Knights Reviews

[PaulB]

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

Yes, it struck the nerve that somebody could be so ignorant of the facts as to write such unmitigated nonsense. Do you really think there is anything in that review that merits repeating here?

[Michael W Richards]

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.

That's why his story makes a decent movie, its a good yarn. Even movies based on facts are just that..."based on". His premises are based on some Unsolved cases and are made to be dramatic in nature so as to capture an audience seeking entertainment...dramatic effect...not the people seeking the real truth.

[jmenges]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[FISHY1118]

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

[Enigma]

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.

[Fiver]

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.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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/artanddesign/2014/aug/18/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?

[Fiver]

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.

[Simon Wood]

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.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

[Elamarna]

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

[ohrocky]

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.

[PaulB]

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.