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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.''.

Selective quoting is all that you have.

What is more strenuous and taxing?

Sitting behind a desk listening to sick people and proscribing cures?

or

Riding around in a coach in Whitechapel killing and mutilating prostitutes?

Tough question eh?

Well Gull’s illness prevented him from doing the former and he was never able to resume his career. Gull also said that he never felt the same man again. This means that he continued to feel the effects. No doubt he largely recovered and he appeared quite well to family and friends but he was affected.

Now, as I said, I didn’t say that it would have been impossible for Gull. We cannot know whether it was physically possible or not but logic and reason dictates the unlikeliness of these events being carried out by a man of approaching 72 years of age who had had Gull’s life changing health issues. To ignore this is simply wish thinking. You’re saying that Gull was certainly capable highlights your bias. How can you possibly know that? Did you know him? Did you talk to him? Did you watch him and see how he was affected? You simply cannot know how capable he was.

And this is without asking why Gull would agree to carrying out these appalling mutilations? No one ever suggested that Gull was a psychopath. If those in authority wanted to get rid of a few prostitutes is it in anyway likely that with all the power and money at their disposal they would have had to ask the Queen’s Physician-In-Ordinary?

Utter nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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

You have shown no respect at all since being on here. You’ve taken the most extreme position.....one that no one else gives a second of credence to.....and mocked people as if they are stupid for not accepting Knight. It is you who are in the extreme position Fishy. You came onto the forum talking as if no one on here had heard of Knight before. As if no one had examined the theory before.

You have had the TOD issue explained to you but you have chosen to disregard the entirety of forensic medical science because you think that you know better - is that deserving of respect Fishy?

I explained your error over Halse. You asked for the post number so that you could respond. I gave you the number and you didn’t respond. Not having the integrity to admit an error doesn’t get you points - is that deserving of respect Fishy?

You claimed that you could prove that the hospital that Crook was supposed to have been taken to did exist despite Simon proving that it didn’t. Despite numerous requests you’ve failed to do so - is that deserving of respect Fishy?

You claimed to have found errors in Simon’s research. You were asked several times to provide the evidence so that Simon could respond. You have consistently failed to do so - is that deserving of respect Fishy?

You've even said that the evidence against the Knight theory provided by Simon still didn’t shake your belief in it - is that deserving of respect Fishy?

You said that Gull was questioned by Abberline over The Whitechapel Murders. You were asked to provide evidence for that but you consistently failed to do so - is that deserving of respect Fishy?


Respect is earned Fishy.

If you want respect start earning it by being honest.

Back up your statements.

Dont keep ducking questions.

Accept that proper research isn’t just reading books. It’s doing what Simon did - PRO files, rate books, workhouse entries etc.

Don't claim that your layman’s opinion holds more weight that real Forensic Scientists.


It’s up to you Fishy. I pretty persistent but frankly I’m tiring of banging my head against a brick wall.

[FISHY1118]

i think you should stop banging your head up a against a wall for starters, and look more closely at the murders scenes and the event that surround them, in particular Chapmans. and Eddowes . Work out what didnt happen and then your forced to look for another alternative.

''if it doesn't agree with experiment its wrong'' .

[Herlock Sholmes]

i think you should stop banging your head up a against a wall for starters, and look more closely at the murders scenes and the event that surround them, in particular Chapmans. and Eddowes . Work out what didnt happen and then your forced to look for another alternative.

''if it doesn't agree with experiment its wrong'' .

I’m banging my head against a wall by continually hoping for honesty from you. The whole of ripperology has dismissed this fantasy and yet you arrogantly post as if you’re the only one using reason. You’re blind to reason.

Again......no answers.....because you have no answers. You simply make things up then refuse to back up the lie. Obvious for all to see.

Clown.

[FISHY1118]

Work out what didnt happen and then your forced to look for another alternative.

''if it doesn't agree with experiment its wrong'' STOP THINKING ONE DIMENSIONAL . ITS WAY MORE COMPLICATED THAT THAT

[packers stem]

You are a joke!

The whole of current forensic medical knowledge is wrong because Fishy has said so! The fact that TOD estimations were little more than guesswork is an established scientific/medical FACT. You have been shown the evidence.

Afternoon Herlock

The problem with using the 'guesswork' argument in the Chapman case is that the digestion ties in with Phillips initial thoughts of at least two hours ,possibly longer .
He said this without the knowledge of when she was eating potato .

Check up on potato digestion .

I'm sure we agree it can't be anything other than a light meal .
Potato starts to digest almost immediately from saliva .
A light meal of solely potato ,and we have no reason to suspect she ate anything else , should have completely left the stomach well before the two hour mark .
It ties in perfectly with Phillips call .


It doesn't matter what we feel regarding Phillips estimation based on temp and rigor if we have a third item to corroborate

All I'm saying is that , in all probability , regardless of bad estimations , both Phillips thoughts on temp and rigor AND the undigested potato place TOD somewhere around the 3-4 am mark
Putting it at 5.30 suggests wild innacuracy on Phillips part and a barely functioning digestive system .... can we really be THAT unlucky ?
Surely not

[Herlock Sholmes]

Work out what didnt happen and then your forced to look for another alternative.

''if it doesn't agree with experiment its wrong'' STOP THINKING ONE DIMENSIONAL . ITS WAY MORE COMPLICATED THAT THAT

It’s only more complicated to delusional conspiracy theorists. Jack the Ripper was undoubtedly a serial killer. It might not be an exciting horror story like Knight’s but there you go.

Ill work out what didnt happen for you.

The non-Catholic Annie Crook didn’t meet PAV in a studio that didn’t exist. She didn’t marry him or have his child. A bunch of East End prostitutes didn’t blackmail the government and 71 year old stroke victim Sir William Gull didn’t perform an operation on Annie in a hospital that didn’t exists (couldn’t they have found an actual surgeon for the job?) Then Sir William didn’t travel around Whitechapel in a coach with his 2 buddies killing and mutilating prostitutes then dumping the corpses.

Thats what didn’t happen Fishy

Anyone disagree........

oh......only you then

[Herlock Sholmes]

Afternoon Herlock

The problem with using the 'guesswork' argument in the Chapman case is that the digestion ties in with Phillips initial thoughts of at least two hours ,possibly longer .
He said this without the knowledge of when she was eating potato .

Check up on potato digestion .

I'm sure we agree it can't be anything other than a light meal .
Potato starts to digest almost immediately from saliva .
A light meal of solely potato ,and we have no reason to suspect she ate anything else , should have completely left the stomach well before the two hour mark .
It ties in perfectly with Phillips call .


It doesn't matter what we feel regarding Phillips estimation based on temp and rigor if we have a third item to corroborate

All I'm saying is that , in all probability , regardless of bad estimations , both Phillips thoughts on temp and rigor AND the undigested potato place TOD somewhere around the 3-4 am mark
Putting it at 5.30 suggests wild innacuracy on Phillips part and a barely functioning digestive system .... can we really be THAT unlucky ?
Surely not

Richardson is far less likely to have been wrong than Phillips.

[FISHY1118]

The non-Catholic Annie Crook didn’t meet PAV in a studio that didn’t exist. She didn’t marry him or have his child. A bunch of East End prostitutes didn’t blackmail the government and 71 year old stroke victim Sir William Gull didn’t perform an operation on Annie in a hospital that didn’t exists (couldn’t they have found an actual surgeon for the job?) Then Sir William didn’t travel around Whitechapel in a coach with his 2 buddies killing and mutilating prostitutes then dumping the corpses.

Your warm and on the right track . But heres the the thing, all the above has more chance than the two things that have 100 % none . That is Eddowes 5 minutes to remove an organ and uterus in the dark, and Chapman being killed in the back yard of number 29 hanbury st between 5.15 and 5.30 while codosch walked by four times . So its back to the old drawing board for you with the silly Gladstone bag theory youve been peddling all theses years

[packers stem]

Richardson is far less likely to have been wrong than Phillips.

Richardson not seeing a body does not mean she wasn't dead

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson not seeing a body does not mean she wasn't dead

Yes it does.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your warm and on the right track . But heres the the thing, all the above has more chance than the two things that have 100 % none . That is Eddowes 5 minutes to remove an organ and uterus in the dark, and Chapman being killed in the back yard of number 29 hanbury st between 5.15 and 5.30 while codosch walked by four times . So its back to the old drawing board for you with the silly Gladstone bag theory youve been peddling all theses years

What is this stupid Gladstone bag nonsense that you persist in spouting? It was originally mentioned because it was suggested that the killer was a medical man and medical men carried their equipment in a Gladstone bag. Remind us all again Fishy.....who is the one proposing a doctor as Jack the Ripper? Keep digging....you’ll bury yourself in the end.

You also appear to be obsessed with Cadosch which displays your inability to read and understand a post. I don’t base anything on Cadosch. As I said earlier we have no way of knowing if he was correct, partially correct, mistaken or lying. The same goes for Elizabeth Long. So we don’t have to fit the murder around either of them. The earliest possible time was after Richardson left (4.50/4.55 approx) the latest was 5 or 10 mins before Davis found the body.

This is The Times account of his Inquest Testimony:

[I]Albert Cadosch, a carpenter, stated that he resided at No. 27, Hanbury-street. That was next door to No. 29. On Saturday, the 8th inst. he got up at about 5:15 and went out into the yard of his house. As he returned across the yard, to the back door of his house, he heard a voice say quite close to him, “No.” He believed it came from No. 29. He went into the house, and returned to the yard three or four minutes afterwards. He then heard a sort of a fall against the fence, which divided his yard from No. 29. Something seemed suddenly to touch the fence. He did not look to see what it was. He did not hear any other noise.

So he heard the word “no” as he neared the house as he returned from the outside toilet. As he said that it was quite close to him (on the side of number 29) and that he believed that it came from number 29 it seems very possible that this was indeed the case. He heard the sound of something falling against the fence 3 or 4 minutes later.

This isn’t particularly mysterious.

She wasn’t there at 4.45 but she was there dead at around 6. Cadosch, if correct (and I see no reason to call him a liar) points to the suggestion that the murder took place around 5.25/5.30.

As for Mrs Long...who knows? But if she was, say, 15 minutes out in her timing then it all ties up very nicely.


And as we all know the idea of two men carrying a mutilated corpse into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street is puerile nonsense I think I know which explanation I think likeliest.

[FISHY1118]

he believed it came from no. 29. He went into the house,

''
He also said ''he couldn't be certain which side it came from'' . You need to look at all the possibilities including Phillips T.O.D . Which in his opinion was 2 hours probably more, which if correct makEs t.o.d around 4.30.

[Herlock Sholmes]

''
He also said ''he couldn't be certain which side it came from'' . You need to look at all the possibilities including Phillips T.O.D . Which in his opinion was 2 hours probably more, which if correct makEs t.o.d around 4.30.

Please don’t expect me to take advice on how to view and interpret evidence from some that disregards it as you do.

Two questions for you:

Number One.

Yes, he couldn’t be certain which side it came from but he favoured number 29. So let’s consider the probabilities shall we?

a) it came from number 25 - a yard where nothing at all happened.

or

b) it came from number 29 - a yard where a murdered woman was found.

Of the two Fishy, which do you think was the likeliest - not certain, not definitely, carved-in-stone proven - but likeliest?

Number Two.

Which Of these two propositions is likeliest to have been wrong? (again, I’m talking - likelihood.)

a) That John Richardson sat on the back step from where he said that he could have seen the whole yard (he also, later on, saw the body in situ and so knew exactly where it was positioned) and yet he still managed to miss a horribly mutilated corpse?

or

b) Knowing as we do that all forensic experts tell us that TOD estimations where based on little more than guesswork and could be massively inaccurate (no matter if they might have occasionally been correct [based on a combination of luck and other information]) and this includes digestion then Phillips TOD estimate was incorrect and that Chapman was not dead in the yard at 4.45am?

[packers stem]

Yes it does.

Far from it

You won't get close by thinking in straight lines .

I'm surprised you don't think the torso's were killed in situ

Nobody heard anything ..... must have been killed there