entire reason for posting on this forum is simply to irritate other posters. You obviously get some form of pleasure from it.

I think I’m wasting my time even asking you this as you appear to have no grasp on logic but I’ll give it a go. Where was this evidence that you said that you had to disprove Simon’s rebuttal of Knight?

Im not holding my breath here.

[FISHY1118]

Really ? hmmm let see, i thought i was hear to give my opinion on who jack the ripper was ,but it seems people on this forum dont want to hear what other people have to say .especially if it disagrees with there own theory of jack the ripper. so the real who are the real trolls ? .

I fully intend to post as many times as i like on the subject of jack the ripper in regards to sickert, knight, or anything else that i might like to suggest , its a forum, if you dont like the subject fine thats up to you dont read them .
Joseph Sickert explained why he’d admitted that he’d made it all up so that proves that he was telling the truth.
all he said was he made it up , he never said why he made it up ..... big difference.

[Michael W Richards]

Herlock, to add on the issue of whether we should be grouping any victims with 1 unknown killer, a "series" is more than 2, so obviously serial is appropriate here,.. when scaled correctly of course. What is not appropriate is to presume a list linking 1 killer, and to then try to find answers that might fit. They are ALL Unsolved cases, not 1 proven to have any link to another by killer. The evidence does suggest though that 2 or more were almost certainly done by one man or a group.

Any proper investigation of the crimes requires altitude. The objective approach is to review each case independently and where similarities with other unsolved violent crimes or consistency in method and behavior is noted, to tentatively group these cases. Until such time as evidence can be found to support that grouping, its just tentative and speculative. That's our Canonical Group. So to suggest that its obvious we have serial crimes doesn't make you difficult, its that you, and Ripperology in general, suggest that the "obvious" clarity allows for a much larger grouping than any evidence or observation can support. That's a choice,, not a revelation.

I believe that the Canonical Group has 2 or perhaps 3 murders that are very likely connected by the killer, and that is based on the factors I indicated above, similarities, consistencies, ..reality. Not a choice, but a direction dictated by evidence and observation.

The area was a time bomb, with all sorts of nefarious folks around at night. There were ample knife flashing incidents, woman being lured into alleys, and people with reasons, or the confusion or desperation to commit violent crimes. That Fall, the months leading up to it, the years preceding the crimes, the years subsequent to these crimes, the volume of violent action didn't come to an abrupt halt in the Fall of 88 in favor of a lone madmans wishes, it just became more visible for a brief time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Really ? hmmm let see, i thought i was hear to give my opinion on who jack the ripper was ,but it seems people on this forum dont want to hear what other people have to say .especially if it disagrees with there own theory of jack the ripper. so the real who are the real trolls ? .

I fully intend to post as many times as i like on the subject of jack the ripper in regards to sickert, knight, or anything else that i might like to suggest , its a forum, if you dont like the subject fine thats up to you dont read them .
Joseph Sickert explained why he’d admitted that he’d made it all up so that proves that he was telling the truth.
all he said was he made it up , he never said why he made it up ..... big difference.

No difference at all. You cannot prove that Sickert didn’t lie when he said that he’d lied about making it up.

There are online dictionaries available for you as you are obviously struggling with the English language here Fishy. And not forthe first time as evidenced by the nonsense you came up with over Halse.

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 evidence. There is no debate on this point. Only you on the entire planet are arguing against it.

Do you know what constitutes proof? It’s not - because he said so.

Sickert explaining why he made it up is not proof that he was telling the truth! Why can’t you understand something that every other human being on this forum would understand?

Mike Barrett claimed the Diary was genuine. Then he said that he’d forged it. Then he retracted and said that it was genuine and when he did so he explained why he’d lied about forging it. Does that make his retraction proof? Of course it doesn’t.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT SIMON’S RESEARCH REBUTTING KNIGHT WAS INCORRECT?

And please, please don’t say that Sickert said so!

[Elamarna]

Really ? hmmm let see, i thought i was hear to give my opinion on who jack the ripper was ,but it seems people on this forum dont want to hear what other people have to say .especially if it disagrees with there own theory of jack the ripper. so the real who are the real trolls ? .

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

I fully intend to post as many times as i like on the subject of jack the ripper in regards to sickert, knight, or anything else that i might like to suggest , its a forum, if you dont like the subject fine thats up to you dont read them .
Joseph Sickert explained why he’d admitted that he’d made it all up so that proves that he was telling the truth.
all he said was he made it up , he never said why he made it up ..... big difference.

Please explain how it PROVES Sickert was telling the truth?
It clearly does no such thing!
That you believe it does, is opinion, which you are entitled to, not fact. Others are equally entitled to say they believe you are wrong.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, to add on the issue of whether we should be grouping any victims with 1 unknown killer, a "series" is more than 2, so obviously serial is appropriate here,.. when scaled correctly of course. What is not appropriate is to presume a list linking 1 killer, and to then try to find answers that might fit. They are ALL Unsolved cases, not 1 proven to have any link to another by killer. The evidence does suggest though that 2 or more were almost certainly done by one man or a group.

Any proper investigation of the crimes requires altitude. The objective approach is to review each case independently and where similarities with other unsolved violent crimes or consistency in method and behavior is noted, to tentatively group these cases. Until such time as evidence can be found to support that grouping, its just tentative and speculative. That's our Canonical Group. So to suggest that its obvious we have serial crimes doesn't make you difficult, its that you, and Ripperology in general, suggest that the "obvious" clarity allows for a much larger grouping than any evidence or observation can support. That's a choice,, not a revelation.

I believe that the Canonical Group has 2 or perhaps 3 murders that are very likely connected by the killer, and that is based on the factors I indicated above, similarities, consistencies, ..reality. Not a choice, but a direction dictated by evidence and observation.

The area was a time bomb, with all sorts of nefarious folks around at night. There were ample knife flashing incidents, woman being lured into alleys, and people with reasons, or the confusion or desperation to commit violent crimes. That Fall, the months leading up to it, the years preceding the crimes, the years subsequent to these crimes, the volume of violent action didn't come to an abrupt halt in the Fall of 88 in favor of a lone madmans wishes, it just became more visible for a brief time.

There were no other murders like Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. These are fairly transparently the work of one man. Stride is less certain but as a) she was a prostitute, b) she had her throat cut, c) there’s a very plausible reason why mutilations didn’t occur and d) there was another murder a short distance away and less than an hour later suggesting that, if the killer was disturbed, he was left unsatisfied and so went looking for another victim, then she becomes a very possible victim.

The problem comes when we look too minutely. Every slight timing error, every slightly inaccurate statement. If we look closely enough at even the most proven of murders we can easily come up with enough to hang a conspiracy on. The bigger picture however shows that these murders were a significant spike. This gives us the overwhelming likelihood that a serial killer killed 4 or 5 women and he was given the name Jack the Ripper.

How many serial murders can we name that after being investigated it was discovered that the killer killed to make some political point? This is a complex case but part of it is very simple. We are looking for a serial killer; pure and simple.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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



Please explain how it PROVES Sickert was telling the truth?
It clearly does no such thing!
That you believe it does, is opinion, which you are entitled to, not fact. Others are equally entitled to say they believe you are wrong.


Steve

Hello Steve,

Welcome to the rabbit-hole

[Michael W Richards]

There were no other murders like Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. These are fairly transparently the work of one man. Stride is less certain but as a) she was a prostitute, b) she had her throat cut, c) there’s a very plausible reason why mutilations didn’t occur and d) there was another murder a short distance away and less than an hour later suggesting that, if the killer was disturbed, he was left unsatisfied and so went looking for another victim, then she becomes a very possible victim.

The problem comes when we look too minutely. Every slight timing error, every slightly inaccurate statement. If we look closely enough at even the most proven of murders we can easily come up with enough to hang a conspiracy on. The bigger picture however shows that these murders were a significant spike. This gives us the overwhelming likelihood that a serial killer killed 4 or 5 women and he was given the name Jack the Ripper.

How many serial murders can we name that after being investigated it was discovered that the killer killed to make some political point? This is a complex case but part of it is very simple. We are looking for a serial killer; pure and simple.

Your first line is accurate, but Kelly is something much different than the first three, and the skill and knowledge seen in the 4th Canonical did not match that seen in previous murders. So that's hardly a Fab Four without pause. There is no indication whatsoever that the killer of Liz Stride sought further activity, that is only imagined when a theoretical interruption is suggested. Which isn't warranted due to insufficient evidence to that effect. So why Liz Stride is only cut once, by the evidence alone, is because her assailant wanted to inflict severe if not fatal injury. That's it.

You mention looking too close, I suggested that very thing in my "altitude" comment. The big picture shows an area in a time when many people had experiences with violent criminals..look at the murder stats for London in 1888. There were lots, more than 50 I believe. You are right that a killer who cuts throats twice then mutilates the victims abdomens in the streets is rare and noteworthy, and that is only true with 3 of the Canonicals.

You have a series here, no doubt. But you have many miles to go before you can make a sound list beyond the obviously linked murders. You can make excuses for what happened to Stride, and for the loss of any semblance of any kind of focus in room 13 that matches with earlier murders, but you do so without any evidence at all to support you. That's why I stick with 2 for sure by this Jacky fellow, maybe Kate, and some other men responsible for the rest. Its what both the physical evidence and the circumstantial evidence establishes. It needs no excuses.

[John G]

Your first line is accurate, but Kelly is something much different than the first three, and the skill and knowledge seen in the 4th Canonical did not match that seen in previous murders. So that's hardly a Fab Four without pause. There is no indication whatsoever that the killer of Liz Stride sought further activity, that is only imagined when a theoretical interruption is suggested. Which isn't warranted due to insufficient evidence to that effect. So why Liz Stride is only cut once, by the evidence alone, is because her assailant wanted to inflict severe if not fatal injury. That's it.

You mention looking too close, I suggested that very thing in my "altitude" comment. The big picture shows an area in a time when many people had experiences with violent criminals..look at the murder stats for London in 1888. There were lots, more than 50 I believe. You are right that a killer who cuts throats twice then mutilates the victims abdomens in the streets is rare and noteworthy, and that is only true with 3 of the Canonicals.

You have a series here, no doubt. But you have many miles to go before you can make a sound list beyond the obviously linked murders. You can make excuses for what happened to Stride, and for the loss of any semblance of any kind of focus in room 13 that matches with earlier murders, but you do so without any evidence at all to support you. That's why I stick with 2 for sure by this Jacky fellow, maybe Kate, and some other men responsible for the rest. Its what both the physical evidence and the circumstantial evidence establishes. It needs no excuses.

I'm uncertain as regards Stride. Firstly, she was registered as a prostitute in her native Sweden, but no evidence of solicitation in the UK. And didn't Morris Eagle state that the area around the club didn't have a reputation for prostitution? Moreover, we can't assume that JtR targeted victims simply because they were prostitutes: that was the same mistake made in relation to the Yorkshire Ripper.

Stride lacks the overkill signature element that Keppel referred to in relation to the neck injuries: the other C5 were virtually decapitated; Stride wasn't. Moreover, there's no evidence that her killer was interrupted: that's an assumption that's made to make her fit into the C5 scenario, i.e. a cart before horse argument.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your first line is accurate, but Kelly is something much different than the first three, and the skill and knowledge seen in the 4th Canonical did not match that seen in previous murders. So that's hardly a Fab Four without pause. There is no indication whatsoever that the killer of Liz Stride sought further activity, that is only imagined when a theoretical interruption is suggested. Which isn't warranted due to insufficient evidence to that effect. So why Liz Stride is only cut once, by the evidence alone, is because her assailant wanted to inflict severe if not fatal injury. That's it.

Kelly is just an exercise taken further than the others and for a very obvious reason and I can’t see how we can separate Chapman and Eddowes. This is the same killer. Too close an analysis of mutilations is a distraction as there can be differences in outcome in each murder. External circumstances can have an effect for example or simply the killers state of mind might alter slightly.

Stride’s murderer could have been disturbed just as he mad the first cut to the throat. It’s entirely possible and plausible; nothing else can be deduced from it.

You mention looking too close, I suggested that very thing in my "altitude" comment. The big picture shows an area in a time when many people had experiences with violent criminals..look at the murder stats for London in 1888. There were lots, more than 50 I believe. You are right that a killer who cuts throats twice then mutilates the victims abdomens in the streets is rare and noteworthy, and that is only true with 3 of the Canonicals.

Why is cut throats twice important? What if in some murders a killer felt that one cut was enough and yet in another he felt that he hadn’t gotten a deep enough cut and so needed a second? So I’d say throat cutting 5 out of 5. The chances of a murder like Kelly, occurring at the end of a series like Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, and being by a different killer must be minute.

You have a series here, no doubt. But you have many miles to go before you can make a sound list beyond the obviously linked murders. You can make excuses for what happened to Stride, and for the loss of any semblance of any kind of focus in room 13 that matches with earlier murders, but you do so without any evidence at all to support you. That's why I stick with 2 for sure by this Jacky fellow, maybe Kate, and some other men responsible for the rest. Its what both the physical evidence and the circumstantial evidence establishes. It needs no excuses.

I disagree. I think that it’s almost beyond doubt that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were all victims. With Stride being say 70%.

[Michael W Richards]

1. Kelly is just an exercise taken further than the others and for a very obvious reason and I can’t see how we can separate Chapman and Eddowes. This is the same killer. Too close an analysis of mutilations is a distraction as there can be differences in outcome in each murder. External circumstances can have an effect for example or simply the killers state of mind might alter slightly.

2. Stride’s murderer could have been disturbed just as he mad the first cut to the throat. It’s entirely possible and plausible; nothing else can be deduced from it.



3. Why is cut throats twice important? What if in some murders a killer felt that one cut was enough and yet in another he felt that he hadn’t gotten a deep enough cut and so needed a second? So I’d say throat cutting 5 out of 5. The chances of a murder like Kelly, occurring at the end of a series like Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, and being by a different killer must be minute.


4. I disagree. I think that it’s almost beyond doubt that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were all victims. With Stride being say 70%.

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.