Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Knights Reviews

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Knights Reviews

    Two reviews from amazons books regarding Stephens Knight ''The Final Solution'' . I thought id post them here to let others see them, as they might reach a wider Ripperolgist audience.

    Ive put in bold some interesting points.

    REVIEW 1 .''Despite some holes, this book makes the most sense''.


    Ever had a nagging doubt about all the earlier proposed "solutions"? Like most, I never thought of more than one person being involved. While not obsessed over the Ripper's identity, I've read a lot of books over the years and always came away with the feeling that the author hadn't made a convincing case. This one does. Knight gets a lot of flak, but to me he got most of it right, and the book crystallized the many "but whys?". At worst, color me "Gullible".

    I gave it four stars because of Knight's tip 'o the derby research that unearthed info all the other "experts" missed. Namely, the common threads that while the bodies of the victims were scattered, all five lived within a hundred yards of each other and two visited the same pub (Britannia). With over 1,200 known prostitutes in Whitechapel (73,518 est. population in 1889), what are the odds they had something in common, besides their profession? (I'd like to see some statistician work on this. See Chap 9 "All roads lead to Dorset Street".) If not a Victorian version of Watergate, it was SOMETHING.

    I had a face-palm moment when Knight reproduced the only letter suspected of being from the real Ripper. He pointed out something that slid by me and all the others - the writer was an educated man making believe he wasn't. Two instances: knife spelled 'knif" when, if he really was uneducated, would have been more apt to write "nife" and "wile" rather than "whil". Yes, it could have been just an educated crackpot, but it surely wasn't by some of the Rippers proposed by others. That's the kind of attention to detail which sold me on this book.

    Much has been made of Joseph Sickert recanting his story, claiming it was all made up. I don't think so. One wonders, even at that late date, if someone gave him an "offer he couldn't refuse". His postscript to this book in 1984 shows no sign that he was unhappy with the "Third Man" conclusion and in fact, accepted it. Consider:
    1) Knight was vectored to him via a member of Scotland Yard, who, unless he was in on the scam, had reason to believe Joseph had info.
    2) He mentioned Netley, evidence of whom was only found after some deep digging (birth cert and newspaper article of his death) and the item of the Mary's child being run over. Again, what are the odds of Joseph knowing that? If he did know, he was placing an awful lot of faith in Knight or his team finding it.
    3) He was very reluctant to tell his story, and almost had a cow when a potential book was mentioned. If he was making it up, he was too coy by half. Too many of his claims checked out. The flip side is why would, or how could Knight make all this up? Most of his theory holds up.

    His claim of Masonic Overtones refuted, but note the similarities:
    1) Ritual method of killings and mutilations.
    2) Locations like Mitre square and Hanbury Street (Masonic lodges there).
    3) Eddowe's cut apron (allusion to the Masonic apron - a little iffy here)
    4) Coins and rings at the feet of one victim (representing columns of Solomon's Temple).
    5) While too much can be read into these "random" clues, what other associations could be attached to them? The symbolisms are too many to be coincidental.
    6) Obligations of other Masons to protect their members. (Royal Arch and above oaths.) What other common thread among officials could there be that would force them to cover up a crime, no matter how heinous??

    His claim of officials covering up evidence:
    1) Most of the upper level of the ruling classes belonged to the Masons, although I suspect it was more due to wanting to get on the inside track for advancement, or perhaps it was expected of them. Nothing sinister in itself. It's still being done today.
    2) Removal of Masonic symbolisms, such as the coins and rings at feet of one victim. It was reported in the newspapers at the time and Rumbelow (author) mentioned it once in passing. To me, it was significant.
    3) Over-the-top interference by inquest coroners to suppress anything that smacked of a Masonic tie-in.
    4) Royal Arch Masons and above were obliged to protect fellow members even in the case of murder or treason (I looked this up as I thought it a lot of baloney. Lots of mystical mumbo-jumbo there.) I was surprised that The Royal Arch was only the seventh degree as I thought it was much higher, so when you consider there are 33 degrees (depending upon which sect), all the upper echelon were in a bind - I can imagine major face-palms when the clues started popping up.
    5) The "Juwes" graffiti seems to be a false interpretation. But why was it erased when the offending word could have been scrubbed out, or the whole thing covered up? Why no photographs allowed to be taken? This seems to be a red herring tie-in but the circumstances are suspicious.
    6) Refusing to allow the probable eye-witness of Stride's murderer to testify at her inquest.

    His claim of Gull's involvement refuted:
    1) Clairvoyant Lee's statements about Gull refuted - It could well have been the malarky so prevalent in that game - except for Gull's granddaughter innocently mentioning a strikingly similar episode. Again, where's that statistician?
    2) His preference for grapes. Pretty far out as a connection, except that a stem originally found in one victim's hand was removed and evidently swept into the drain, (still a stretch), but - the non-follow-up of a fruit vendor's testimony who said he sold grapes to a man just before one of the murders. Why, when it could have been anyone?
    3) His stroke did not incapacitate him to the point of inactivity. The Straw Man theory that he was too enfeebled to attack the girls. If the women were sedated by the grapes, and Gull was in the carriage, he didn't have to attack them.
    4) Gull's death faked. Gravesite supposedly large enough to hold three bodies, hiding that Gull died later than advertised and buried for real. Not gonna happen, but ground radar would prove/disprove that there were more than two. Maybe not conclusive, but then who is No. 3 if only two are claimed?

    His claim of Walter Sickert's involvement:
    1) Others at the time distantly mentioned Sickert, so it wasn't as off-the-wall as I had thought. In 1970 Dr. Thomas Stowell claimed that he had identified the murderer from private papers of Sir William Gull, saying the suspect was 'S'. A few days later he died (of what cause?) and all his notes burned by his family. Now, he had 25 other letters to pick from, yet he chose "S"? Then he dies a few days after going public and all his info burned? Can "they" still have that much power 80 years later?
    2) Interesting interpretations of Sickert's dual/odd painting titles, especially "Blackmail", "La Hollandaise" and "Amphytrion" that alluded to the murders. If guilty of participating or even just enabling, it was the only way to let off steam without incurring the wrath of those behind the scenes. The guy seemed obsessive with the Ripper over and above the usual lurid interest these types of murders engender. See Marjorie Lilly's comments in "Sickert, the Painter and His Circle".
    3) Patricia Cornwell wrote a sloppy book on this (Portrait Of A Killer: Jack The Ripper), using DNA sampling. But, to my disgust, didn't give any credit to Knight for mentioning this angle.

    Holes/questions:
    1) The laws of royal succession forbade a catholic from gaining the throne, so why suppress the news that Eddy married a Catholic, unless the upper echelon were afraid of the anti-Catholic kickback of the public.
    2) If the butchery was done in the carriage, how did they keep the gore from leaking out? It seems to me that a carriage dripping blood would have raised a hue and cry, even on general principles.
    3) Some buildings Knight referred to didn't exist at the time.
    4) Sickert was supposed to have been in France in the autumn of 1888.

    Read the book and consider if Knight's interpretation doesn't make more sense than all those "lone gunman" scenarios proposed by other writers.






    ​​


    REVIEW 2 . ''A modern horror classic versus the "ripperologists"!



    Whether the book is true or not is, (for me), besides the point...although my gut feeling is that it is largely true; so much of it checks out with the known facts. The more Stephen Knight checked into Sickerts story, painstakingly researching into each and every detail Sickert had related, the more it seemed to check out. And there was no way Sickert could have learned all the details he was giving Knight unless he had heard it from someone with first-hand knowledge. ( which was the tip-off that had exposed his father Walter as the 'third man').
    But one thing seems certain; Stephen Knight and Joseph Sickert themselves certainly believed it, this was no con-man job.

    What Stephen Knight certainly DID achieve was a classic of modern horror tale, ranking with 'Frankenstein'; 'Dracula'; 'Dr Jekyll & Mister Hyde'; 'The Invisible Man'; etc.. The thought of 3 fiends, like those in his book, roaming the streets of gas-lit Victorian London, nonchalantly stalking and murdering their five intended victims one at a time until they got to the ultimate target, and dissecting the corpses in such a ghastly manner- as if such a bloody, defiled, hideously butchered 'Jezebel' had some profound symbolic significance for them..... it unsettles my stomach, and it even angers me. The absolute arrogance they had, the lack of feeling they must have had for these women (and for the people who they knew would end up discovering the mutilated bodies), is disturbing itself. What is equally frightening is the thought of police & high-level participation, even guidance. I mean, would William Gull be the mastermind, or was he only a unhinged weapon in the hands of a conspiracy of power that had absolutely no respect for the lives or feelings of the people they were supposed to protect? I know one thing though, if they actually HAD been so callous, this wouldn't have been the ONLY time they had done something so horrible, it would have taken practice.

    I first became aware of this book in 1988, when the late Stephen Knight appeared in an Australian TV special on the book which was then being shown in America on Public TV, and it blew me away. I then read the book. It has since been the inspiration for a television mini-series starring Michael Cain, and a popular graphic novel and film; "FROM HELL" starring Johnny Depp. ( an awful movie. It is sad that this is what is to be expected from modern Hollywood, in the wake of MTV I guess. Embarrassing, especially compared to the really good films that were being made just 30 years earlier. 'Senselessly Gratuitous', those are the words that sum up 'modern' film making.) A couple years after Knights book had first come out, in 1979, it had inspired one of the very best Sherlock Holmes movies; 'Murder By Decree', with James Mason as Watson. ... I always wondered what Stephen Knight thought of that film. But its good for him he did not survive to see 'FROM HELL'! That movie was as bad as all the 'ripperologists' words combined.

    After Stephen Knights early death, (in July 1985, at 33) his book, "Jack The Ripper, The Final Solution" became massively popular, which caused England's "ripperologist" community (who Knight had little respect for) to view it as a threat, ( I think they were just jealous of it) and to attempt to discredit him at every opportunity (something they never did while Knight was still living, by the way). They did this by getting his major source, Joseph Sickert, to publicly disclaim Knight ( they did this by provoking Sickert, reminding him how Knight had pointed the finger of guilt at Josephs father, Walter, which was, I think, the only instance where Knight had deviated from Sickerts account) It was extremely petty. They then rewarded Joseph Sickert for helping them in their attempt to discredit Knight by refusing to call him Sickert anymore, and then by telling the world that not only had his Father, Walter lied to him, but that it was doubtful that he was even related to his own Dad at all. (It makes calling his Father a part of the conspiracy seem small by comparison, right?) But that is how petty these 'ripperologists' are it seems, people like Phillip Sugden and Paul Begg, Donald Rumblow, etc etc. They like to tell us how Knights book is riddled with inaccuracies, but then they never offer any corroborating proof that it is in fact wrong on almost anything at all, instead they ridicule it by making things up:..... Gull was not even a Mason they claim; Joseph Sickert is not Walters son; John Netley never existed....these are some of the lies that these 'ripperologists' have been compelled to make-up, due to their resentment of Stephen Knights book. ( If Joseph weren't Walters son, then why did Joseph become so upset when Knight claimed Walter was the 'third man'?? He never forgave him for that either, Joseph felt betrayed by Knight, and seemed to get even more upset about it as time went on.) If Walter Sickert WASN'T Josephs biological father, he sure must have TREATED him like his son, and made Joseph either believe he was, or wish that he was. Most people will agree that this is just as important as BEING his actual biological father. But regardless, it has no bearing on what he told Joseph about the ripper!

    I mean, I would not be surprised to hear from these 'ripperologists' next that there has never, in England's entire history, been any anti Catholic feeling from the Royal family or British establishment whatsoever, and how dare Steven Knight ever imply such a thing! Or maybe they will claim that Freemasonry has always prided itself on its absolute transparency, and all this talk about secret rituals and hazings is nothing but rumor and innuendo, because Freemasonry and its members have never had any secrets from anybody in their entire history!

    And isn't it kind of ironic that these 'ripperologists', (or whatever they like to call themselves), isn't it ironic that they end up resenting the person and the book that has been responsible for making 'Jack The Ripper' such a controversial, even popular subject since the 1970's? I mean, if it weren't for Stephen Knight and this book of his that has made the 'ripperologists' feel so threatened and jealous, their own books wouldn't be selling even a fraction of the copies that they now do I bet. Not only that, but if it hadn't been for Stephen Knight, some of these so-called 'Ripperologists' wouldn't even have ever become interested in 'Jack The Ripper' in the first place, along with so many of the rest of us who now find the Whitechaple murders so compelling. And the book has had an equal impact on the arts as well, inspiring untold writers, film-makers, the Theater, etc.. We should be thanking Stephen Knight, not trying to discredit and ridicule him, that's my feeling! Because more than anything else, it has been the films, both Television films and theatrical releases - based on this theory set down by Stephen Knight in his engrossing book - that has made the story of 'Jack The Ripper' far more popular now, from the mid 1970s until today, than it had ever been in the 90 years before it. The films that name Sir ( Dr. ) William Withey Gull as the chief ripper.

    And by constantly wanting to ridicule Stephen Knight, these 'ripperologists' have told us a lot more truth about themselves than they ever have about either Knight, OR about 'Jack The Ripper'! But again, this is only my opinion about it

    The 'ripperologists' are the same people who tell us that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.F.K. The same people who will prove to you that Sirhan Sirhan couldn't have killed Bobby Kennedy, and they will tell you you are a fool if you believe he did. The Ripper crimes will never be solved for one reason: the "Ripperologists"! They claim to be the people who are trying to solve the crime, when in fact they are the very people who will prevent the crimes from ever being solved, because they will attack and ridicule any theory that they themselves didn't come up with. The crime has almost surely already been solved long ago, only the ripperologist has scoffed at the answer, laughed at the 'foolishness' of the person who solved it. And now the ripperologist smugly sits on his throne, feeling safe in the knowledge that he will always appear smarter than the person who is smarter than he ( or she ) is. And in this instance, regarding 'Jack The Ripper', the person who is smarter than they are was Stephen Knight.






















































    ​​

  • #2
    Many reviewers have praised Hallie Rubenhold’s research but that just because they took what she’d written at face value and without checking the actual facts. These two reviewers have done the same. In fact I’d take a guess that most ripperologists were impressed by the Knight/Sickert theory when they first read it but then, when researchers looked into it the story crumbled. This is why almost no one believes it today.

    Lets face it, we have a story told by Joseph Gorman, a man who told Colin Wilson that he regularly had tea with the Queen and that he’d been left paintings by Sickert’s third wife Therese (when we know this isn’t true) The guy was very clearly a fantasist and hardly a trustworthy source. It’s also worth mentioning the presence of Joseph’s friend Harry Jonas who Michael Parkin called “a great romancer.)

    Apart from Joseph we only have Jean Overton Fuller who ‘claimed’ to have a story about Sickert from her mother which she got from from Florence Pash. So we have third hand hearsay. Totally unsubstantiated. And strangely enough Violet Overton Fuller edited a collection of Pash’s letters from Walter Sickert because, according to her having “read much about Sickert.....(Florence) did not think that his unfailing kindness and gaiety of heart had been sufficiently emphasised.” Those letters date from 1890-1922 and, of course, none of them even hint at anything sinister about Sickert.

    Apart the five absolute howlers that came from Simon Wood’s research which I’ve mentioned numerous times (and which, despite claims, have never been disputed) we have other very obvious issues.

    The ‘alleged’ connection between the Sickert family and the Danish Royal Family. This comes from Joseph. Royal Archives have been searched and The Danish Royal Family can find absolutely no connection to Sickert. Zero. It’s also worth mentioning that, in 1888, Sickert was a nobody. A relatively unknown disciple of Whistler. Virtually penniless and totally reliant on his wife’s allowance to survive. He was also a part of a art movement that was absolutely shunned by the Establishment. Why on earth would Princess Alexandra select Sickert as a guide to the world of art for her wayward son? How many established and trusted artists would have fallen over themselves to have helped the Royal Family? The idea that Alexandra would have chosen Sickert is preposterous. It’s unlikely in the extreme that she’d even have heard of him.

    Would this ‘alleged’ secret marriage and blackmail plot have threatened to have toppled the Monarchy and led to the ripper murders? Of course not. The idea itself is ludicrous. For a start, the Royal Marriages act would have rendered it null and void as the Queen hadn’t given her consent. Obviously we know that Annie Crook wasn’t a Catholic but would the Royal Family have gone into panic? Why would they? They have been dealing with scandals for years. Look at Eddie’s father Bertie. An Olympian Philanderer. No issues there...he went on to be King even though his affairs were common knowledge. Would anyone have taken seriously a few gin-soaked prostitutes? Of course not. The Press would have, in a great majority, rallied round. If Sickert was trying to ingratiate himself with Royalty surely he’d have helped by denying everything. The whole story is quite laughable I’m afraid.

    Then we have the Government deciding how to ‘deal’ with the problem and coming up with a plan. You would have expected secrecy and discretion but no.....we get a plan that couldn’t have drawn more publicity and scrutiny. And who do they chose? The unknown Sickert and Netley and The Queen’s Physician Sir William Gull, a 71 year old recovering stroke victim. Can anyone seriously believe that Gull would have agreed to this? With all of the resources that they’d had available to them the government chose these three! Come on! How easy would it have been to have found some ex-soldier and set him the task of killing these women? Why didn’t they just pay them off? Why not just kill Crook as a warning to the rest? No...they left Crook alive! They kill the five but leave the one that was actually involved with the Prince alive and free. Oh yes, she was taken to a non-existant hospital for an operation by Gull (who wasn’t a surgeon.)

    Of course we then have doctors stating that the women were killed where they were found and no evidence to the contrary apart from the usual conspiracy thinking. No one sees or hears a posh horse and carriage in the early hours in the Whitechapel slums. No one sees two blokes carrying a body around.

    The whole story is an utter fantasy. A book could be written on why the Knight/Gorman story is a fairy tale. There’s so much against it.

    We know so much about Sickert. We can follow his life in letters and from the people that actually knew him. We know where he was and at what times (and there’s a very serious possibility that he was in France at the time of a couple of the murders) There’s nothing in his character...related by those that knew him well......that show that he was in any way evil or likely to have taken part in these murders. He was, at worst, self obsessed, a philanderer (obviously no problem with his penis there!) and, as he got older, quite eccentric. Certainly not even a bad person. Jack the Ripper? Not a chance.

    Ill say it again. The Knight/Gorman story is provable nonsense. It was proven nonsense 40 years ago and since then we have more evidence against it. It beggars belief that anyone could take this seriously and questions have to be asked when someone can be so wilfully blind to the evidence.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 11-06-2019, 12:20 PM.
    Regards

    Herlock






    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

    Comment


    • #3
      That second review is the biggest load of staggeringly ignorant tosh that I have read in a long time!

      However, I remain intrigued by Joseph Sickert's story. I met him several times and we got on very well together, and with Keith Skinner and Patricia Cornwell I met his widow and family, and I'm not at all sure that his story was invented by him from whole cloth. I have always been suspicious about Harry Jonas's role (who is Michael Parkin, Herlock?) and whilst I share Richard Whittington-Egan's opinion that Jean Overton Fuller was scrupulously honest, I have doubts about how accurately she remembered what her mother told her. The thing is, whilst it's easy to dismiss people as fantasists, sometimes with good reason, were they? Did they invent their stories from thin air, or was there some sort of factual basis? The thing is, there are a lot of old stories that we'd like to know the truth of, such as the North Country vicar, but nobody bothered with them at the time. Will future Ripperologists look back on us and wish that we bothered with Knight's story? It's probably too late now, so many of the people involved are now dead - Knight, Joseph, Jean, Harry Jonas, and so on. They're beyond being interviewed and questioned.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you Herlock.

        For Fishy's propaganda machine to even start rolling he must rebut Mr Wood's research. We can only draw our own conclusions that he ignores the points every time they are raised.

        Knight's book is a good read still as long as it is read as historical fiction and not as historical fact.

        Comment


        • #5
          Reviews by people with little knowledge of a subject are worthless from a research standpoint.
          Such do nothing to support a theory.
          Steve

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
            Reviews by people with little knowledge of a subject are worthless from a research standpoint.
            Such do nothing to support a theory.
            Steve
            Don't be so quick to discard Amazon as a source of knowledge. Have you read some of those "3 wolves moon" reviews? Powerful stuff.
            Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

            Comment


            • #7
              The Knight/Sickert theory has more holes in it than a tramp's vest, as does the Fairclough/Sickert theory.

              It has been claimed [I'm not certain originally by whom] that in July 1970 at the age of 44, Joseph Gorman decided to change his name by Deed Poll from Gorman to Gorman-Sickert, and there is a solicitor's letter floating around which purports to lend credence to this idea.

              However, no official record of this Change of Name is to be found in the London Gazette archives or in the J18 indexes at the National Archives.

              Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

              But in the UK you don't need to bother with a Deed Poll in order to change your name. You just do it. And I believe this is the tack Joseph Gorman took.

              Electoral Register 2003-2004 Mr. Joseph W. Sickert
              Electoral Register 2003-2004 Mrs Edna C. Sickert

              Death Certificate Jan 2003 Joseph William Gorman-Sickert
              Name and Surname of Informant—Edna Constance Gorman

              Joseph's death was registered under both names—

              Joseph William Gorman—Register No. D56A—Entry No. 250/1D
              Joseph William Gorman-Sickert—Register No. D56A—Entry No. 250/1D

              I am told that dual registration is a fairly common occurence.

              As Paul says, it's too late to interview any of the parties involved, so please make of all this what you will.
              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                After Stephen Knights early death, (in July 1985, at 33) his book, "Jack The Ripper, The Final Solution" became massively popular, which caused England's "ripperologist" community (who Knight had little respect for) to view it as a threat, ( I think they were just jealous of it) and to attempt to discredit him at every opportunity (something they never did while Knight was still living, by the way).
                Like most everything in both of the reviews, the bolded sentence is flatly wrong. Negative reviews of Knight's Final Solution started in 1976, the year it was published. This is hardly surprising, since the core that the whole theory is based on is provably false. Annie Crook was not a Catholic. Prince Albert Victor wasn't even in England when Alice Crook was conceived.



                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                  That second review is the biggest load of staggeringly ignorant tosh that I have read in a long time!

                  However, I remain intrigued by Joseph Sickert's story. I met him several times and we got on very well together, and with Keith Skinner and Patricia Cornwell I met his widow and family, and I'm not at all sure that his story was invented by him from whole cloth. I have always been suspicious about Harry Jonas's role (who is Michael Parkin, Herlock?) and whilst I share Richard Whittington-Egan's opinion that Jean Overton Fuller was scrupulously honest, I have doubts about how accurately she remembered what her mother told her. The thing is, whilst it's easy to dismiss people as fantasists, sometimes with good reason, were they? Did they invent their stories from thin air, or was there some sort of factual basis? The thing is, there are a lot of old stories that we'd like to know the truth of, such as the North Country vicar, but nobody bothered with them at the time. Will future Ripperologists look back on us and wish that we bothered with Knight's story? It's probably too late now, so many of the people involved are now dead - Knight, Joseph, Jean, Harry Jonas, and so on. They're beyond being interviewed and questioned.

                  The second review is an absolute shocker. Facts mean absolutely nothing to some people.

                  I don’t know for certain who Michael Parkin is Paul but Sturgis quotes him calling Jonas a great romancer. This is possibly/probably him:

                  https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...michael-parkin

                  Id certainly like to know the origin of the story. I certainly don’t believe in the Knight theory as a solution to the case as it’s been thoroughly rebutted but who started it? Harry Jonas always struck me as someone in the background. If he was a ‘great romancer’ then he might have listened to some of Joseph’s family stories and then tried to modify and exaggerate them purely as a way of making money. Sturgis does claim that along with the fact that so many holes in the story had been revealed the other reason for Sickert calling the whole story ‘a whopping fib’ was due to a dispute over the proceeds from Knight’s book? I don’t know how true this is though?
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well, with reference to my post in the "JTR A cottage industry?" thread, defending a position or promoting ideas has to be based on honest and open discussion, accepting others views though not necessarily agreeing with them and being able to answer critics.

                    I'm at a loss to see how cherry picking some random reviews by anonymous buyers on Amazon does anything to forward this debate? I'm glad they felt they got value for money, but is this really the most solid defence of the Royal Involvement?

                    I presume there weren't any bad reviews?
                    Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                      Well, with reference to my post in the "JTR A cottage industry?" thread, defending a position or promoting ideas has to be based on honest and open discussion, accepting others views though not necessarily agreeing with them and being able to answer critics.

                      I'm at a loss to see how cherry picking some random reviews by anonymous buyers on Amazon does anything to forward this debate? I'm glad they felt they got value for money, but is this really the most solid defence of the Royal Involvement?

                      I presume there weren't any bad reviews?
                      Here's a 3 star review from Amazon.

                      "Interesting read, but entirely a work of fiction."

                      When I was younger, we had a copy of this book, but I never read it. I remember being haunted by the mutilated remains of Mary Kelly photograph. I found a copy in a used book store last year, so I picked it up. It was only after the purchase did I take a closer look at it & saw it was based on the Royal conspiracy nonsense.

                      Still, I decided to read it anyway, & I did find it to be an interesting tale, but as I knew the conspiracy was debunked (I did some reading on one of the major Jack the Ripper sites), I wasn't sure what else was made up or what was fact. There are some interesting things here, but thats it.

                      It might be worth reading to understand the conspiracy theory aspect, but it shouldn't be taken as truth.




                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                        I'm at a loss to see how cherry picking some random reviews by anonymous buyers on Amazon does anything to forward this debate? I'm glad they felt they got value for money, but is this really the most solid defence of the Royal Involvement?

                        I presume there weren't any bad reviews?
                        Well said. We have no idea who the reviewers are and with what knowledge they have on the subject or what research they have done to back up their conclusions. These reviews are worthless as evidence to support Knight's hypothesis.

                        In fact, Amazon have another lengthy review of the book claiming that, [quote] "George Chapman/Severin Klosowski (both the same guy) was almost without doubt Jack-the-Ripper" [unquote], which only goes to show that one can be selective in choosing what one wishes to present in support of one's case.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I guess review 2 struck a nerve with the Ripperoligist brigade, good to hear from the usual suspects with their predicted responses.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                            I guess review 2 struck a nerve with the Ripperoligist brigade, good to hear from the usual suspects with their predicted responses.

                            Oh so this is your new approach is it? The old “ripperologists sticking together and not wanting to accept different thinking....blah, blah” This is the mantra of the person with the wild theory that no one else gives credence to. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me if you’d written one of those reviews yourself.What would be the value of me questioning the theories of Stephen Hawking? None, because I know nothing about physics. So why should we pay attention to the opinions of two reviews who obviously know nothing on the subject? As other posters have said, it’s not as if everyone rejected the theory immediately. Most of us were intrigued by the theory. Many of us really wanted it to be the so,union to the case. But when research was done and facts were checked the story crumbled.

                            What surprises me with you Fishy is that, on the one hand, you repeatedly refuse to back up any of your claims to be able to refute research and you avoid any discussion on the details and yet, on the other hand, you take an almost personal offence if someone questions Knight. Why is this? I don’t know of anyone else who gets so “offended” by criticism of a theory that they support. I have to ask this question Fishy (and I’m not being sarcastic here) but are you, in any way, related to Stephen Knight? This might, in some way, explain your utter devotion in the face of a Mount Everest of evidence against this blatantly untrue theory.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                              I guess review 2 struck a nerve with the Ripperoligist brigade, good to hear from the usual suspects with their predicted responses.
                              Hi Fishy,
                              You’ve just returned from a time-out.
                              Now if you’ve only started yet another thread (that I had to move to it’s proper subforum) so you can mock those who respond to it, you’ll be taking a longer vacation from the boards.
                              Stop the trolling.
                              Final warning.

                              JM

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X