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

[Harry D]

Some people like to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Trevor is one of those people.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some people like to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Trevor is one of those people.

It’s the desire to be the “I’m the only one that’s not tied to the old ideas” thing. Or “I’m the one thinking outside the box.” I think we’d all agree that it’s the right thing to do to explore each avenue but when those avenues are shown to be cul-de-sacs then we should admit it. How many ripper theories could survive all the proven rebuttals that Knight’s theory has had and yet one person has invested so much of himself in it he can’t bring himself to admit the truth. I’ve wasted too much time on this one Harry. I need to leave him to his delusions.

[FISHY1118]

What truth would that be [ WAIT DONT ANSWER THAT YOU WOULDN'T KNOW ]? all theories are on the table where jack the ripper is concerned, in case you haven't realized he was never caught, so based of the evidence you cant dismiss knights theory ..

[Herlock Sholmes]

What truth would that be [ WAIT DONT ANSWER THAT YOU WOULDN'T KNOW ]? all theories are on the table where jack the ripper is concerned, in case you haven't realized he was never caught, so based of the evidence you cant dismiss knights theory ..

Only to the gullible.

[Michael W Richards]

As a matter of reason, all theories are not on the table, despite the fact that none of the cases are solved. Even the MM theory about 3 primary suspects has been disproven since it was written. And if you want to believe the records, some contemporary officials seem to think the man was identified and institutionalized. So maybe someone was caught.

Mr Knight created a storyline and used whatever he could to bolster its viability as a genuine possibility, unfortunately the lack of evidence sinks all the theory ships here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

..... so based of the evidence you cant dismiss knights theory ..

Evidence:

Knight: Annie Crook was a Catholic.
Proven Fact: No she wasn’t.

Knight: She lived at Number 6 Cleveland Street.
Proven Fact: No she didn’t.

Knight: Annie Crook and Elizabeth Cook were one and the same.
Proven Fact: No they weren’t.

Knight: Sickert had a Cleveland Street studio.
Proven Fact: The building didn’t even exist.

Knight: Annie was taken to a hospital for an operation.
Proven Fact: That hospital didn’t exist.

Knight: Netley (Nickley) tried to run over Alice Margaret.
Proven Fact: Untrue. The girl wasn’t Alice.


A few queries and points.

Why did the Government/Freemasons use Gull and Sickert for these murders? Why didn’t they just choose some expendable lowlife that couldn’t have been identified and traced back. Is it at all likely that someone would have approached the Queens Physician-in-Ordinary for the task of mutilating East End prostitutes? It’s preposterous.

Why would Salisbury, Gull et al assume that five alcoholic prostitutes hadnt blabbed about the royal marriage and baby to others? Why would these intelligent men, who had put together such a devastating and risky plan believe that they were safe after the five were dead? Could they have been that trusting?

Mutilations in the confined space of a coach would undoubtedly have left blood all over the floor. How come neither Gull or Sickert ever got any on their shoes and so left a print somewhere. Not a speck.

How did they know that the door to the passage of 29 Hanbury Street was unlocked? Things were risky enough for them without carrying a body to the door only to have found it locked and had to carry the body back to the carriage. (Remember the Hotel Inspector episode of Fawlty Towers.)

How come that, at none of the murder locations did any single witness recall seeing a coach and horses? Hardly the method of travel of choice for your average Whitechapel dweller. Like seeing a brand new Ferrari outside of a row of boarded up shops.

Why did the murders have to be Freemasonic? Who were these Freemasonic warning messages supposedly for? Surely it couldn’t be expected that the women of Whitechapel would have recognised this element of the murders?

If, as suggested, Sickert was seeking to ingratiate himself with the Royal family why didn’t he simply warn them that Eddy and Annie were getting rather too friendly? I’m sure that her Majesty would have been eternally grateful.

We know that Prince Eddy was hardly Bertrand Russell but surely even he couldn’t have been so monumentally stupid to have though that a marriage between himself and Annie Crook was a workable idea that would solve any kind of problems? It beggars belief.

Th same applies to Crook. Was she so utterly gullible that she trusted a marriage to a Royal Prince? The idea is laughable.

Why would the Royals have taken this ramshackle blackmail plot seriously? Consider all the rumours about Eddie’s father (most of them true no doubt) and yet these didn’t topple the monarchy. There was no DNA and so no proof that Eddy fathered a child and the ingratiating Sickert would undoubtedly have said that he'd never met Eddie if asked. Come on...

In the echo chamber of Mitre Square why did no one, especially George Morris with his open door, hear the din of a coach and horses? If it’s suggested that the coach was parked in Mitre Street for example how pointlessly, suicidally risky would it have been for Sickert and Netley (the Chuckle Brothers of Ripperology) to have carried a mutilated corpse all the way into a square with 3 ways in and out?

And finally, although I could come up with more if pushed, why the hell did they ruthlessly and brutally kill those 5 women for their alleged attempt to blackmail the government/Royal Family and yet the main witnesses to event (the most potentially damaging ones) Annie and Alice Crook they left alive? On what planet does that make sense?


I ask anyone with breath in their lungs and a reasonably functioning brain could any theory be more preposterous? More totally devoid of logic or likelihood? This fantasy was put to bed 40 years ago (Mr Wood) and with excellent reason and there’s absolutely no reason to disturb its sleep.

It was fun while it lasted though

[Herlock Sholmes]

As a matter of reason, all theories are not on the table, despite the fact that none of the cases are solved. Even the MM theory about 3 primary suspects has been disproven since it was written. And if you want to believe the records, some contemporary officials seem to think the man was identified and institutionalized. So maybe someone was caught.

Mr Knight created a storyline and used whatever he could to bolster its viability as a genuine possibility, unfortunately the lack of evidence sinks all the theory ships here.

I disagree about the MM of course but I agree that all theories shouldn’t still be on he table.

[etenguy]

What truth would that be [ WAIT DONT ANSWER THAT YOU WOULDN'T KNOW ]? all theories are on the table where jack the ripper is concerned, in case you haven't realized he was never caught, so based of the evidence you cant dismiss knights theory ..

This, I believe, is an example of false logic. You seem to be saying that because the identity of the killer remains unknown, then any theory carries equal weight with any other. This is untrue. There is evidence, albeit scant, which discounts some possibilities. As much as I enjoyed the inventiveness and sheer audacity of Knight's tale, it does not stand up to scrutiny. Mr Herlock Sholmes, a stalwart of these boards, pointed to some of these in post #274. The best chance of building a stronger Royal Conspiracy theory might be to invite Dan Brown to have a go.

[FISHY1118]

Dear me , were going over the same ground again i see Herlock , well ive already covered that area and explained the things you see as facts are not really facts at all ,only an opinion , so if you have trouble understanding or believing the motive , the means, and the opportunity of the whitechapel murders and the people involved in them according to knight, thats your right to do so.So disagree all you like, but where the evidence suggest,[and ive already shown enough of it where it does, so please spare me from doing it again] or in Eddowes case doesn't suggest , ill sooner stick with knights theory.

[APerno]

This, I believe, is an example of false logic. You seem to be saying that because the identity of the killer remains unknown, then any theory carries equal weight with any other. This is untrue. There is evidence, albeit scant, which discounts some possibilities. As much as I enjoyed the inventiveness and sheer audacity of Knight's tale, it does not stand up to scrutiny. Mr Herlock Sholmes, a stalwart of these boards, pointed to some of these in post #274. The best chance of building a stronger Royal Conspiracy theory might be to invite Dan Brown to have a go.

The problem is, Herlock is part of the cover-up. He is Sickert's great-great nephew, spread it around.

[c.d.]

All theories are equal but some theories are more equal than others.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem is, Herlock is part of the cover-up. He is Sickert's great-great nephew, spread it around.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all APerno.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All theories are equal but some theories are more equal than others.

c.d.

Exactly c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dear me , were going over the same ground again i see Herlock , well ive already covered that area and explained the things you see as facts are not really facts at all ,only an opinion , so if you have trouble understanding or believing the motive , the means, and the opportunity of the whitechapel murders and the people involved in them according to knight, thats your right to do so.So disagree all you like, but where the evidence suggest,[and ive already shown enough of it where it does, so please spare me from doing it again] or in Eddowes case doesn't suggest , ill sooner stick with knights theory.

I’m sorry Fishy but this is purely and simply untrue.

I have repeatedly raised points that you have simply ignored because you have no answer.

You falsely claimed to be able to prove that the hospital that Crook was allegedly taken to existed when Simon Wood proved through proper research that it in fact didn’t. I asked for that proof but you’ve consistently ignored the question.

You falsely claimed to be able to show the errors in Simon’s research. I asked for that proof but you’ve consistently and resolutely ignored the question.

I pointed out you’re fallacious reasoning on Halse’s statement. You couldn’t even bring yourself to admit that you were wrong.

You consistently sneered at the suggestion that TOD estimates in the Victorian Era we’re capable of being wildly inaccurate due to poor knowledge. I and others quoted the experts that made this point categorically. You still refuse to even accept the possibility that Phillips might easily have been wrong.

You made the nonsensical statement that just because Joseph Sickert retracted his admission that he’d made the whole thing up that this was proof that he was genuine. You will not accept the transparent fallaciousness of this kind of logic.

And I’ve just, in post #274, mentioned 12 points against Knight’s theory. Have you responded? No,you’ve just rehashed the same old nonsense. Hardly surprising that no one takes you seriously Fishy? If you wanted posters to engage in debate and discussion with you and afford you some respect (the point of this Forum after all) here’s a few tips.

Don't make baseless statements.

Don't express opinions as fact.

Don't make claims and then wriggle and obfuscate in an attempt to avoid responding.

Don't dismiss the knowledge of forensic scientists purely because it’s convenient for you to do so.

Admit your errors.

[FISHY1118]

Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
Dear me , were going over the same ground again i see Herlock , well ive already covered that area and explained the things you see as facts are not really facts at all ,only an opinion , so if you have trouble understanding or believing the motive , the means, and the opportunity of the whitechapel murders and the people involved in them according to knight, thats your right to do so.So disagree all you like, but where the evidence suggest,[and ive already shown enough of it where it does, so please spare me from doing it again] or in Eddowes case doesn't suggest , ill sooner stick with knights theory.

There you go.. rinse and repeat.... if you just keep going over the same ground ill post the same reply .