Tweet
I have two reasons for creating this thread. Firstly as an attempt to focus any discussion of the Knight/Sickert Theory which has tended to spill out onto other threads and has become a distraction to posters discussing other topics. Secondly, it’s an attempt to give an opportunity for any doubts to be discussed or defended. Previously I’ve raised issues that we are all aware of regarding the story. It has been stated that these issues can be overcome and that previous rebuttals can themselves be rebutted. To date no rebuttals have been posted though. Questions have been avoided and the subject has been changed. This is an opportunity for those points to be made and evidence presented for discussion. Whether this will happen is another matter of course. I’ll list the points numerically for ease of response.
There’s more of course but I’ll leave it at that. The opportunity is here for any of these points, and others, to be debated or disputed if anyone feels inclined to do so. It’s not good enough to simply propose a theory and then to respond to criticism by saying things like “people don’t understand the complexity of the Knight theory,” or “ doubters just haven’t done the necessary research.” This research has been done and it’s a hats off to Simon for doing the original research which exposed the falsehoods. I still find it an interesting story though and like Paul Begg I’d love to know for certain how it originated and grew. I fear that it’s too late for that though but who knows what might turn up? There’s one thing that we can be certain of though....this is simply not the solution to the case. Can anyone name another theory that has so many provable falsehood’s propping it up.
So know is the chance for ‘evidence’ to be presented. For the alleged ‘rebuttals’ to be presented. I’m not exactly holding my breath to be honest but I’m willing to discus them.
- A connection between Sickert’s family and the Danish Royal Family has been suggested as the reason why Princess Alexandra entrusted part of her son’s education to Walter Sickert. The problem is that there appears to be no evidence of this ‘connection.’ Sickert’s grandfather Johann Jürgen was a decorative painter who, according to Sickert himself, was employed by the Royal Palaces of Christian VIII of Denmark. The Danish Royal Archives have no record of this employment though so this appears to be a baseless claim. And with droves of established artists who would no doubt have been falling over themselves to ingratiate themselves with the a Royal Family we have to ask.....why Sickert? At the time of the murders Sickert was not only an unknown but he was also a part of an art movement (under Whistler) that was roundly rejected by the art establishment.
- We know the story of Annie being a Catholic and that she and Eddy allegedly went through a Catholic wedding ceremony but, in the St. Marylebone Workhouse Creed Register Annie and her daughter Alice Margaret are listed as Church Of England. (From the research of Simon Wood)
- The Knight story has Annie living at 6 Cleveland Street but between 1886 and early 1888 no’s 4 to 14 were demolished and replaced by a red brick block of flats called Cleveland Residences which are still there today. (From the research of Simon Wood)
- To make things ‘fit’ Knight claims that Annie Elizabeth Crook and Elizabeth Cook were one and the same person but the Rate Books show that Elizabeth continued to live at Cleveland Residences until 1893 so they were very obviously two different people and entirely unconnected. Further proof are the admission forms to the Endell Street Workhouse of January 22nd 1889 when Annie and her daughter were admitted. She was destitute but had been living at No. 9 Pitt Street, Tottenham Court Road. At the same time that Cook was living at Cleveland Residences.(From the research of Simon Wood)
- On Sickerts alleged studio at number 15 Cleveland Street. In 1886 numbers 15 and 17 were demolished for the building of the Middlesex Hospital Trained Nurses Institute. (From the research of Simon Wood.) It has been suggested, in defence of Knight, that Sickert had many studios and that this is a minor error. The problem is that Joseph was very specific in giving the address as number 15. At the time of the murders Sickert was close to penniless and almost completely reliant on his wife’s allowance to live and work. Sickert’s habit of regularly changing studios didn’t begin until the late 1890’s. We have documented records of Sickert’s many studios and Cleveland Street is never mentioned. The nearest was Fitzroy Square but he didn’t acquire that one until 1898.
- Knight states “The St. George’s Club ran a hospital at 367 Fulham Road, where Annie Elizabeth Crook died. This new evidence indicates how the Freemason’s in charge of the cover-up could have handled the incarceration of Annie Elizabeth.” This address was actually the Fulham Road Workhouse. (From the research of Simon Wood)
- Knight obvious puts Annie’s decline down to Gull’s operation (and let’s not forget that Gull was a Physician and not a Surgeon) but as we know (again from Simon Wood’s research) Annie’s mother Sarah Anne suffered from epilepsy so a more likely explanation is that Elizabeth inherited the illness.
- Why would these conspirators have no issue with butchering 5 women purely because they might have known something inconvenient to the Monarchy and yet they leave the cause of these problems, Annie Crook, alive? Why didn’t they simply kill her too? This makes no sense.
- The alleged words of Florence Pash have been cited as corroboration for the story but we have no such actual words. We have a story allegedly told by Pash to Violet Overton-Fuller who in turn told her daughter Jean. Hardly cast-iron is it? It’s also strange that Violet Overton-Fuller edited a compilation of Sickert’s letters to Pash because “ having read so much about Sickert......[Florence] did not think that his unfailing kindness and gaiety of heart had been sufficiently emphasised.” These letters dated from 1890 until 1922 and contained notes from Pash herself. Rather surprisingly she forgets to mention that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. How careless of her!
- Why would the Monarchy be concerned about some alleged marriage between Eddy and Annie when they knew that this marriage was null and void under The Royal Marriages Act? Eddy needed Victoria’s consent. Would any Vicar have refused to have kept silent if he’d been told to “forget” that the marriage ceremony ever happened? Of course not.
- All of the evidence shows that the women were killed where they were found. This is what those investigating the crime scenes at the time believed and today we have no evidence otherwise except for those that doubt whether the killer of Eddowes would have been able to have done what he did under those conditions and in the time available. No one reported seeing or hearing a posh horse and carriage in the slums of Whitechapel and we have to assume that it would have to have been left near to the crime scenes as it’s even harder to imagine two men carrying a mutilated corpse through the streets.
- Would the Government have been driven to such drastic measures by a gaggle of prostitutes peddling a fantastic story? Let’s face it, Eddy’s father Bertie was a philander of Olympian standards. His affairs were common knowledge and yet there was no question of him not becoming King. Would the respectable newspapers have published this scandalous story? The establishment would have closed ranks.
- Where did this story originate? A secret marriage, a secret ‘Royal’ baby and a potential cover-up by the Establishment? A very plausible possible source for this story can be read in Simon’s ‘Deconstructing Jack’ in the chapter headed titled The Malta Story. It’s too long for me to relate here though.
There’s more of course but I’ll leave it at that. The opportunity is here for any of these points, and others, to be debated or disputed if anyone feels inclined to do so. It’s not good enough to simply propose a theory and then to respond to criticism by saying things like “people don’t understand the complexity of the Knight theory,” or “ doubters just haven’t done the necessary research.” This research has been done and it’s a hats off to Simon for doing the original research which exposed the falsehoods. I still find it an interesting story though and like Paul Begg I’d love to know for certain how it originated and grew. I fear that it’s too late for that though but who knows what might turn up? There’s one thing that we can be certain of though....this is simply not the solution to the case. Can anyone name another theory that has so many provable falsehood’s propping it up.
So know is the chance for ‘evidence’ to be presented. For the alleged ‘rebuttals’ to be presented. I’m not exactly holding my breath to be honest but I’m willing to discus them.
Comment