This is symptomatic of the entire problem with Knight's book and the Sickert theory. It is based entirely on assumptions. There is no direct, objective evidence to link Eddy with Annie, Gull with Sickert and Netley, or even Warren and Anderson with the Masons. Knight builds his argument through assuming that certain things are true. His proof is loose, lacking in hard facts, and uses them to make further assumptions leading to the murderous trio. It is a veritable house of cards which could be toppled by the removal of the slightest piece of evidence.
Casebook: Jack the Ripper - The Royal Conspiracy
…based on what I know about traumatic re-enactments, what I have experienced via what I consider synchronistic events as a result of the unresolved traumas and what I have learned about the aforementioned through reading and what I have come to understand about emotions and psychic matters. It is true that Knight provides little concrete evidence to assert beyond doubt that the trio had anything to do with the murders and even then that proof may only be intangible.
No comments:
Post a Comment