Knights Reviews

[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.

[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?

[Fiver]

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

It take it you wrote review #2 then? You seem to be taking the criticism of it personally.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It take it you wrote review #2 then? You seem to be taking the criticism of it personally.

I do suspect that this might be the case Fiver. Why would anyone ‘outside’ of Ripperology make the following claim?

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,

Quite a few posters on here have said that Knight’s book had an effect on them when they first read it. Personally I’d love it to have been the solution. Why would someone unconnected to the subject; who had simply read the Knight book have made this statement?

[FISHY1118]

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.

Seriously jmenges ? i cant believe you feel it necessary to to take that stance , Ive simply posted a topic open for anyone to comment which they did . My reply was neither insulting or mocking, it was just a obsevation. Yet you choose to warn me with another suspension .It seems to me that this site does not like the knight topic full stop when it comes to discussing or posting anything to do with . Yet its perfectly ok for some to trash it with all kinds of nasty worded descriptions , how is that fair ?.

Now if i had said, as one poster on another thread so eloquently put to another, ''that he has his head up his own ars''..... you might have a good reason for that suspension . im sure his warning is forthcoming is it not ?

As for my support for knight /sickert, sure other posters can disagree with them all they like, that there right of course, and ive tried to respect that, but when their insults and mocking and rubbishing of his book continues on , then i will comment accordingly.

Just for the record the two reviews that i put up are not mine, they were taken from the amazon book reviews on the official site , nor am i related to knight.

[FISHY1118]

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.

Im curious Paul, just why you remain intrigued by Joseph Sickert story? , having met him several times have you not been able say whether or not you think he was lying and that he made the whole thing up ?

Also RWE,s opinion on Jean Overton Fuller, why the doubt, does not her mothers story mimic Joseph Sickerts?

Two Questions arise , how could Jean Overton Fullers mother tell the same story Joseph Sicket told to Knight some thirty years before ? and second, who on earth would anybody go to all the trouble of writing researching and publishing a book claiming the same story when the Sickert/ Knight book by then was well a truly seen as a fairytale.?. Florence Pash and Felicity Lowdes surely add many unanswered questions regarding j.s

I think theres more to Joseph Sickerts story than people realize , but im sure you already know that .

[PaulB]

Im curious Paul, just why you remain intrigued by Joseph Sickert story? , having met him several times have you not been able say whether or not you think he was lying and that he made the whole thing up ?

Also RWE,s opinion on Jean Overton Fuller, why the doubt, does not her mothers story mimic Joseph Sickerts?

Two Questions arise , how could Jean Overton Fullers mother tell the same story Joseph Sicket told to Knight some thirty years before ? and second, who on earth would anybody go to all the trouble of writing researching and publishing a book claiming the same story when the Sickert/ Knight book by then was well a truly seen as a fairytale.?. Florence Pash and Felicity Lowdes surely add many unanswered questions regarding j.s

I think theres more to Joseph Sickerts story than people realize , but im sure you already know that .

I met Joseph several times and I liked him. I think he completely believed his story, he described things with sincerity, and, beyond the improbability of what he described, I had no factual basis for disbelieving him. When he did say something that I knew to be wrong, he accepted it, and on one notable occasion over dinner with Paul Feldman, he looked genuinely shocked when something was pointed out to him as if a deeply trusted source of some sort was shown to be wrong. The point of all this is that it isn't easy to tell if somebody is lying if that person believes what they are saying, and it was not possible (for me anyway) to tell whether he was lying. I am not alone in that either.

Yes, Jean Overton Fuller's story does mimic Joseph Sickert's, but then she had read and been influenced by Stephen Knight's book, even repeating undisputed errors made by Knight, so how much of her story was knowingly or unknowingly influenced by her reading of Knight? Secondly, Violet Overton Fuller spoke about Sickert piecemeal, revealing bits here and there rather than in one straightforward narrative. Jean was making sense of the bits and pieces, so did she make a correct sense or a sense in which important bits were filled in by Knight? These and a lot of other questions have to be answered.

Why on earth would Jean have written her book? Because she believed that her mother had told a story and been a part of that story that was strikingly similar to Stephen Knight's. She was, I thought, honest and sincere. Richard Whittington-Egan has said the same. So have others. But Richard also said she was gullible and perhaps not as critical of her sources as she should have been. Nevertheless, Jean and the tale she told, so often dismissed out of hand, remain to be resolved.

I have no idea what Felicity Lowndes has contributed to this topic except causing some trouble.

I have made no secret of the fact that I am interested in the origins of Joseph Sickert's story, which means that I do not accept that he invented all of it. I think it is possible that he was the son of Walter Sickert - there is the royalty payment made to him, the Andrina Schweider letter, and the "Boy Jos" painting; none of it is remotely conclusive, but it could support Joseph's claim - and that there is a remote possibility that some version of his story was told by Walter Sickert. Walter may not have been Jack the Ripper, but there are plenty of good reasons that make him a someone justifiably worth looking at. Patricia Cornwell may have gone way over the top and attributing all the Ripper letters to him and ascribing various other murders across the country to his hand may have done much to damage her credibility, but she did bring to light some intriguing information, such as the Schweider letter, that readers of her book completely overlook.

Now, having answered your questions, perhaps you would answer mine - that second review is utter rubbish, tosh almost from beginning to end. The level of ignorance is remarkable. It was written by somebody who doesn't like Ripperologists and has bizarre ideas about what they do. To be frank, it baffles me why you bothered to reproduce it here. Either you share the opinions of the writer, in which case I'm sure you would be angry and insulted by the obvious conclusion that would be drawn, or you think there is some merit in it. What merit do you see in it?

[FISHY1118]

Thanks Paul for your response , just one thing if i may ,and feel free to explain it to me, but according to Jean Overton Fullers book it was her mother Violet who told her the story in 1947, so she knew long before knights book about the Sickert story.

So again im just wondering how did Violet Overton Fuller and Joseph Sickert tell the same story [ both from the original sourse Walter Sickert , Florence Pash via Sickert to Violet ] years apart without knowing the other person existed ?

IM also curious and wondering why ''if'' 'Joseph was Walters son and he claimed Walter told him the story when he was 14 in 1939 why he waited all his adult life to tell knight the story in 1973 ?

Btw Joseph was 8yrs old when Violet told Jean what Florence Pash related to her the Walter Sicket story.

For me its not whether i think there's any merit in the 2nd review, thats something you'd have to ask its author. However i will say i agree with certain parts of it ,others not so much.

IF i had to guess why it was reproduced here on this forum ? probably because theres so much anti knight /sickert negativity thats been posted of late around here which some find just as annoying as review 2 . Or maybe because its just jack the ripper related, ill let others be the judge .

[Herlock Sholmes]

ith certain parts of it ,others not so much.

IF i had to guess why it was reproduced here on this forum ? probably because theres so much anti knight /sickert negativity thats been posted of late around here which some find just as annoying as review

Two questions (again)

1. Why do you get so passionate about defending Knight’s honour? He was a writer like any other who produced a book and when a writer produces a non-fiction book they expect scrutiny and criticism. Knight’s book has been scrutinised and has been found wanting. Do you think that researchers should remain silent if they find errors for fear of offending the writer’s memory?

2. If you disagree with any points made on the Knight/Sickert story why don’t you simply discuss them or provide your rebuttals? I’ve lost count of how many opportunities that you’ve had Fishy but you’d still rather not. How do you think any poster would be regarded if they had said that they could refute research but then refused to do so?

[FISHY1118]

Its one thing is to criticize, and scrutinize , i dont have a problem with that. However its another to rubbish, mock and belittle . Its a shameful that to many do the latter where knight is concerned.

[jmenges]

It seems to me that this site does not like the knight topic full stop when it comes to discussing or posting anything to do with . Yet its perfectly ok for some to trash it with all kinds of nasty worded descriptions , how is that fair ?

Your warnings, infractions and suspensions have nothing to do with which particular suspect theory you’re promoting. As Paul and others know, I happen to enjoy reading and discussing the Royal Conspiracy theory. But when one single poster starts multiple threads over a very short period of time about their suspect and also turns one or more existing threads into a debate about their suspect theory, creating hostility everywhere they go, that’s considered suspect spamming and is against the rules. That’s what led to your infractions and when you accumulate 3 infractions you’re automatically given a brief suspension.
I did not give you another infraction for starting this thread, or the ‘Cottage Industry’ thread. I just gave you a warning here on the boards.
If you choose to argue with me about not receiving an infraction then you’ll be one step closer to getting one.

Don’t argue. Just get back to the discussion.

JM

[PaulB]

Thanks Paul for your response , just one thing if i may ,and feel free to explain it to me, but according to Jean Overton Fullers book it was her mother Violet who told her the story in 1947, so she knew long before knights book about the Sickert story.

So again im just wondering how did Violet Overton Fuller and Joseph Sickert tell the same story [ both from the original sourse Walter Sickert , Florence Pash via Sickert to Violet ] years apart without knowing the other person existed ?

IM also curious and wondering why ''if'' 'Joseph was Walters son and he claimed Walter told him the story when he was 14 in 1939 why he waited all his adult life to tell knight the story in 1973 ?

Btw Joseph was 8yrs old when Violet told Jean what Florence Pash related to her the Walter Sicket story.

For me its not whether i think there's any merit in the 2nd review, thats something you'd have to ask its author. However i will say i agree with certain parts of it ,others not so much.

IF i had to guess why it was reproduced here on this forum ? probably because theres so much anti knight /sickert negativity thats been posted of late around here which some find just as annoying as review 2 . Or maybe because its just jack the ripper related, ill let others be the judge .

Did you not post both reviews to this forum? If so, why do you write "If I had to guess..." You don't have to guess why you did something, you know why you did it. So why did you do it? It does not reflect well on you. But, you say you agree with parts of it. What parts? The point is that the author of that review is horribly biased and profoundly ignorant of the subject, so much so that if any part of the diatribe is correct, it is lost amid the garbage. It is so bad that it neither does a service to Knight nor suggest that you have a defenceable argument.

Violet Overton did tell the story in 1947, but what story did she tell? As I explained, Violet's story was told piecemeal, a detail dropped here and another dropped there. Jean didn't make sense of what she'd been told until she read Knight's book, but the question is how much of Violet's story was Jean correctly recalling and how much was suggested, elaborated, or invented following her reading of Knight's book. You see, it's not that Joseph and Violet independently told pretty much the same story, but whether Violet was telling Joseph's story at all.

[jmenges]

Sorry, Paul et al,

Fishy has now been banned.

JM

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Sorry, Paul et al,

Fishy has now been banned.

JM

Game, set and match.

[PaulB]

Sorry, Paul et al,

Fishy has now been banned.

JM

I can't say I am surprised. Posting those reviews struck me as intentionally provocative.