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

[Herlock Sholmes]

No answers. No substance. No reason. No integrity.

A laughing stock.

[FISHY1118]

Already answered, with plenty of substance and evidence to back it up , with great reason, and i sleep well at night , thank you . have you had enough yet ? best you just let people have their opinions on this forum if you dont agree move on, or we can go on like this for as long as you like . im good .

[Herlock Sholmes]

You’ve answered none of the questions.

Point me to where you’ve answered the points and questions Ive mentioned over the last few days and I won’t ask again.

Theres a challenge for you.

Prove me wrong.

Go on.

[FISHY1118]

yer tried that when i gave you the answers you wanted weeks ago when we first started on knights theory remember.? j.s retraction , gulls minor stroke . 3 time of deaths that were correct, chapman and eddows murders that a lot of the evidence and witnesses statements that conflict each other, at the very least give possibility to a theory you suggest is impossible .

[Herlock Sholmes]

yer tried that when i gave you the answers you wanted weeks ago when we first started on knights theory remember.? j.s retraction , gulls minor stroke . 3 time of deaths that were correct, chapman and eddows murders that a lot of the evidence and witnesses statements that conflict each other, at the very least give possibility to a theory you suggest is impossible .

More dishonesty. Not the questions I was talking about as you well know. I’ll even show you again.

Question One > You claimed that you could prove the existence of the hospital that Simon proved non-existent. Prove it then.

Question Two > You claimed to have found flaws in Simon’s research. Show us the flaws then.

Question Three > You claimed it asa fact that Gull was interviewed by Abberline over The Whitechapel Murders. I asked where you got that information from. You repeatedly ignored the question. Feel free to answer it now.


Those are just three questions that I’ve put to you around 10 times and every single time you haven’t even acknowledged them but tried to change the subject. As you will no doubt do again now.

You now have another opportunity to either a) answer them now, or b) point meto the post number where you’ve answered these exact questions.

Will you?

Of course you won’t.

And by the way, on the TOD issue, try finding a moderately intelligent toddler who can explain it to you. I’m tired of wasting my time trying to explain something to a man of no medical expertise who believes that he has greater knowledge than every forensic scientist on the planet.

[FISHY1118]

Yer see thats right isn't it. It suit your modern day medical experts opinion when you need it too, but not when it comes to Eddowes ,when the same medical experts say its impossible to do all that was done to her in 5 minutes . i give you gulls minor stroke explanation and you choose to believe a newspaper article that says otherwise ... its a merry go round, theirs no proof either way just possibilities , and which one you choose to believe, and this is the case in the entire jtr murders.


so you'll get nothing else from me until you accept whats good for argument is good for another... i.e medical experts opinions works both ways .

[FISHY1118]

And by the way, on the TOD issue, try finding a moderately intelligent toddler who can explain it to you. I’m tired of wasting my time trying to explain something to a man of no medical expertise who believes that he has greater knowledge than every forensic scientist on the planet.

My my ,you are so confused when it comes to medical expertise , were 3 doctor correct in their time of death estimate ? SIMPLE ANSWER.. YES . But i get it it a little to simple for you huh

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yer see thats right isn't it. It suit your modern day medical experts opinion when you need it too, but not when it comes to Eddowes ,when the same medical experts say its impossible to do all that was done to her in 5 minutes . i give you gulls minor stroke explanation and you choose to believe a newspaper article that says otherwise ... its a merry go round, theirs no proof either way just possibilities , and which one you choose to believe, and this is the case in the entire jtr murders.


so you'll get nothing else from me until you accept whats good for argument is good for another... i.e medical experts opinions works both ways .

It’s staggering the dishonest depths that you will sink to to avoid answering questions.

Youve been found out Fishy

Ive asked those questions around 12 times! You’ve never previously given a reason why you won’t answer I till now. You’ve just ignored them. Now you need an excuse not to answer.

You have no answers Fishy

Or integrity.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My my ,you are so confused when it comes to medical expertise , were 3 doctor correct in their time of death estimate ? SIMPLE ANSWER.. YES . But i get it it a little to simple for you huh

Last time Fishy

Do you accept the fact......the fact.......that TOD’s could be wildly inaccurately? Not that they might not sometimes be correct (I’ve never denied that because it’s obvious)

But it’s more obvious to get something complex wrong like a TOD estimation than it is to get something wrong like looking into a yard and making a judgment on whether there was a mutilated corpse present.

[FISHY1118]

But it’s more obvious to get something complex wrong like a TOD estimation than it is to get something wrong like looking into a yard and making a judgment on whether there was a mutilated corpse present.

Not if he was standing on the step with the door open to his left while he looked to his right to see if the lock was on the shed door, then his judgement was definitely wrong if you ask me .

Do you accept the fact......the fact.......that TOD’s could be wildly inaccurately? Not that they might not sometimes be correct (I’ve never denied that because it’s obvious)

You have denied it more than once , what is a fact is that they were right on the 3 occasions where time of death was concerned , that was the original statement i made all those posts ago, and all you had to do is say yes fishy they were right, but in OTHER cases they could have been incorrect as well. but you chose not to, instead you just mocked their opinion as if they had no idea what they were taking about . ..fisherman was right, you only ever see one side of the evidence and only one way of interpreting it , and thats a no no my friend .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not if he was standing on the step with the door open to his left while he looked to his right to see if the lock was on the shed door, then his judgement was definitely wrong if you ask me .

Luckily, no one does ask you. The fact of the matter is that he wasn’t standing on the step looking to his right. That’s just wish-thinking on your part. We have it from Richardson’s own mouth. He sat on the step. He could see the entire yard. He couldn’t possible have missed a mutilated corpse. It’s very simple Fishy. Inconvenient perhaps but still simple.

You have denied it more than once , what is a fact is that they were right on the 3 occasions where time of death was concerned , that was the original statement i made all those posts ago, and all you had to do is say yes fishy they were right, but in OTHER cases they could have been incorrect as well. but you chose not to, instead you just mocked their opinion as if they had no idea what they were taking about . ..fisherman was right, you only ever see one side of the evidence and only one way of interpreting it , and thats a no no my friend .

Nope, I’ve never said that TOD’s could never be correct.

Another challenge for you that you will ignore like you do with anything that you can’t answer....

Please point out the exact post where I’ve said that TOD’s could never be correct. You said - more than once - however I’ll accept only one example.

Have fun looking.

You were the one who has mocked the fact that TOD’s could be inaccurate by the way.

[FISHY1118]

Inspector Joseph Chandler was the first policeman on the scene when he was informed of the murder at 6:10 a.m. He interviewed John Richardson at about 6:45 that morning and was told "he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

The Coroner: Did he say anything about cutting his boot?

Chandler "No." ¹⁸

The Foreman of the jury then made the point that it was possible that the back door, which opened outwards into the yard and towards where the body was lying, obscured the body from view to one just standing at the top of the stairs. If, however, Richardson had gone down into the yard he was bound to see it. Chandler could only reiterate his earlier testimony and answer that Richardson had told him that"he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot." ¹⁹

What Chandler was led to believe was that Richardson's visit was quick and cursory, that he merely opened the backdoor and took a brief glance down to his right as he stood at the top of the steps and saw that the lock was still on the cellar door and then went off to work. If this first story was true then it is doubtful that Richardson would have noticed the body of Annie Chapman lying in the yard to his left. By the 10th of September, however, Richardson seems to have changed his story and it was reported that "Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot." ²⁰ This second story was repeated to the coroner when the market porter testified at the inquest two days later on the 12th.

"I went to 29, Hanbury street, between 4.45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in....

The Coroner: Did you go into the yard?

Richardson: No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door." ²¹

Which of the two versions was correct? Which version is to be trusted
Read the above line out load just so your mind can hear it . like i said you take only what you want from Richardsons testimony. the above line means that any side of Richardsons statements could be argued one way or the other .

[FISHY1118]

Your opinion was never asked whether or not t.o.d could be correct ,it was when explained to you that 3 doctors were right in their medical opinions when asked to give a t.o.d . your reply was that ''they could be wildly inaccurate , guesswork at best'' . Thats what you said .

Again you have confused yourself . But your good at lately

[Herlock Sholmes]

Inspector Joseph Chandler was the first policeman on the scene when he was informed of the murder at 6:10 a.m. He interviewed John Richardson at about 6:45 that morning and was told "he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

The Coroner: Did he say anything about cutting his boot?

Chandler "No." ¹⁸

The Foreman of the jury then made the point that it was possible that the back door, which opened outwards into the yard and towards where the body was lying, obscured the body from view to one just standing at the top of the stairs. If, however, Richardson had gone down into the yard he was bound to see it. Chandler could only reiterate his earlier testimony and answer that Richardson had told him that"he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot." ¹⁹

What Chandler was led to believe was that Richardson's visit was quick and cursory, that he merely opened the backdoor and took a brief glance down to his right as he stood at the top of the steps and saw that the lock was still on the cellar door and then went off to work. If this first story was true then it is doubtful that Richardson would have noticed the body of Annie Chapman lying in the yard to his left. By the 10th of September, however, Richardson seems to have changed his story and it was reported that "Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot." ²⁰ This second story was repeated to the coroner when the market porter testified at the inquest two days later on the 12th.

"I went to 29, Hanbury street, between 4.45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in....

The Coroner: Did you go into the yard?

Richardson: No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door." ²¹

Which of the two versions was correct? Which version is to be trusted
Read the above line out load just so your mind can hear it . like i said you take only what you want from Richardsons testimony. the above line means that any side of Richardsons statements could be argued one way or the other .

I suggest that its you than needs to read properly properly and not to see sinister things where none exist.

Even when he was at the Inquest saying that he’d sat on the steps this was still said:

The Coroner: Did you go into the yard?

Richardson: [I]No, the yard door was shut.

So we have Richardson saying that he didn’t go into the yard even though he was also saying that he’d sat on the steps. He didn’t equate sitting on the step with actually going into the yard. And so what appears to have happened was the he simply told Chandler that he didn’t actually go into the yard which gave Chandler an impression:

What Chandler was led to believe was that Richardson's visit was quick and cursory.

So, can we think of any reason why Richardson didn’t initially mention sitting on the step? I’d say that it would have been unlikely for Richardson to have wanted to place himself at a crime scene with a knife so he probably just initially neglected to mention the fact that he’d sat on the step. And then when it was pointed out that he might have missed the body if he’d just stood on the top step to check the cellar doors he was compelled to elaborate that he’d actually sat on the steps.

Which of the two versions was correct? Which version is to be trusted.

A little ironic that you should ask this question and put so much significance to it Fishy. When Joseph Sickert admitted that his story was a lie and then later on retracted you had no such qualms about which version to believe. For you it was the second version simply because you felt that Joe’s explanation was sufficient to constitute proof. Why not the same here? Richards second, fuller version is obviously the likeliest to have been correct and the full story

Richardson had no doubt at all that he could have seen the whole of the yard. No doubt whatsoever. The suggestion that he was so stupid that he didn’t realise that the door blocked a space where the corpse could have been is laughable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your opinion was never asked whether or not t.o.d could be correct ,it was when explained to you that 3 doctors were right in their medical opinions when asked to give a t.o.d . your reply was that ''they could be wildly inaccurate , guesswork at best'' . Thats what you said .

Again you have confused yourself . But your good at lately

This cannot be put down to error on your part Fishy. This is simple dishonesty....again.

I never once, ever stated that the 3 doctors were wrong. I’ve even said that they were correct.

If you disagree with the above then I Again invite you to provide evidence. Show me the post where I said this....good luck with that. You can add this challenge to the one that you’ve ignored from #294

What I’ve repeatedly said....because it’s true.......is that TOD estimations at that time could be wildly inaccurate. This is a fact that only you appear to disagree with. Just because doctors got it right 3 times it’s not correct to say that they got it right all of the time.