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

[Herlock Sholmes]

So on we go, tell how Gull couldn't be the murderer after after being suspected during the ripper crimes and in 1892 which by the way had nothing to do with Joseph telling knight... that was sixty years before Joseph even heard the story in the first place so my point is this, even if knight didn't write his book shouldn't Gull be at least considered a reasonable suspect ?.

Im still trying to locate the exact post Steve but here’s one little gem for you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I knew that I’d find it in the end

Here you go Steve

. I cant believe your so naive as to think that he couldn't have been .Detective Abberline thought him important enough to visit his residents , but then i doubt you even know about that

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Yes she was a registered prostitute in Goteborg, she is also one of very few woman in that line of work there that petitioned successfully to have her name stricken from that registry. Something not often accomplished. And yes, despite your pronunciation, we can safely assume the man that killed Polly then Annie targeted working prostitutes. He was a farmer of that particular crop. im pleased to see you cannot abide by an argument of interruption, since there is no evidence that would indicate that happened at all.

[Elamarna]

"I cant believe your so naive as to think that he couldn't have been .Detective Abberline thought him important enough to visit his residents , but then i doubt you even know about that"

For those who are not aware of this, could you supply the source for this statement, please Fishy1118?


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does it not occur to you that a family member is not an impartial judge,

Nope, it doesn’t occur to him Steve. Not if it challenges Knight.

That you apparently refuse to speak to, or read, present day Experts on Gull is very telling.

He prefers that paragon of honest research Stephen Knight or Melvin Fairclough who no longer believes the nonsense. Or Sickert who made the claim, retracted it, then made it again. But he disputes the opinions of modern forensic scientists. I wonder why no researcher has written a book on the Knight theory in the last 27 years?

What are you afraid of?

Being dragged up to 2019 where he finds that he’s the only person left on the planet that’s still taken in by Knight.


He also previously stated that he could prove that Simon Wood’s rebuttal of the Knight fantasy was wrong. Can you have a guess at whether he’s presented this evidence despite me requesting it 7 or 8 times?

He believes that it’s inconsequential and in no way affected Knight’s credibility when Simon proved that Annie Crook didn’t live at 6 Cleveland Street. That she wasn’t a Catholic. That she and Elizabeth Cook weren’t one and the same. That Sickert’s Cleveland Street studio didn’t exist and that the hospital where Annie was allegedly taken also didn’t exist. According to Fishy none of these facts put a dent in Hans Christian Knight’s theory!

He was also proven wrong on something Halse said but didn’t have the integrity to admit it.

In short Steve....don’t hold your breath for proper answers or integrity here.

[packers stem]

Does it not occur to you that a family member is not an impartial judge, hardly the best way to conduct research i am afraid.
That you apparently refuse to speak to, or read, present day Experts on Gull is very telling.
What are you afraid of?

Is this the very same family member who signed the death certificate Steve ?

No Gull had nothing to do with this , of course he didn't but we don't KNOW he was incapable.
I'm sure there's difference opinion of biographers but the truth of the matter is , other than him being too unwell to attend his daughter's wedding in April , there will be nothing written giving his health status from one day to the next .
He could have good days and bad .It's a discussion about nothing really .
Similar to the evidence against him ... nothing .
The only important thing to remember about the whole saga is that a story was told to Joseph , and in terms of the royal baby side , who knows .....they were never shy about having their fun and the HRH on his coffin isn't something that's usually given lightly ..... he then passed it to Knight .
Knight made eeeerrrmm errors as we all know thanks to Simon's work .
There are things around the story which suggest that Joseph was never in a position to have made it up and if we're all to look at it subjectively we should all be able to see that .
Netley for one and the recent find showing that the Sickert family were seen to by Gull in a professional capacity ..... even the most sceptical of us will see that had Joseph known this then he would have used it if he made the whole thing up .
I'm in no doubt that the instigator of the story was Walter ..... if we start to ask ourselves why he would do that then our time may be better spent

[Herlock Sholmes]

No Gull had nothing to do with this , of course he didn't but we don't KNOW he was incapable.

True enough Packers. But Fishy appears to think that because Gull had made a significant recovery that he was fine and dandy. It caused him to give up his career (and a career that was hardly strenuous or requiring of any great dexterity) and he was approaching 72. So these two facts alone make it unlikely in the extreme. He was also one of the most famous medical men in the country. If they simply had wanted to eliminate a few downtrodden, middle aged, alcoholic prostitutes it would hardly have taken military planning by the highest in the land. And certainly not this pointless Freemasonic tosh.

[Simon Wood]

If you've ever wondered where Stephen Knight and Joseph Sickert got their story about the Prince of Wales secretly marrying a Roman Catholic girl and fathering an illegitimate heir to the throne, may I recommend The Malta Story—Chapter 16 of Deconstructing Jack.

All the basic ingredients are there—a secret Catholic wedding ceremony, an illegitimate heir to the British throne, hush-money from the Crown and a Royal cover-up of epic proportions.

[APerno]

it doesn't have to be Gull for it to be a royal conspiracy; lots of other players avaiable - disproving Gull only makes Knight (and Sickert) wrong regarding who, not what, and that does not disprove there was a conspiracy (not that there ever was a conspiracy)

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)

it doesn't matter if the child was eligible to ascend to the throne, only that someone believed she was; it does not matter if Annie Crook was Catholic, only that someone believed she was

you can't disprove any argument from ignorance --- worst, by making it the topic of conversation, while trying to disprove it, all you do is give it currency; all any conspiracy theory really wants is to be talked about --- it doesn't need to prove itself; it doesn't need to convince you it's true, it just needs to be discussed/challenged/debunked/ or even mocked; it doesn't care so long as it is talked about

it is a Catch-22: if you try to debunk an argument from ignorance you just end up feeding the monster, just ask the Freemasons (on JTR) or Hillary Clinton (on Benghazi or e-mails); every conspiracy theory is true so long someone is still talking about it

you're better off proving who the Ripper was than trying to disprove Knight; all these years later you're probably still just helping to sell Knight's book, which ironically means there will be more people around to annoy you

[Simon Wood]

Hi APerno,

There never was a conspiracy involving Annie Crook, Prince Eddy, Sir William Gull and the much maligned Walter Sickert. It was elaborate fiction.

Yes, I can prove that in 1888 Sickert did not have a studio at 15 Cleveland Street; also that Annie Crook did not live at 6 Cleveland Street.

Of course it matters if Annie Crook wasn't a Catholic. Her Catholicism and the secret wedding ceremony claptrap is crucial to Knight's idiotic plot.

I have not disproved/debunked Knight's argument from ignorance. I used those pesky little things known as facts.

Knight is disproved and there never was any such person as Jack the Ripper.

Sorry to disappoint you twice in the same sentence.

Regards,

Simon

[FISHY1118]

''It doesn't matter how smart you are, if it doesn't agree with experiment ITS WRONG''. Richard P Feynman.

clearly talking about Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

''It doesn't matter how smart you are, if it doesn't agree with experiment ITS WRONG''. Richard P Feynman.

clearly talking about Catherine Eddowes.

No he wasn’t.

Still no answers I see.

You do of course realise Fishy that posters can read what you post? Everyone on here can see the way that you blatantly avoid responding to things that you cannot answer. Everyone on here can see (because I keep reminding them) that you have made claims which you have said that you can provide evidence for but you’ve never actually done so. Everyone can see how you persist in trying to change the subject in the hope that I’ll forget that you haven’t answered any questions. You’re the only person doing this on this Forum which is why you aren’t taken seriously. I don't even think that you want to be taken seriously. I think that your purpose here is simply to annoy and to assume the conspiracy theorist attitude of - I know something that you don’t know. Quite a few times on here you’ve related some Knight-related fact as if your telling us something that we don’t know! Stephen Knight’s theory is known to us all. I too was impressed when I first read it. As a book, I still enjoy it. But the simple fact is that Simon went out, in those steam powered, pre-computer days and visited the sources of information. Some of them the same sources that Knight selectively used. The result was that he tore down at least 5 massive props of Knight’s theory. No theory can survive that in tact.

Everyone knows that this theory is nonsense Fishy. You are the last man standing. You are whistling in the dark. If you believe that the ripper couldn’t have done what he did whilst working alone then fine, look into that. Don’t rely on Knight to fulfil that aspect of the case. Two men working in tandem is not impossible. An elaborate Freemasonic plot is though.

[FISHY1118]

''It doesn't matter how smart you are, if it doesn't agree with experiment ITS WRONG''. Richard P Feynman.

clearly talking about Catherine Eddowes. yer he was

[packers stem]

It's not royal
Broaden your thinking process

[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)