|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Colin Benson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 9:12 am: | 
|
Hello,
I am asking this out of curiosity, not as an advocate of the RC.
During my research, however, I came across several authors which at least implied that the late Stephen Knight had either forged or manipulated crucial parts of his evidence. Unfortunately, these people never ventured to elaborate on the details of these alleged fakes and forgeries.
So my question - would you deem Knight's evidence (not his conclusions) reliable? If not, why? Just because you don't buy the whole conspiracy stuff (oh, I understand that), or is it because you really can prove him wrong?
Thank you
Colin Benson |
Kitty
Police Constable
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Hi Colin,
I think alot of people are jelous of Knight's domination on the Ripper theory market. I believe that he did compromise some areas of his research in a rush to print a sensation, but I don't think there were any frauds. His rushing headlong into blaming the masons for everything he can, is abit of a giggle, at times.
What frauds do they suggest then? I think Melvin Fairclough's effort 'The Ripper and the Royals' is a big joke, e.g. Prince Eddy became the 'Monster of Glamis', and the Queen mother should know. She got a fright in the middle of the night when he loomed over the bed in his enormous beard. He has made abit of a spectacle of the research, and put serious people off.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 1:39 pm: |
|
I think it has now been shown conclusively that Knight was aware of evidence that refuted his theories - had had it pointed out to him by other Ripper researchers - and declined/refused to make this clear in his book.
He was thus guilty of covering up evidence and of misleading (at least) or duping (maybe) the public.
Whether the man's fatal illness clouded his judgement I know not, but his book, as a result, must now be regarded as totally discredited.
Phil
PS - If I can find a reference to this, I will post it. |
Dean Schifilitti
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Phil and kitty,
I have been a part time ripperologist for many years now. One thing I have learned is that people are a bit like sheep and follow the flock. When the Royal conspiracy was in flight , everyone wanted in on it, including TV and movies. Then a few people said Knights book was largely conjecture, and everyone jumped onto the bandwagon - The RC is nonsense.Once all the hype has calmed down , I looked at it objectively and tried to annalyse it as exactly as I could.
The fact is, niether party is right. Most of the witnessess and advocates cant be disprooved or prooved.There are many people who find Prince Albert's involvement in the East End rather odd.He was odd character, with odd sexual relations. It is possible he got himself into trouble in 1888.Alot of people put him with this catholic girl - were they all wrong?
There were masonic possibilities - like it or not.They were not open statements, but subbtle little clues , as you might expect.The dissembowelling of the whores and placement of thier insides over thier shoulder is a technique.It shows direct purpose , as to illustrate something.I am quite certain that individual suspects like Maybrick and Kosminski, or Druitt ,whose route problem was emotional and psychological, would have simply slashed thier victims ad hoc, and got the hell out of there.
The magnetic appeal about the ripper murders, is that the ripper took the time to illustrate something out there on those nights, when he could have just killed them and left.The murderer had something to proove.In everyones rush to jump on the bandwagon and destroy the royal theory, they have prooved only that it cant be disprooved.To me it is clear, anyway.Whoever carried out these spitefull mutilations was indicating that their handing out of punishment reflected thier status. |
savannah the psycho faerie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 1:34 am: |
|
dean-
i understand, i think what you mean. personally i like the lone nut theroies better, but i do want to know if you can cite, say, any other instances of supposedly masonic murders? i'm reasearching ,murders done in the ritual style for a novel and all i come up with is king kill 33 and jack the ripper. if you don't want to say anything, that's okay, but anyone who wants to point me in the right direction i'd be grateful.
----------
yes, that is not my last name, but it would be if i had the cash to change it.} |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
