PDA

View Full Version : The Theory That Will Live On Forever


Pages : [1] 2

Richard Dewar
11-03-2014, 12:08 PM
It seems to me that despite the efforts of Ripper researchers and afficianados of the case, this is the theory that the general public will accept above all others.

It lives on in countless fictionalized portrayals of the case. And this is because it's what the public wants.

The appeal of the case is based on the mythology - not the facts. The murders have been romanticized - Victorian gaslit streets, London fog, blood red sky, a mysterious murderer in top hat and cape carrying a gladstone bag stalking his victims in the darkness, and writing taunting letters to the police.

There is little appeal in the resolution to this story being that the killer was an impoverished, insane anonymous person. Therefore, the grand conspiracy fascinates the public.

The fact is, had the killer been apprehended in the immediate aftermath of the murder of Mary Kelly, this case would likely have little appeal to the public or even scholars.

MayBea
11-06-2014, 09:48 AM
"Royal Conspiracy Theory" is really a catch-all phrase for a number of Ripper theories, although most folks would automatically default to Prince Eddy, Gull, Netley and Sickert etc.

My own personal slant on the theory, though, focusses on links to servants of the Royals and financial czars.

It certainly has precedent recently with the Queen's Canadian air force pilot, Russell Williams. Hitler's mother worked for the Rothschilds.

Coincidence? Maybe not but, if either one was unknown, I would have found them first by researching the Royal family and the banking family.

Research has to start from what is know about the era and that would be collated in the vast histories centered on royalty and politics.

Do you have a better suggestion? Eye witness testimony?

London Fog
02-22-2015, 03:46 PM
It seems to me that despite the efforts of Ripper researchers and afficianados of the case, this is the theory that the general public will accept above all others.

It lives on in countless fictionalized portrayals of the case. And this is because it's what the public wants.

The appeal of the case is based on the mythology - not the facts. The murders have been romanticized - Victorian gaslit streets, London fog, blood red sky, a mysterious murderer in top hat and cape carrying a gladstone bag stalking his victims in the darkness, and writing taunting letters to the police.

There is little appeal in the resolution to this story being that the killer was an impoverished, insane anonymous person. Therefore, the grand conspiracy fascinates the public.

The fact is, had the killer been apprehended in the immediate aftermath of the murder of Mary Kelly, this case would likely have little appeal to the public or even scholars.

Why is the word, "Conspiracy" in our dictionary? Does the word depict a false notion, or does there actually exist such a thing as a conspiracy? It's easy to label everything you don't believe in as a conspiracy theory, but if conspiracies do exist, then wouldn't those theories be just as possible as all other theories? Since there is no irrefutable proof to convict ANY of the ripper suspects, why is the circumstantial evidence for the Royal conspiracy theory any more fictional than the other theories?

GUT
02-22-2015, 05:56 PM
It is more than just one theory, but beside that how many of that public that believe the theory(ies) can even tell you how many victims there were, let alone name them.

I suspect the answer is "very few".

But true had he been caught on 10 Nov and hanged we would in all probability have barely heard of it, except for the catchy name which I personally think has also kept interest alive.

London Fog
02-22-2015, 06:15 PM
I just find it annoying how so many people can state with certainty that one theory isn't true, when none of us know what's true. We don't know who Jack the Ripper was. All we have are theories and all evidence, so far, is circumstantial.

Pcdunn
02-22-2015, 06:16 PM
But true had he been caught on 10 Nov and hanged we would in all probability have barely heard of it, except for the catchy name which I personally think has also kept interest alive.

The thing that amazed me was how popular "Jack the Ripper" seemed to be in his own lifetime. Ordinary men took to rushing up to women in the streets and scared them by declaring "I am Jack the Ripper!" The Victorians did love their pranks, didn't they?

But the "Ripper" moniker turns up everywhere, at least to judge from the English-language newspapers in Britain, Canada, and the United States. Hoax letters were written with this signature and sent to authorities and private citizens in many cities, towns, even villages, for all I know.
Even in 1915, some twenty-seven years after the first of the Whitechapel "Ripper" murders, American papers referred to current crimes of startling violence as "ripper" murders (with a lowercase 'r', suggesting it was a sort of everyday noun by now).
Catchy name, indeed.

Ben
02-22-2015, 06:25 PM
Research has to start from what is know about the era and that would be collated in the vast histories centered on royalty and politics.

But since royalty and politics have ostensibly nothing to do with a serial murderer of prostitutes in a very poor part of London, why would we make these our first research port of call if we're looking for an actual solution to the crimes?

jmenges
02-23-2015, 06:40 AM
Since there is no irrefutable proof to convict ANY of the ripper suspects, why is the circumstantial evidence for the Royal conspiracy theory any more fictional than the other theories?

We recorded a podcast about the Royal Conspiracy theory, it's origins and various permutations that some may find interesting.

http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=86

JM

Trevor Marriott
02-23-2015, 08:08 AM
I just find it annoying how so many people can state with certainty that one theory isn't true, when none of us know what's true. We don't know who Jack the Ripper was. All we have are theories and all evidence, so far, is circumstantial.

Much of it isn't even circumstantial, its nothing more than someones wild speculative uncorroborated theory fueled by them not be able to distinguish as to what makes a prime suspect, differ from a likely suspect from a person of interest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Jeff Leahy
02-23-2015, 09:30 AM
Much of it isn't even circumstantial, its nothing more than someones wild speculative uncorroborated theory fueled by them not be able to distinguish as to what makes a prime suspect, differ from a likely suspect from a person of interest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"Undiscovered Murders in London are rare. And the Jack the Ripper crimes are NOT within that category" Sir Robert Anderson

Trevor Marriott
02-23-2015, 10:40 AM
"Undiscovered Murders in London are rare. And the Jack the Ripper crimes are NOT within that category" Sir Robert Anderson

Yes the father of Hans Christian who also wrote fairy tales ! :rolleyes2:

But what if all the crimes were not committed by the same perpetrator ?

Errata
02-23-2015, 11:22 AM
I just find it annoying how so many people can state with certainty that one theory isn't true, when none of us know what's true. We don't know who Jack the Ripper was. All we have are theories and all evidence, so far, is circumstantial.

Is this the "all theories are equally stupid in the face of a total unknown" theory?

London Fog
02-23-2015, 12:51 PM
Much of it isn't even circumstantial, its nothing more than someones wild speculative uncorroborated theory fueled by them not be able to distinguish as to what makes a prime suspect, differ from a likely suspect from a person of interest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So I come back to my question to those who are "able to distinguish as to what makes a prime suspect, differ from a likely suspect from a person of interest." WHO WAS JACK THE RIPPER? Are we "able to distinguish" the real murderer from all the fakes?

I will respectfully disagree about the circumstantial evidence.

MayBea
02-23-2015, 12:56 PM
"all theories are equally stupid in the face of a total unknown"

That's a good way to put it, Errata.

It only makes sense to deny a theory if you have your own theory that you're 100% sure of. Then of course all other theories are wrong or 'stupid'.

Even then, if the other theory is in the same vein, I wouldn't denigrate it if the other suspect theory has the same theory of the nature of the crime and perpetrator. In the end, that should be the most important thing here.

Jeff Leahy
02-23-2015, 01:01 PM
Yes the father of Hans Christian who also wrote fairy tales ! :rolleyes2:

But what if all the crimes were not committed by the same perpetrator ?

Sir Robert Anderson was in charge of the investigation. He was the individual who read all the reports and knew more about the JtR murders than any other person alive or dead…

What ever is discussed on this thread, the fact that Sir Robert believed the crime's were solved and the identity of the killer KNOWN!

Well that is the most important point of view.. Because he alone knew.. and 'would NOT iie for personal Kudos'

The rest of you can squabble amongst yourselves… But Anderson says the case was SOLVED… (any other theory is SECOND best)

Therefore the only 'mystery' is WHY did Anderson believe what he believed? (And I think I finally have that answer)

Yours Jeff

London Fog
02-23-2015, 01:01 PM
Is this the "all theories are equally stupid in the face of a total unknown" theory?

No, this is "all theories are just that - theories."

Actually, I enjoy studying all the theories. I find as much, if not more reason to consider the Stephen Knight theory a possibility. So far, I haven't seen anyone offer proof to the contrary. All I see is the word, "rubbish," and misconstruing of facts.

GUT
02-23-2015, 01:07 PM
Is this the "all theories are equally stupid in the face of a total unknown" theory?

Got it in one, but now my head hurts.

London Fog
02-23-2015, 01:12 PM
Got it in one, but now my head hurts.

This goes along with what I've been trying to say. Why call all theories stupid, especially if you have no proof?

London Fog
02-23-2015, 01:13 PM
"all theories are equally stupid in the face of a total unknown"

That's a good way to put it, Errata.

It only makes sense to deny a theory if you have your own theory that you're 100% sure of. Then of course all other theories are wrong or 'stupid'.

Even then, if the other theory is in the same vein, I wouldn't denigrate it if the other suspect theory has the same theory of the nature of the crime and perpetrator. In the end, that should be the most important thing here.

Thank you.

GUT
02-23-2015, 01:24 PM
This goes along with what I've been trying to say. Why call all theories stupid, especially if you have no proof?

Because if something has no logic too it and no evidence to support it, or it relies on fanciful BS like faces in painting or it was his mother's birthday or other such rubbish, and such it is simply and unabashedly "STUPID".

Jeff Leahy
02-23-2015, 01:27 PM
No, this is "all theories are just that - theories."

Actually, I enjoy studying all the theories. I find as much, if not more reason to consider the Stephen Knight theory a possibility. So far, I haven't seen anyone offer proof to the contrary. All I see is the word, "rubbish," and misconstruing of facts.

They are indeed theories..

However some theories were created by those who were there and were in charge of the case..

The 'other' theories were created…. Well 'other than'..

So there are just 'two' points of view…

Anderson/Swanson = Other than

Yours Jeff

Simon Wood
02-23-2015, 01:30 PM
Hi London Fog,

"So far, I haven't seen anyone offer proof to the contrary. All I see is the word, "rubbish," and misconstruing of facts."

Check out Bloodhound Magazine, March 1987, available here and there on-line.

Regards,

Simon

London Fog
02-23-2015, 01:44 PM
Because if something has no logic too it and no evidence to support it, or it relies on fanciful BS like faces in painting or it was his mother's birthday or other such rubbish, and such it is simply and unabashedly "STUPID".

Maybe you haven't studied the actual theory.

As for the logic in someone putting messages in paintings. Why would that be illogical? If you think about it, painters paint with a theme, do they not? If I'm not mistaken, Sickert had a painting called "Jack the Ripper's bedroom." Would you call that logical?

Mother's birthday. I'll bet if you ask a detective, they'd tell you they would consider such a thing. That doesn't mean it's right, but it is logical.

All that aside, we have a ritualistic lay out of victim's bodies. We have the word "Jewes" written on a wall. Both of these things are Masonic related. This is logic. It may, or may not, be right, but it is logic.

Keep this in mind. At the time of the murders, it wasn't logical that such a perpetrator could be anything but a shabby, evil-looking fiend, with horns growing from his head. Many thought he would be a Jew, or some other nationality, because it just wasn't logical that a clean cut, upstanding citizen could do such a thing. That was logic. That logic has since been proved wrong, many times over. What we consider logical is not always right.

London Fog
02-23-2015, 01:46 PM
They are indeed theories..

However some theories were created by those who were there and were in charge of the case..

The 'other' theories were created…. Well 'other than'..

So there are just 'two' points of view…

Anderson/Swanson = Other than

Yours Jeff

I don't think many people will agree that there is only one person's view/opinion that is valid.

GUT
02-23-2015, 01:53 PM
Maybe you haven't studied the actual theory.

As for the logic in someone putting messages in paintings. Why would that be illogical? If you think about it, painters paint with a theme, do they not? If I'm not mistaken, Sickert had a painting called "Jack the Ripper's bedroom." Would you call that logical?

Mother's birthday. I'll bet if you ask a detective, they'd tell you they would consider such a thing. That doesn't mean it's right, but it is logical.

All that aside, we have a ritualistic lay out of victim's bodies. We have the word "Jewes" written on a wall. Both of these things are Masonic related. This is logic. It may, or may not, be right, but it is logic.

Keep this in mind. At the time of the murders, it wasn't logical that such a perpetrator could be anything but a shabby, evil-looking fiend, with horns growing from his head. Many thought he would be a Jew, or some other nationality, because it just wasn't logical that a clean cut, upstanding citizen could do such a thing. That was logic. That logic has since been proved wrong, many times over. What we consider logical is not always right.


That's funny, why then were the police stopping and questioning well dressed men if such were illogical.

"Jewes" is also a surname, it could also be a misspelling of Jewess or Jews, just as so much else was mis-spelt, there is also a minor matter of did the killer even write the graffiti ?

Rosella
02-23-2015, 02:10 PM
Walter Sickert was, (like many of us here,) interested in unsolved and famous murders. That doesn't mean that he had inside knowledge of them or had anything to do with them. It was said that he also painted scenes that could be connected with the Camden or Rising Sun murder (for which Robert Wood was put on trial.) Does that mean that Sickert was involved in the 1907 murder of Phyllis Dimmock? Of course not!

Jeff Leahy
02-23-2015, 02:12 PM
I don't think many people will agree that there is only one person's view/opinion that is valid.

Thats not what I'm arguing..

I'm saying there are two points of view..

Those reach by the Coppers in charge at the time (And no-one has ever figured that until now)

and those argued since..

Two points of view

Yours Jeff

London Fog
02-23-2015, 02:12 PM
That's funny, why then were the police stopping and questioning well dressed men if such were illogical.

"Jewes" is also a surname, it could also be a misspelling of Jewess or Jews, just as so much else was mis-spelt, there is also a minor matter of did the killer even write the graffiti ?

Still, in people's minds, the murderer had to have been a fiend, and he had to have looked the part. That was logical, because no other image fit such heinous crimes.

As for your second paragraph. Are you assuming "Jewes" was a surname, or are you simply saying it's a possibility? You use phrases like, "could also be a misspelling of Jewess or Jews..." You seem to be deviating from your own requirements.

London Fog
02-23-2015, 02:17 PM
Walter Sickert was, (like many of us here,) interested in unsolved and famous murders. That doesn't mean that he had inside knowledge of them or had anything to do with them. It was said that he also painted scenes that could be connected with the Camden or Rising Sun murder (for which Robert Wood was put on trial.) Does that mean that Sickert was involved in the 1907 murder of Phyllis Dimmock? Of course not!

No one said it means that. But if you're going to say it CAN'T mean that, I'm going to ask for proof.

MayBea
02-23-2015, 02:18 PM
But since royalty and politics have ostensibly nothing to do with a serial murderer of prostitutes in a very poor part of London, why would we make these our first research port of call if we're looking for an actual solution to the crimes?
I have a couple of reasons, Ben:

1. That's all we have as far as extensive historical records, aside from genealogy and census reports (with MJK, I'd put the latter two as first port of call because we have something to work with in finding her origins).

2. The royals include all royalty - lords, earls, barons, dukes etc. - the chance that the Ripper is connected to royals some way is good, especially if he's not local. (The Earl of Crawford is thought to have sent a tip to Anderson about Druitt, and Crawford's writing was mistaken for Roslyn D'Onston's.) http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-emily.html The same goes for MJK.

3. The rumors that lasted over a century. The live on for a reason.

4. In this case, we have an 'unidentified' prostitute who worked in the west and east ends, and who may be the key. Politicians and royals (today's royals being actors) have plenty to do with prostitutes.

It's not only a primary port of call but it's where I'd lay down my nets.

London Fog
02-23-2015, 02:24 PM
Thats not what I'm arguing..

I'm saying there are two points of view..

Those reach by the Coppers in charge at the time (And no-one has ever figured that until now)

and those argued since..

Two points of view

Yours Jeff

How many innocent people have been executed because the system "knew" they had the right man? Men are not perfect, we don't know everything, and sometimes we don't know things we're "sure" of.

But what if Anderson was correct, and he did know who the killer was. If it had been an ordinary ole suspect, do you think he would have kept the identity secret? If he knew who it was, and if he kept it quiet, then there had to be a reason. Why do you think that would have been done?

Rosella
02-23-2015, 02:30 PM
Well, London Fog, I'd have to look up where Sickert was in 1907 to satisfy your curiosity, but we do know where he was in September and into October of 1888 and that was in the Dieppe area of France. Both his wife and mother wrote letters regarding this trip and there is an October painting verifying it.

Rosella
02-23-2015, 02:48 PM
Anderson would hardly have gone around publicly 'naming and shaming' any suspect before that person was charged or even went on trial, even if it was 'an ordinary ole suspect'. What are your views, London Fog? That Anderson and Swanson didnt really believe Koz was the Ripper and instead were protecting a royal? Prince Eddy, for example?

Jeff Leahy
02-23-2015, 02:56 PM
How many innocent people have been executed because the system "knew" they had the right man? Men are not perfect, we don't know everything, and sometimes we don't know things we're "sure" of.

But what if Anderson was correct, and he did know who the killer was. If it had been an ordinary ole suspect, do you think he would have kept the identity secret? If he knew who it was, and if he kept it quiet, then there had to be a reason. Why do you think that would have been done?

Thats a reasonable question. Of course Anderson could have been wrong..its a point long argued by Paul Begg..

But the fact still remains that there are two points of view..

Either it was SOLVED as the Man in-charge claims…

or it was NOT…as every other theory ill's towards

But there are only the two theories 'Solved' or 'Not Solved' at the time.

Yours Jeff

pinkmoon
02-23-2015, 03:11 PM
If Mr Anderson or anybody else for that matter had any real proof of our killers identity WE WOULD KNOW it would have been general knowledge across police forces and the proper reasons why would have been documented.It is obvious that certain policeman formed their conclusion on information received at the time or shortly after the murders ceased the sources and accuracy of this information will probley never be known .

Jeff Leahy
02-23-2015, 03:14 PM
If Mr Anderson or anybody else for that matter had any real proof of our killers identity WE WOULD KNOW it would have been general knowledge across police forces and the proper reasons why would have been documented.It is obvious that certain policeman formed their conclusion on information received at the time or shortly after the murders ceased the sources and accuracy of this information will probley never be known .

UM…Not necessarily…they could have 'all' been correct…your just looking at the puzzle incorrectly?

Yours Jeff

Jeff Leahy
02-23-2015, 03:20 PM
Just to be clear..

I'm arguing ALL the police accounts at the time…

Anderson, Swanson, Reid, Drew, McNaughten, Monroe, Abberline, Cox , Sagar…Etc Etc

THEY ALL MATCH

It;s gonna upset a lot of people…

But I think it can be proved

Yours Jef

pinkmoon
02-23-2015, 03:34 PM
Just to be clear..

I'm arguing ALL the police accounts at the time…

Anderson, Swanson, Reid, Drew, McNaughten, Monroe, Abberline, Cox , Sagar…Etc Etc

THEY ALL MATCH

It;s gonna upset a lot of people…

But I think it can be proved

Yours Jef
Good luck Jeff I look forward to reading your results.

London Fog
02-23-2015, 03:37 PM
Well, London Fog, I'd have to look up where Sickert was in 1907 to satisfy your curiosity, but we do know where he was in September and into October of 1888 and that was in the Dieppe area of France. Both his wife and mother wrote letters regarding this trip and there is an October painting verifying it.

Maybe so. According to Knight's theory, Sickert was just one of two or three helpers in the plot. I don't know if that's true, anymore than you know it's false. According to Joseph Sickert, Walter, his father, was NOT part of the plot. When Knight named Walter as one of the conspiritors, that's when Joseph turned tail and claimed everything he had said was made up. I can see that as a definite possibility.

London Fog
02-23-2015, 03:38 PM
Anderson would hardly have gone around publicly 'naming and shaming' any suspect before that person was charged or even went on trial, even if it was 'an ordinary ole suspect'. What are your views, London Fog? That Anderson and Swanson didnt really believe Koz was the Ripper and instead were protecting a royal? Prince Eddy, for example?

They had declared the case solved, but never names the culprit? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

London Fog
02-23-2015, 03:41 PM
Thats a reasonable question. Of course Anderson could have been wrong..its a point long argued by Paul Begg..

But the fact still remains that there are two points of view..

Either it was SOLVED as the Man in-charge claims…

or it was NOT…as every other theory ill's towards

But there are only the two theories 'Solved' or 'Not Solved' at the time.

Yours Jeff

You lump the majority of theories into one category. I could say there are only two schools or thought - those who believe what Stephen Knight said, and those who don't. There are many theories and many schools of thought. They are not so easily categorized.

GUT
02-23-2015, 03:42 PM
Maybe so. According to Knight's theory, Sickert was just one of two or three helpers in the plot. I don't know if that's true, anymore than you know it's false. According to Joseph Sickert, Walter, his father, was NOT part of the plot. When Knight named Walter as one of the conspiritors, that's when Joseph turned tail and claimed everything he had said was made up. I can see that as a definite possibility.

So which lie do you accept and which do you reject? When he said Walter wasn't part of it or when he said we was.

And are you arguing that we shouldn't reject any hypothesis or just that we should accept the Royal Conspiracy?

Jeff Leahy
02-23-2015, 03:43 PM
They had declared the case solved, but never names the culprit? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

But the suspect was Named..

"Kosminski was the Suspect' Swanson

Yours Jeff

GUT
02-23-2015, 03:44 PM
But the suspect was Named..

"Kosminski was the Suspect' Swanson

Yours Jeff

He was also named as one on Macnaghten's three "Better than's" though later Mac appears to have moved on to just one.

Jeff Leahy
02-23-2015, 03:45 PM
You lump the majority of theories into one category. I could say there are only two schools or thought - those who believe what Stephen Knight said, and those who don't. There are many theories and many schools of thought. They are not so easily categorized.

THere are only two schools of thought..

Either Anderson was Correct…. The Ripper was known..

or 'The Ripper was not known' and I have an alternative theory..etc

Two schools of thought, to which either one you are welcome

Yours Jeff

Jeff Leahy
02-23-2015, 03:46 PM
He was also named as one on Macnaghten's three "Better than's" though later Mac appears to have moved on to just one.

This is irrelevant.. there are only two positions

Yours Jeff

London Fog
02-23-2015, 03:48 PM
So which lie do you accept and which do you reject? When he said Walter wasn't part of it or when he said we was.

And are you arguing that we shouldn't reject any hypothesis or just that we should accept the Royal Conspiracy?

It was Knight who said Walter Sickert was part of the plot. It was Joseph Sickert who said he wasn't.

I don't accept any lie. All I want to know is, which is lie, and which is truth. Until I know for sure, all I can do is consider the possibilities. I consider it possible that Joseph Sickert would have changed his story because his father's name was being dragged through the mud, something he (Joseph) never intended. Now that might not be the truth, but until I know, I have to consider that it also might be. Again, I have seen no proof to the contrary.

London Fog
02-23-2015, 03:49 PM
But the suspect was Named..

"Kosminski was the Suspect' Swanson

Yours Jeff

He wasn't everyone's suspect.

London Fog
02-23-2015, 03:52 PM
THere are only two schools of thought..

Either Anderson was Correct…. The Ripper was known..

or 'The Ripper was not known' and I have an alternative theory..etc

Two schools of thought, to which either one you are welcome

Yours Jeff

Two schools of thought to whether the Ripper was know or not. But the case goes far beyond whether or not he was simply know. And by KNOWN, you are saying they had proof. Where is the proof?

GUT
02-23-2015, 03:54 PM
This is irrelevant.. there are only two positions

Yours Jeff

What I am saying Jeff is that at one stage Mac supported the position it was Koz. I really can't see how that can be irrelevant.

Nor can I see how the fact that he later preferred another suspect can be irrelevant.

But if you feel it is not relevant you are welcome to ignore it. But it is a simple straightforward fact, something that are not overly common in this case.

Jeff Leahy
02-23-2015, 03:56 PM
Two schools of thought to whether the Ripper was know or not. But the case goes far beyond whether or not he was simply know. And by KNOWN, you are saying they had proof. Where is the proof?

I've covered that…Anderson could have been incorrect.

But there are only two positions

Either the coppers knew at the time…but what they knew made what they said confusing, because they knew different things..

or a second position…that they were all incorrect and that we have another explanation such as …Maybrick , Sickert, the Royal Family etc ext ext

But we have two positions..

It was solved or it was not solved

Take your pick

Yours Jeff

London Fog
02-23-2015, 04:01 PM
I've covered that…Anderson could have been incorrect.

But there are only two positions

Either the coppers knew at the time…but what they knew made what they said confusing, because they knew different things..

or a second position…that they were all incorrect and that we have another explanation such as …Maybrick , Sickert, the Royal Family etc ext ext

But we have two positions..

It was solved or it was not solved

Take your pick

Yours Jeff

You said Anderson could have been incorrect. If so, then he didn't KNOW. He only suspected. That puts him in the same category with all other theorist.

Jeff Leahy
02-24-2015, 04:51 AM
You said Anderson could have been incorrect. If so, then he didn't KNOW. He only suspected. That puts him in the same category with all other theorist.

Of course Anderson could have been incorrect. However Anderson differs from the other positions in that 'he believed' he knew the answer.

Actually when he says 'Defintively ascertained FACT' he is infact referring to the FACT that the suspect was a Polish Jew..

However clearly his position is that the case was solved "Undiscovered murders in London are rare but the Jack the Ripper crimes are not within that category"

But all the policeman actually tell a very similar story..

That a man was suspected. He was followed. No proof could be gained against him. He was placed out of their way in an asylum. END

Reid was the least forward but still told his drinking man at the Princess Alice story which sort of fits what the other coppers say..

So what we have is One story 'at the time'. From individual perspectives but the same story.

AS time passes their individual stories evolve, because no proof was found on the man they followed.

Abberline eventually goes with Chapman, Reid says none will ever know, MacNuaghten (Given the Little he knows) plums for Druit…

But the fact remains that at the time there was a SUSPECT and the police bye and large believed they knew the identity of Jack the Ripper they just couldn't prove it.

The 'mystery' is why they came to different conclusions.

And I think that can be explained

Yours Jeff

Rosella
02-24-2015, 05:08 AM
London Fog, do you mean, when you quote Joseph Sickert, Joseph Gorman, the third child (out of five) of William Gorman and his wife Alice née Crook? The Joseph who asserted to Stephen Knight that he was the painter Walter Sickert's illegitimate son?

The same Joseph Sickert who told the News of the World in May 1984 about the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe attempting to kill him.
'Ripper Haunted My Life...He drove his car at me, I had to dive clear.'

Bridewell
02-24-2015, 09:48 AM
"...undiscovered murders are rare in London, and the "Jack-the-Ripper" crimes are not in that category...I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him...In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact..."

Anderson's "he refused to give evidence against him" is a non sequitur though, isn't it. Kosminski (if he was indeed the suspect as claimed by DSS) was insane, so there was never any realistic prospect of the witness being required to give evidence.

Scott Nelson
02-24-2015, 02:50 PM
Anderson reportedly said: "The necessary evidence for his conviction is unobtainable."

Daily Telegraph 19th, November 1918

pinkmoon
02-24-2015, 02:55 PM
Anderson's "he refused to give evidence against him" is a non sequitur though, isn't it. Kosminski (if he was indeed the suspect as claimed by DSS) was insane, so there was never any realistic prospect of the witness being required to give evidence.

Quite possible that the witness did refuse to give evidence but probley because he never had a proper look at the suspect .

Jeff Leahy
02-24-2015, 03:07 PM
Anderson reportedly said: "The necessary evidence for his conviction is unobtainable."

Daily Telegraph 19th, November 1918

Yes the Definitively ascertained 'fact' refers to the suspect being a Polish Jew.

What we have is a suspect at the time of the investigation who the police believed was the killer…

November 1888 to March 1889

That is the police case. And i believe all of them can be connected to a single theory at this time.

Yours Jeff

Jonathan H
02-24-2015, 03:37 PM
The Royal Theory is a hoax, a modern one at that, inspired initally by a cranky doctor.

Stewart Evans wrote a very good dissertation on it, reprinted on this site.

I would add that Dr. Stowell may have gained his cranky notion from a 1930 article that quoted Macnaghten claiming that the Ripper was the scion of a noble family.

Druitt was no more noble than he was a doctor.

After Odell's demolition of the Druitt theory in 1966, pop culture was ready for the rubbish that Druitt was a decoy in some kind of grander conspiracy. The culture of Watergate made this possible in 1973, and the Royal 'connection' remains embedded in popular culture this this day.

In reality a police chief of the day, Macnaghten, had announced in 1913 that the case was solved, albeit posthumously.

In his memoir the following year the same ex-chief consolidated the claim that the Ripper was a suicide and that this information had come to him alone several years after the suspect had killed himself.

The conceited, poorly informed--with an even poorer memory--Sir Robert Anderson was just a minor sideshow, elevated by secondary sources into a definitive solution. The Swanson 'Marginalia' arguably confirmed this opinion.

Jeff Leahy
02-24-2015, 04:04 PM
The conceited, poorly informed--with an even poorer memory--Sir Robert Anderson was just a minor sideshow, elevated by secondary sources into a definitive solution. The Swanson 'Marginalia' arguably confirmed this opinion.

Its not a conceited opinion, if the police had a theory but the suspect was placed in an Asylum in Surrey in March 1889..

Then all the piece fit perfectly in place.

McNaughten far from being a super cop (A joke of course) is simply a newly appointed copper writing a report on the Sun Newspaper claims that Cutbush was JtR…he wasn't of corse but MacNaughten had access to the files and the files reported the police investigation ands following of that suspect up until

Wait for it… MARCH 1889…

So there it is..macNaughten, aubergine (Who left in shortly after march 1889) Reid, Drew Cox Sagar etc ext

The case closes…end of…finish..

There is no more information for all involved…

But then in Autumn 1890.. ANderson receives a letter from the earl of Crawford…

And the rest is History…

There are only two positions..The cops either knew or they did not?

Yours Jeff

Wickerman
02-24-2015, 04:18 PM
And I think that can be explained



I look forward to the day you choose to share that explanation Jeff.

Jonathan H
02-24-2015, 04:20 PM
No, Jeff.

That's quite wrong.

The cops may have thought they knew, but were mistaken.

after all, no suspect was accorded due process, which is hardly infallible either.

Macnaghten wrote a report, a non-identical twin version of which was used for a public relations campaign. That campaign was adamant that the Polish suspect was weak compared to the drowned Englishman (in 1907, Sims will claim that an American suspect is the strongest after the drowned man).

What you are missing is that there was not just one police chief who said it was likely solved, but two.

This is one of the failings of of modern so-called Ripeprology. That only Anderson claimed such certainty.

Not so.

I quite understand why you and others are mortally threatened by this unwelcome revisionist take.

An over-relaince on Macnaghten's report(s) has led many researchers to underestimate--even ignore--the press accounts of 1913 regarding Macnaghten's retirement press conference and/or his 1914 memoirs.

He claimed it was solved, by him alone, and that Jack was a 'Simon Pure' who took his own life after a breakdown.

In 1910 the same police chief via Sims ridiculed Anderson's claim that the Jewish suspect was protected by his fellow members of the Faith.

Yet could Anderson have been right and Macnaghten wrong?

Sure, anything is possible, but the extant sources show that of the two police chiefs one was better informed than the other about the details of each other's Jacks, and it is Macnaghten not Anderson.

You write that the Crawford letter is definitely connected to Aaron Kosminski. That's not so. It is a theory. It might be right, but it is more likely not to be when measured agaisnt other contemporaneous sources.

London Fog
02-24-2015, 10:17 PM
London Fog, do you mean, when you quote Joseph Sickert, Joseph Gorman, the third child (out of five) of William Gorman and his wife Alice née Crook? The Joseph who asserted to Stephen Knight that he was the painter Walter Sickert's illegitimate son?

The same Joseph Sickert who told the News of the World in May 1984 about the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe attempting to kill him.
'Ripper Haunted My Life...He drove his car at me, I had to dive clear.'

That's the one. Now my question to you is, do you have proof he was a Gorman?

London Fog
02-24-2015, 10:34 PM
The Royal Theory is a hoax, a modern one at that, inspired initally by a cranky doctor.

Stewart Evans wrote a very good dissertation on it, reprinted on this site.

I would add that Dr. Stowell may have gained his cranky notion from a 1930 article that quoted Macnaghten claiming that the Ripper was the scion of a noble family.

Druitt was no more noble than he was a doctor.

After Odell's demolition of the Druitt theory in 1966, pop culture was ready for the rubbish that Druitt was a decoy in some kind of grander conspiracy. The culture of Watergate made this possible in 1973, and the Royal 'connection' remains embedded in popular culture this this day.

In reality a police chief of the day, Macnaghten, had announced in 1913 that the case was solved, albeit posthumously.

In his memoir the following year the same ex-chief consolidated the claim that the Ripper was a suicide and that this information had come to him alone several years after the suspect had killed himself.

The conceited, poorly informed--with an even poorer memory--Sir Robert Anderson was just a minor sideshow, elevated by secondary sources into a definitive solution. The Swanson 'Marginalia' arguably confirmed this opinion.

You say Macnaghten claimed that the Ripper was the scion of a noble family. But YOU claim that notion to be a modern one, brough about by Watergate. Who are we to believe, you or Macnaghten?

Everyone has a theory, or belief in one. NONE of us know for sure.

Simon Wood
02-24-2015, 10:35 PM
Hi All,

Sunday Times, 18th June 1978—

Regarding Stephen Knight's book, Joseph Sickert [Gorman] said, “It was a hoax; I made it all up” and, it was “a whopping fib.”

Regards,

Simon

GUT
02-24-2015, 10:40 PM
Hi All,

Sunday Times, 18th June 1978—

Regarding Stephen Knight's book, Joseph Sickert [Gorman] said, “It was a hoax; I made it all up” and, it was “a whopping fib.”

Regards,

Simon

Yep, but London Fog doesn't seem to realise this, maybe he's in a fog.

Simon Wood
02-24-2015, 10:47 PM
Hi All,

Joseph Sickert retracted his retraction in 1991. In a foreword to “The Ripper and the Royals” by Melvyn Fairclough, he wrote—

“Some years ago I agreed to cooperate with the journalist Stephen Knight by recounting to him my family history, which involved the story of the Ripper murders of 1888. I told him a good deal of what I had heard from my father, Walter Sickert. But during the course of our cooperation I began to realise that he was misinterpreting the material, and we quarrelled. I decided not to give him the whole story, and though his book Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution (1976) was broadly on the right lines it was not only wrong on many points but missed out on many vital details.

“It has always been a regret to me that the story has not been presented properly, and I am grateful to Melvyn Fairclough for agreeing to set the record straight. His book has my blessing. My sole purpose in cooperating with him here is to vindicate the reputation of my family—not only of my father, but of my mother and grandmother, and of my grandfather, the Duke of Clarence.”

Which all goes to prove that you can't polish a turd.

Regards,

Simon

GUT
02-24-2015, 10:52 PM
So which lie is really a lie.

Simon Wood
02-24-2015, 10:57 PM
It was one steaming pile of BS heaped upon another.

GUT
02-24-2015, 10:59 PM
It was one steaming pile of BS heaped upon another.

Sounds like a good description to this little black duck.

London Fog
02-24-2015, 10:59 PM
Hi All,

Sunday Times, 18th June 1978—

Regarding Stephen Knight's book, Joseph Sickert [Gorman] said, “It was a hoax; I made it all up” and, it was “a whopping fib.”

Regards,

Simon

Have you read the book? Joseph Sickert/Gorman claimed in his story to Stephen Knight that there were more than one man that did the work of "Jack The Ripper." None of them, according to Joseph, was Walter Sickert, who was said to be Joseph's biological father. When Stephen Knight put his own thoughts into what Joseph had told him, he (Stephen) said he didn't believe that one of the named perpetrators (Anderson) was actually in on the murders. Instead, Stephen named Walter Sickert in Anderson's place. This was apparently not what Joseph counted on. What if someone named your father as a murderer. Even IF he wasn't your real father, but you believed him to be your father, you wouldn't want that to happen. Why else would Joseph go to such great lengths, and use such detail in his story, and then just turn around and say he was just fibbing? I believe there's a good chance that Joseph was actually told those things. Maybe they were true, maybe they were false, but I think he did hear those things. Now consider that Walter Sickert, in his last days, started believing that he was Jack The Ripper. What might he have told a guy named Joseph, son or not? Also consider that the Ripper victims were laid out in Masonic ritual fashion, and that the word JEWES, on the wall, also had a Masonic connection. These, and other things about the Ripper case are made clear by the Masonic theory that so many like to call rubbish. Those people, however, don't have any proof of their own.

London Fog
02-24-2015, 11:01 PM
Yep, but London Fog doesn't seem to realise this, maybe he's in a fog.

Ah yes, the old standby. When you can't prove someone wrong, just hit him with personal attacks. That should do it.

London Fog
02-24-2015, 11:06 PM
So which lie is really a lie.

Well now that's the point, Isn't it. You are so ready to believe the retraction, but the explanation of why he retracted is in question. It comes from the same guy, so if you can't believe one, then how can you believe the other. The reason he gives is valid.

Simon Wood
02-24-2015, 11:11 PM
Hi London Fog,

Thirty-nine years ago in 1976 I demolished Stephen Knight's book fact by phony fact.

It's a matter of record.

Any current belief in the Sickert/Gorman/Knight story is just an exercise in self-delusion.

Regards,

Simon

London Fog
02-24-2015, 11:16 PM
Hi London Fog,

Thirty-nine years ago in 1976 I demolished Stephen Knight's book fact by phony fact.

It's a matter of record.

Any current belief in the Sickert/Gorman/Knight story is just an exercise in self-delusion.

Regards,

Simon

127 years ago, in 1888, someone/s demolished at least five women on the Streets of London. He, or they, laid out the bodies in a Masonic fashion. Then he, they, or someone, wrote a message on a wall that had a Masonic connection. Do you know what else had a Masonic connection at the time? The Royal family. Be careful what you "demolish," because if it's not actually dead, it can come back and get you.

Simon Wood
02-24-2015, 11:21 PM
Hi London Fog,

Boo!

Get a life.

Regards,

Simon

London Fog
02-24-2015, 11:23 PM
Hi London Fog,

Boo!

Get a life.

Regards,

Simon

Boo? Well, I guess that proves me wrong, huh.

You see, this is the sort of thing people offer to debunk the theory. Sorry, it's just not good enough.

MacGuffin
02-24-2015, 11:28 PM
Hi Simon Wood,
It was one steaming pile of BS heaped upon another.

As we in the South are fond of saying:
"Never knew it could be stacked so high without a catalyst!"
:hiya:

London Fog
02-24-2015, 11:30 PM
Hi Simon Wood,


As we in the South are fond of saying:
"Never knew it could be stacked so high without a catalyst!"
:hiya:

The only thing not stacked is proof. Would you like to throw some proof on the pile? I'm ready to call the theory wrong, all I need is proof.

Mayerling
02-24-2015, 11:31 PM
I have an interesting book in my home by Jan Bondeson. My copy is a paperback. It is called "The Great Pretenders" and was published by W.W. Norton & Co., in New York and London in 2004. Bondeson (who writes in The Ripperologist frequently) researched at least eight cases of missing heirs to titles, particularly royal titles, like King Louis XVII of France and Kasper Hauser (who some thought was the legitimate heir to the throne of Baden). The book does show a fascination throughout the world with Royal lives (or in the cases of the Tichborne Claimant and the Duke of Portland/Thomas Druce Case a fascination with high profile aristocracy) that pervades the world. Despite living now beyond 2014 we still have it - how many people still wonder where the Earl of Lucan is today.

A number of the cases Bondeson wrote of were 18th Century mysteries of secret marriages involving George III with such figures as Hannah Lightfoot. Anyone studying King George knows that in normal circumstances he was a pillar of moral rectitude - due to his devotion to trying to set an example for his people. Unfortunately he was also subject to fits of insanity (whether or not due to porphyria) and in these situations his rectitude did go out the window. His sons, starting with his oldest, hardly showed the same concern about moral rectitude, and were determined to enjoy their positions. Although beyond the scope of Bondeson's book here, one of them, Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland (and later King Ernest I of Hanover after 1837) was widely disliked and suspected of killing his servant De Sellis in 1810 in what was whispered to be a homosexual attack. I bring this out to show that homicides linked by whisper campaigns to the Royals were not a new phenomenon in 1888 or after.

Queen Victoria copied her grandfather George III in trying to present herself as a pillar of moral strength, and got pilloried for it by scandal mongers in her own reign - as "the Empress Brown" because of what many sneered at as her secretly being married to John Brown, her Scottish servant, in the 1870s. Her heir, Bertie, the Prince of Wales, did as much to enjoy his privileges as heir to the throne as George, Prince of Wales (and later Prince Regent and George IV) did regarding his father's example. Bertie would have affairs with Lady Mordaunt, Jennie Jerome, Lily Langtree, Daisy, Countess of Warwick, and finally Alice Keppel, and probably others in his lifetime, and in both the Mordaunt and Tranby Croft cases would have to give testimony in law courts (something that had never happened before or since). The public was shocked and pained (though not as pained as Victoria). The public also enjoyed the scandals.

It's fully lovely (if you are of a resentful and jealous nature) to look at one's so-called "Social betters" and find they have clay feet and do dirty things - like most people. I might add this is a universal attitude. Note my use of "Mayerling" as a nickname here - because the next major mysterious scandal after Whitechapel in chronological order was "the Mayerling suicide pact (?)" of January 1889. I just happened to pick on that tragedy from Austria-Hungary. I could have used the term "Boulanger" and chose the French would-be dictator who loused up his nearly pulled coup against the Third Republic, and took off with his mistress. Or I could have called myself "Johann Orth" after Rudolph's cousin, who vanished in some shipwreck with his girlfriend and servants in South America in 1890. If I wanted to I could have chosen to call myself "Mad Ludwig" after the tragic Bavarian King who died in 1886 under murky circumstances, or even "Old I Want My Pa!" after President Grover Cleveland. As I said this is a universal attitude.

Is it fair? Can there be something to it, in any of these incidents? There is always some factor that comes out, though hardly raising them beyond a personal flaw or tragedy in the figures involved. I hardly can say we should drop any consideration of these theories - and here I return to the Royal Conspiracy theory - because they have their adherents.

Personally I don't believe Dr. Stowell knew what he was talking about, and Joseph Sickert (which was the name he admitted later was made up) was a liar. That said, I have looked at the Duke of Clarence and Avondale and he strikes me as a singularly stupid individual who might have gotten over his head in a sexual relationship of any kind, but was not likely to have known how to get out of it. Dr. Gull (already involved in one famous Victorian crime - as a consultant to the dying Charles Bravo in "the Balham Mystery" of 1876) had suffered from a stroke in 1887 - I can't imagine him of being of much use.* Netley is one of those figures who gained back some historical image from sudden curiosity about him, but nothing (aside that he was a coachman, who was killed in an accident in 1901) is of much interest. As for Walter Sickert - he loved talking about crimes: Osbert Sitwell mentions this. There is even some evidence that Sickert talked about Jack the Ripper to Max Beerbohm and Sir William Rothenstein. That does not mean he was in the case up to his neck, and dropped hints of Mary Kelly's physical appearance in his paintings.

[*It still surprises me that while everyone looks at old Gull as the surgeon responsible for the murders and mutilations, they fail to notice a currently important surgeon who really enjoyed talking about crime - and made a comment about the acquittal of Adelaide Bartlett in 1886. This was the surgeon Sir James Paget, who was not suffering from any stroke in 1888, and lived until 1899. But nobody looks closely at Paget!]

In conclusion I can only add that there is no chance, even if some middle or lower class suspect is proven to be the Ripper, that this "Royal Theory" will ever really die. It will be stretched by it's affectionate lovers to include the new facts and impose that the killer secretly in the pay of the Royal Conspirators, who chose his victims intentionally.

Jeff (still listed as "Mayerling", so there! :))

London Fog
02-24-2015, 11:46 PM
I have an interesting book in my home by Jan Bondeson. My copy is a paperback. It is called "The Great Pretenders" and was published by W.W. Norton & Co., in New York and London in 2004. Bondeson (who writes in The Ripperologist frequently) researched at least eight cases of missing heirs to titles, particularly royal titles, like King Louis XVII of France and Kasper Hauser (who some thought was the legitimate heir to the throne of Baden). The book does show a fascination throughout the world with Royal lives (or in the cases of the Tichborne Claimant and the Duke of Portland/Thomas Druce Case a fascination with high profile aristocracy) that pervades the world. Despite living now beyond 2014 we still have it - how many people still wonder where the Earl of Lucan is today.

A number of the cases Bondeson wrote of were 18th Century mysteries of secret marriages involving George III with such figures as Hannah Lightfoot. Anyone studying King George knows that in normal circumstances he was a pillar of moral rectitude - due to his devotion to trying to set an example for his people. Unfortunately he was also subject to fits of insanity (whether or not due to porphyria) and in these situations his rectitude did go out the window. His sons, starting with his oldest, hardly showed the same concern about moral rectitude, and were determined to enjoy their positions. Although beyond the scope of Bondeson's book here, one of them, Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland (and later King Ernest I of Hanover after 1837) was widely disliked and suspected of killing his servant De Sellis in 1810 in what was whispered to be a homosexual attack. I bring this out to show that homicides linked by whisper campaigns to the Royals were not a new phenomenon in 1888 or after.

Queen Victoria copied her grandfather George III in trying to present herself as a pillar of moral strength, and got pilloried for it by scandal mongers in her own reign - as "the Empress Brown" because of what many sneered at as her secretly being married to John Brown, her Scottish servant, in the 1870s. Her heir, Bertie, the Prince of Wales, did as much to enjoy his privileges as heir to the throne as George, Prince of Wales (and later Prince Regent and George IV) did regarding his father's example. Bertie would have affairs with Lady Mordaunt, Jennie Jerome, Lily Langtree, Daisy, Countess of Warwick, and finally Alice Keppel, and probably others in his lifetime, and in both the Mordaunt and Tranby Croft cases would have to give testimony in law courts (something that had never happened before or since). The public was shocked and pained (though not as pained as Victoria). The public also enjoyed the scandals.

It's fully lovely (if you are of a resentful and jealous nature) to look at one's so-called "Social betters" and find they have clay feet and do dirty things - like most people. I might add this is a universal attitude. Note my use of "Mayerling" as a nickname here - because the next major mysterious scandal after Whitechapel in chronological order was "the Mayerling suicide pact (?)" of January 1889. I just happened to pick on that tragedy from Austria-Hungary. I could have used the term "Boulanger" and chose the French would-be dictator who loused up his nearly pulled coup against the Third Republic, and took off with his mistress. Or I could have called myself "Johann Orth" after Rudolph's cousin, who vanished in some shipwreck with his girlfriend and servants in South America in 1890. If I wanted to I could have chosen to call myself "Mad Ludwig" after the tragic Bavarian King who died in 1886 under murky circumstances, or even "Old I Want My Pa!" after President Grover Cleveland. As I said this is a universal attitude.

Is it fair? Can there be something to it, in any of these incidents? There is always some factor that comes out, though hardly raising them beyond a personal flaw or tragedy in the figures involved. I hardly can say we should drop any consideration of these theories - and here I return to the Royal Conspiracy theory - because they have their adherents.

Personally I don't believe Dr. Stowell knew what he was talking about, and Joseph Sickert (which was the name he admitted later was made up) was a liar. That said, I have looked at the Duke of Clarence and Avondale and he strikes me as a singularly stupid individual who might have gotten over his head in a sexual relationship of any kind, but was not likely to have known how to get out of it. Dr. Gull (already involved in one famous Victorian crime - as a consultant to the dying Charles Bravo in "the Balham Mystery" of 1876) had suffered from a stroke in 1887 - I can't imagine him of being of much use.* Netley is one of those figures who gained back some historical image from sudden curiosity about him, but nothing (aside that he was a coachman, who was killed in an accident in 1901) is of much interest. As for Walter Sickert - he loved talking about crimes: Osbert Sitwell mentions this. There is even some evidence that Sickert talked about Jack the Ripper to Max Beerbohm and Sir William Rothenstein. That does not mean he was in the case up to his neck, and dropped hints of Mary Kelly's physical appearance in his paintings.

[*It still surprises me that while everyone looks at old Gull as the surgeon responsible for the murders and mutilations, they fail to notice a currently important surgeon who really enjoyed talking about crime - and made a comment about the acquittal of Adelaide Bartlett in 1886. This was the surgeon Sir James Paget, who was not suffering from any stroke in 1888, and lived until 1899. But nobody looks closely at Paget!]

In conclusion I can only add that there is no chance, even if some middle or lower class suspect is proven to be the Ripper, that this "Royal Theory" will ever really die. It will be stretched by it's affectionate lovers to include the new facts and impose that the killer secretly in the pay of the Royal Conspirators, who chose his victims intentionally.

Jeff (still listed as "Mayerling", so there! :))

In your long post, I saw not one bit of proof against the theory. Once again, all I see is someone stating how wrong it has to be. You can talk about people's fascination with Royals all night long, but that doesn't show any proof that the Royals weren't involved in the JTR case. I don't know that the Royals were involved, and you don't know that they weren't. That is the bottom line, no matter how much say otherwise. What I'm asking of you is to show me where I'm wrong. Don't TELL me, SHOW me. Can you?

MacGuffin
02-24-2015, 11:47 PM
Hi London Fog,
The only thing not stacked is proof. Would you like to throw some proof on the pile? I'm ready to call the theory wrong, all I need is proof.

The onus of proof lies upon the theorist, much akin to the "burden of proof" requirements in a court of law.
When one submits a theory to peer review, one is required to prove each point, step by step, ie: It is not necessary to prove that Joseph Gorman was, as you say, a "Gorman", the necessity is in proving he was a "Sickert".
Positive postulations can be proven, the converse cannot, otherwise it's simply speculation.

Regards,
Macguffin

Simon Wood
02-24-2015, 11:52 PM
Hi Jeff,

One of Eddy's affairs worth checking out is Lydia Manton.

The poor girl was enciente at the time of her excruciating death.

Regards,

Simon

London Fog
02-24-2015, 11:52 PM
Hi London Fog,


The onus of proof lies upon the theorist, much akin to the "burden of proof" requirements in a court of law.
When one submits a theory to peer review, one is required to prove each point, step by step, ie: It is not necessary to prove that Joseph Gorman was, as you say, a "Gorman", the necessity is in proving he was a "Sickert".
Positive postulations can be proven, the converse cannot, otherwise it's simply speculation.

Regards,
Macguffin

Only if we're in a court of law, which we're not. You are worried about peer review, and I am concerned with truth. I look and see how the Ripper victims were laid out. I see the word "Jewes" on the wall. I see the Royals as members of the secret society that is tied to both of those things. That is circumstantial evidence, which is just as good as any of the other evidence in any other theory.

London Fog
02-24-2015, 11:54 PM
Hi Jeff,

One of Eddy's affairs worth checking out is Lydia Manton.

The poor girl was enciente at the time of her excruciating death.

Regards,

Simon

Do you believe that actually happened, or are you just fascinated with the Royal family?

GUT
02-24-2015, 11:58 PM
So you can't see how Gull having suffered a stroke a few months before rules him out.

If that simple fact eludes you then it is pointless you have obviously made up your mind and are not open to reason or logic.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 12:01 AM
So you can't see how Gull having suffered a stroke a few months before rules him out.

If that simple fact eludes you then it is pointless you have obviously made up your mind and are not open to reason or logic.

A man that had suffered a stroke would not be able to SIT in a carriage and use a knife? That's what the theory states. I really don't think you know the theory.

MacGuffin
02-25-2015, 12:21 AM
Only if we're in a court of law, which we're not. This is required in nearly every branch of academia, from mathematics through to the sciences, the legal reference was simply an example.
You are worried about peer review, and I am concerned with truth.
This is an invalid assumption to the extreme.
My reference to peer review is to relay to you that you must prove your theories, we are not required to prove anything.
You are putting forth a theory, you must support your theory with proof of each assertion. Instead, you want others to disprove your theory and assumptions; again I submit to you that positive postulations can be proven, the converse cannot.
I look and see how the Ripper victims were laid out. I see the word "Jewes" on the wall. I see the Royals as members of the secret society that is tied to both of those things. That is circumstantial evidence, which is just as good as any of the other evidence in any other theory.

Evidence, "circumstantial" or otherwise, must be proven, or it's merely supposition and/or speculation.
There's nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is presented as such, but when it's presented as evidence, it will always require proof in order to verify it's evidentiary value.

Regards,
MacGuffin

London Fog
02-25-2015, 12:32 AM
This is required in nearly every branch of academia, from mathematics through to the sciences, the legal reference was simply an example.
This is an invalid assumption to the extreme.
My reference to peer review is to relay to you that you must prove your theories, we are not required to prove anything.
You are putting forth a theory, you must support your theory with proof of each assertion. Instead, you want others to disprove your theory and assumptions; again I submit to you that positive postulations can be proven, the converse cannot.

Evidence, "circumstantial" or otherwise, must be proven, or it's merely supposition and/or speculation.
There's nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is presented as such, but when it's presented as evidence, it will always require proof in order to verify it's evidentiary value.

Regards,
MacGuffin

You misunderstand me. I don't say I know this theory is correct. I have stated more than once that it may not be correct, but it does offer circumstantial evidence as good, if not better than any other theory I have seen. Many posters here want to tell me how wrong I am, and how this theory is nothing but rubbish. The only thing I have to show are the reasons why I believe this theory is possible. I have done that. On the other hand, no one has SHOWN why I'm wrong for believing this possibility. All they can do is tell me how crazy it is, and how crazy I am for considering it. From what I've seen of this basic theory, there is nothing about it that's so impossible. I certainly don't say that Stephen Knight was right about every single thing he said, but I think the basic theory, especially about the Masonic connection, is a strong possibility. There are lots of us here posting, because we like talking about these things. Why is it that certain ones are not allowed their own opinions without ridicule?

London Fog
02-25-2015, 12:37 AM
again I submit to you that positive postulations can be proven, the converse cannot.

Regards,
MacGuffin

Falsehoods can indeed be proved to be falsehoods.

MacGuffin
02-25-2015, 01:08 AM
Hi London Fog,
You misunderstand me. I don't say I know this theory is correct. I have stated more than once that it may not be correct, but it does offer circumstantial evidence as good, if not better than any other theory I have seen. Many posters here want to tell me how wrong I am, and how this theory is nothing but rubbish. The only thing I have to show are the reasons why I believe this theory is possible. I have done that. On the other hand, no one has SHOWN why I'm wrong for believing this possibility. All they can do is tell me how crazy it is, and how crazy I am for considering it. From what I've seen of this basic theory, there is nothing about it that's so impossible. I certainly don't say that Stephen Knight was right about every single thing he said, but I think the basic theory, especially about the Masonic connection, is a strong possibility. There are lots of us here posting, because we like talking about these things. Why is it that certain ones are not allowed their own opinions without ridicule?

The problem is there is no factual evidence, circumstantial, or otherwise regarding any of Knight's theory.
There is nothing that can be proven, not about a masonic connection, a royal connection, or a Sickert connection - it's all speculation that embraces
extreme improbabilities, and requires the reader to assume huge leaps into the realm of the illogical and unsubstantiated.
According to Knight, the only source for all of this was Joesph Gorman, who later recanted the story, then recanted his previous recanting.
It might help to read other forum posts regarding this theory, as nearly every assertion made by Gorman via Knight has been repeatedly refuted previously elsewhere.

As to ridicule, this seems to happen to everyone at some point, and in every theory and/or speculation that's posted. It's just par for the JtR course.

Regards,
MacGuffin

Rosella
02-25-2015, 03:37 AM
Alice Margaret Crook, Joseph Gorman's mother, was born in London on 18th April 1885, and was christened an Anglican, not a Roman Catholic.

Her conception must then have been between 18th July and 11th August 1884. The Duke of Clarence was then in Germany. He had departed for Heidelberg with his German tutor on 18th June and he did not return to England until 18th August.

He could therefore not have been Alice Crook's father, and he was certainly not Joseph Gorman's grandfather.

It is not up to any of us to prove or disprove your theories culled from Stephen Knight's long ago Final Solution that Wasn't. If you believe that Joseph Sickert's story is believable then offer proof. If you believe in the Royal theory then, London Fog, offer proof of a connection between these conspiracists and the Ripper victims.

pinkmoon
02-25-2015, 03:41 AM
I know this theory fell to bits when it was examined properly but I think we have to thank the late stephen knight because it was a highly entertaining yarn that introduced a lot of people to this fascinating subject .

Rosella
02-25-2015, 03:53 AM
Yes, it was highly entertaining. I remember getting it when it was first published and reading it in one sitting. It wasn't my introduction to the Ripper. That was Cullen's 'Autumn of Terror,' many years before, but it was an enthralling read.

The trouble was though, I believe, that Knight implicitly believed what Joseph Gorman told him. Knight had the advantage of a team of BBC researchers and yet suppressed facts that didn't fit in with his theory (so, what else is new) but also published details which he must have known at the time were not the truth. That's unforgivable for a serious writer in my opinion.

MacGuffin
02-25-2015, 04:19 AM
Hi London Fog,
A man that had suffered a stroke would not be able to SIT in a carriage and use a knife? That's what the theory states. I really don't think you know the theory.
None of the C5 were killed in a carriage, they were all killed where they were respectively found.
These crime scenes were murder sites, not dump sites.
If something never happened, then it can not be proven to have happened - this is what in fact is meant when saying a negative can not be proven.
Learning the facts of the case is essential prior to postulating theories.

Regards,
MacGuffin

Mayerling
02-25-2015, 09:22 AM
In your long post, I saw not one bit of proof against the theory. Once again, all I see is someone stating how wrong it has to be. You can talk about people's fascination with Royals all night long, but that doesn't show any proof that the Royals weren't involved in the JTR case. I don't know that the Royals were involved, and you don't know that they weren't. That is the bottom line, no matter how much say otherwise. What I'm asking of you is to show me where I'm wrong. Don't TELL me, SHOW me. Can you?

Hi London Fog,

Yeah, I admit not believing the "Royal Conspiracy" Theory. I also said that since it had it's adherence (like yourself) we could not dismiss it. Finally I even did a footnote (in my "long post" as you put it) that perhaps the wrong important surgeon was looked at - rather than Sir William Gull it should have been Sir James Paget, who had a clear interest in current homicide cases (i.e. the Bartlett "Pimlico" Mystery" Poisoning of 1885-86). Paget's son John Paget had even written a book about famous mysteries back in the 1860s, and included references in it to then contemporary cases (in that book there were references to the "Stepney" mystery of 1860). Apparently homicide was discussed very commonly in that household. John Paget had died by 1888, but Sir James was still living.

You seem really avid about the "Royal Theory" as provable. Okay - do research on it to prove it. May I please offer you a chance to take a close look at Paget if you get a chance - it may prove to be more rewarding. But whatever you do, just go ahead and do it.

Jeff

gnote
02-25-2015, 10:12 AM
My theory is that space aliens are responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders. You can't prove that it's not true so therefore it's equally as good a theory as any other.

jerryd
02-25-2015, 11:27 AM
My theory is that space aliens are responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders. You can't prove that it's not true so therefore it's equally as good a theory as any other.

Santa did it. Caught red-handed. Murder weapon proof below!

:xmas::trowel:

This :spam1: was found on the doorstep of Mr Lusk. It may provide a clue.

Michael W Richards
02-25-2015, 11:49 AM
My theory is that space aliens are responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders. You can't prove that it's not true so therefore it's equally as good a theory as any other.

Actually its not, because at this point in time we know for sure that there are, and were, Royals.:laugh4:

Cheers

MayBea
02-25-2015, 12:40 PM
Reptilian Theory?

Only if we're in a court of law, which we're not. You are worried about peer review, and I am concerned with truth.
Thank you, LF. We're concerned with truth, and common sense is the best way to go about it (when you don't have CSI capabilities), even better than logic, because more people can agree on what common sense is.

My question is, why do people default to the 70s when talking about the Royal Conspiracy? I have my own theory developed in the 21st Century that if it's not the truth about the Ripper, then it's the true source for the Royal Conspiracy theory through Mary Jane Kelly's possible connection to Royals, specifically the Carnarvons who are linked as sources of the Gull story through Gull's daughter, Caroline Acland.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 02:47 PM
Hi London Fog,


The problem is there is no factual evidence, circumstantial, or otherwise regarding any of Knight's theory.
There is nothing that can be proven, not about a masonic connection, a royal connection, or a Sickert connection - it's all speculation that embraces
extreme improbabilities, and requires the reader to assume huge leaps into the realm of the illogical and unsubstantiated.
According to Knight, the only source for all of this was Joesph Gorman, who later recanted the story, then recanted his previous recanting.
It might help to read other forum posts regarding this theory, as nearly every assertion made by Gorman via Knight has been repeatedly refuted previously elsewhere.

As to ridicule, this seems to happen to everyone at some point, and in every theory and/or speculation that's posted. It's just par for the JtR course.

Regards,
MacGuffin

You're wrong. The fact that the victim's bodies were laid out the way they were is circumstantial evidence, as is the word "Jewes" on the wall. Both of those things are related to a secret society that the Royals were part of. Also, Walter Sickert believed in his latter years that he was JTR. True or false, these things are circumstantial evidence. And there is more.

GUT
02-25-2015, 03:00 PM
You're wrong. The fact that the victim's bodies were laid out the way they were is circumstantial evidence, as is the word "Jewes" on the wall. Both of those things are related to a secret society that the Royals were part of. Also, Walter Sickert believed in his latter years that he was JTR. True or false, these things are circumstantial evidence. And there is more.

I am trying hard to stay out of this thread it's been done to death over and over but you make three bland statements without offering a tiny bit of proof


The bodies were laid out.

How do you know that that's just not how they fell, they weren't all in identical positions.

Jewes is Masonic

This has been disputed over and over, a work colleague of mine is the 2nd highest Mason in this Country he says this is just not so.

Walter thought he was JtR.

Yeah sure and my wife's Aunty thought she was the Queen of England and made all the nursing home staff call her Your Majesty, so even if you bland statement is correct what does it prove, maybe that Wally was loosing his mind.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 03:06 PM
Alice Margaret Crook, Joseph Gorman's mother, was born in London on 18th April 1885, and was christened an Anglican, not a Roman Catholic.

Christened one thing at birth doesn't mean she couldn't have become something else in latter life. Does it?

Her conception must then have been between 18th July and 11th August 1884. The Duke of Clarence was then in Germany. He had departed for Heidelberg with his German tutor on 18th June and he did not return to England until 18th August.

Are you telling me that a pregnancy has to be nine months? Seriously?



He could therefore not have been Alice Crook's father, and he was certainly not Joseph Gorman's grandfather.

What you are offering as proof is embarrassing. You are ignoring a lot of things to say what you hare saying here. I think you should give more though before typing. And how do you know that Walter Sickert was CERTAINLY not the father of Joseph?

It is not up to any of us to prove or disprove your theories culled from Stephen Knight's long ago Final Solution that Wasn't. If you believe that Joseph Sickert's story is believable then offer proof. If you believe in the Royal theory then, London Fog, offer proof of a connection between these conspiracists and the Ripper victims.

If you say the sky is not blue, then yes, you are required to show proof, just like anyone else. This is not MY theory, and I have repeatedly said on here that it may or may not be right, but it's a theory in which I see great possibility. I have offered the circumstantial evidence whyI believe this possibility. That a lot more that you, or anyone so far, has offered against it. So put up, or shut up.

GUT
02-25-2015, 03:15 PM
Polly

Probably on her back, but as Cross and Paul at least re-arranged her clothes and may have moved her legs we can't be 100% sure.

Annie

On her back feet flat on the ground knees apart left arm across breast.

Liz

On her side facing the wall, left arm outstretched.

Kate

On her back left leg out straight right leg bent hands by her side facing up.

MJK

Actually similar to Annie


Yep all laid out ritualistically. :rolleyes2:

London Fog
02-25-2015, 03:22 PM
Yes, it was highly entertaining. I remember getting it when it was first published and reading it in one sitting. It wasn't my introduction to the Ripper. That was Cullen's 'Autumn of Terror,' many years before, but it was an enthralling read.

The trouble was though, I believe, that Knight implicitly believed what Joseph Gorman told him. Knight had the advantage of a team of BBC researchers and yet suppressed facts that didn't fit in with his theory (so, what else is new) but also published details which he must have known at the time were not the truth. That's unforgivable for a serious writer in my opinion.

Knight gave his opinions, just like you're doing here. Only difference is, he gave reasons why.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 03:24 PM
Hi London Fog,

None of the C5 were killed in a carriage, they were all killed where they were respectively found.
These crime scenes were murder sites, not dump sites.
If something never happened, then it can not be proven to have happened - this is what in fact is meant when saying a negative can not be proven.
Learning the facts of the case is essential prior to postulating theories.

Regards,
MacGuffin

"None of the C5 were killed in a carriage, they were all killed where they were respectively found"

That is a statement. It requires proof, just as any other statement.

Jeff Leahy
02-25-2015, 03:35 PM
No, Jeff.

That's quite wrong.

The cops may have thought they knew, but were mistaken.


But isn't that the entire PIONT? Were they or were they NOT mistaken

That is the question

after all, no suspect was accorded due process, which is hardly infallible either.

Macnaghten wrote a report, a non-identical twin version of which was used for a public relations campaign. That campaign was adamant that the Polish suspect was weak compared to the drowned Englishman (in 1907, Sims will claim that an American suspect is the strongest after the drowned man).

No this is just a MAD Wierdo thing you have made up in your own head…it never happened

What you are missing is that there was not just one police chief who said it was likely solved, but two.

Actually they all say very similar things. They think they knew..but no proof could make a conviction… Its a very different thing..

This is one of the failings of of modern so-called Ripeprology. That only Anderson claimed such certainty.

Not so.

Anderson says 'undiscovered crimes in London are rare but the Jtr Crimes are not within that category" the definitive ascertain fact is, that the suspect was a polish Jew..

I quite understand why you and others are mortally threatened by this unwelcome revisionist take.

An over-relaince on Macnaghten's report(s) has led many researchers to underestimate--even ignore--the press accounts of 1913 regarding Macnaghten's retirement press conference and/or his 1914 memoirs.

He claimed it was solved, by him alone, and that Jack was a 'Simon Pure' who took his own life after a breakdown.

In 1910 the same police chief via Sims ridiculed Anderson's claim that the Jewish suspect was protected by his fellow members of the Faith.

Yet could Anderson have been right and Macnaghten wrong?

Sure, anything is possible, but the extant sources show that of the two police chiefs one was better informed than the other about the details of each other's Jacks, and it is Macnaghten not Anderson.

You write that the Crawford letter is definitely connected to Aaron Kosminski. That's not so. It is a theory. It might be right, but it is more likely not to be when measured agaisnt other contemporaneous sources.

Two events…March 1889 ..Kosminski placed in a private asylum… End of investigation and what everyone believed…

Event Two: The Crawford Letter (Conection Montegu) Feb 1891

Two separate events that explain the differences in the police stories

A complete theory that joins the various anomalies together

It is unique… And it will be a new documentary coming soon with detailed explanation on why the various police officers believed what they did at the time

It is a Theory that unites Begg and Fido at long last..

Yours Jeff

London Fog
02-25-2015, 03:37 PM
Hi London Fog,

Yeah, I admit not believing the "Royal Conspiracy" Theory. I also said that since it had it's adherence (like yourself) we could not dismiss it. Finally I even did a footnote (in my "long post" as you put it) that perhaps the wrong important surgeon was looked at - rather than Sir William Gull it should have been Sir James Paget, who had a clear interest in current homicide cases (i.e. the Bartlett "Pimlico" Mystery" Poisoning of 1885-86). Paget's son John Paget had even written a book about famous mysteries back in the 1860s, and included references in it to then contemporary cases (in that book there were references to the "Stepney" mystery of 1860). Apparently homicide was discussed very commonly in that household. John Paget had died by 1888, but Sir James was still living.

I won't say you're wrong about Paget, because I simply don't know. I won't say it's rubbish. This theory, however, hinges on the story as told by Joseph Gorman/Sickert, which gives William Gull as the man with the knife. Notice I am saying this is ACCORDING TO THIS THEORY. I have never said any of this is set in stone. Most posters here don't seem to see where I've been saying that.


You seem really avid about the "Royal Theory" as provable. Okay - do research on it to prove it. May I please offer you a chance to take a close look at Paget if you get a chance - it may prove to be more rewarding. But whatever you do, just go ahead and do it.

Jeff

No. How many times to I have to explain myself? This is a THEORY, just as a hundred or so other theories out there. The best evidence I have seen for ANY of the theories is circumstantial. The circumstantial evidence for this theory is, for me, a little better than many of the others. That's not to say this is right, or that I can prove it. It is what it is.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 03:46 PM
Reptilian Theory?


Thank you, LF. We're concerned with truth, and common sense is the best way to go about it (when you don't have CSI capabilities), even better than logic, because more people can agree on what common sense is.

My question is, why do people default to the 70s when talking about the Royal Conspiracy? I have my own theory developed in the 21st Century that if it's not the truth about the Ripper, then it's the true source for the Royal Conspiracy theory through Mary Jane Kelly's possible connection to Royals, specifically the Carnarvons who are linked as sources of the Gull story through Gull's daughter, Caroline Acland.

How does believing in the possibility of a certain theory go against common sense? When you consider the Masonic angle, common sense tells you it's possible. This doesn't go back to the 1970's, it was done in 1888.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 03:58 PM
I am trying hard to stay out of this thread it's been done to death over and over but you make three bland statements without offering a tiny bit of proof


The bodies were laid out.

How do you know that that's just not how they fell, they weren't all in identical positions.

Jewes is Masonic

This has been disputed over and over, a work colleague of mine is the 2nd highest Mason in this Country he says this is just not so.

Walter thought he was JtR.

Yeah sure and my wife's Aunty thought she was the Queen of England and made all the nursing home staff call her Your Majesty, so even if you bland statement is correct what does it prove, maybe that Wally was loosing his mind.

I don't have proof. I don't have proof. I don't have proof. Want me to say it again? Okay, I don't have proof. What I have is this. I consider the masonic theory as very strong possibility, due to the circumstantial evidence of how SOME OF the bodies were laid out, intentionally of not. Yes, you can dispute the word Jewes. What has ever been offered that hasn't been disputed?

You know a Mason who says this isn't so. Did he live in 1888? I believe I read a Mason on here who thought it could be right. It comes down to many theories, and everyone's right to choose which one they think has the most possibility. As of right now, all we have is possibilities, and that's what's I've been talking about here. No, I don't have proof. But I believe in the possibility of the Masonic theory. Why does this theory seem to threaten so many people?

Yeah sure and my wife's Aunty thought she was the Queen of England and made all the nursing home staff call her Your Majesty, so even if you bland statement is correct what does it prove, maybe that Wally was loosing his mind.

Is there a JTR type mystery ties in with your wife's aunt? If there is, I'd bet you that the police would look into that. What does it prove? See my words above.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 04:01 PM
Polly

Probably on her back, but as Cross and Paul at least re-arranged her clothes and may have moved her legs we can't be 100% sure.

Annie

On her back feet flat on the ground knees apart left arm across breast.

Liz

On her side facing the wall, left arm outstretched.

Kate

On her back left leg out straight right leg bent hands by her side facing up.

MJK

Actually similar to Annie


Yep all laid out ritualistically. :rolleyes2:

If you would read my posts, you would see I didn't say they ALL were laid out that way. The best thing you said was, "we can't ne 100% sure." Too bad you can't take to heart your own words.

GUT
02-25-2015, 04:10 PM
Show me were I've ever said I'm 100% sure. What I keep saying is SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

By what you call reasoning I can claim that it was a 6 year old child who lost his mummy and everytime he found a woman who wasn't his mummy he spat the dummy and killed her. Would anyone buy that without some sort of evidence, hope not and that's what I keep asking for some evidence and you give us laying out, which MIGHT apply to two victims, you give us JUWES [if that was even how it was spelt as one police recorded it as JEWES] and can't prove it was a Masonic term, and you give us Walter thought he was JtR without a shred of proof that he actually did so or what his mental state was at the time.

Jeff Leahy
02-25-2015, 04:11 PM
How does believing in the possibility of a certain theory go against common sense? When you consider the Masonic angle, common sense tells you it's possible.

No Common sense tells you it's unlikely, like all conspiracy theories..

However replace the word 'Conspiracy' with the words 'major "=ock up" and you might have something…

But the whole mason thing doesn't hold much water even though it must be accepted many of the top players were Masons…that was simply the nature of victorian social society..

You can't avoid the fact the victorian social world and class has an effect on what happened

Yours Jeff

Mayerling
02-25-2015, 05:08 PM
No Common sense tells you it's unlikely, like all conspiracy theories..

However
You can't avoid the fact the victorian social world and class has an effect on what happened

Yours Jeff

Actually Jeff, that really is a good, probably pertinent reflection on the case!:scratchchin:

Jeff

Jonathan H
02-25-2015, 05:37 PM
Really Jeff?

I thought you yourself were now proposing a conspiracy theory; in which Dr Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson conspired to conceal from their Scotland Yard colleagues that the Ripper had been positively identified by a witness?

Rosella
02-25-2015, 06:03 PM
There is no biological link between Joseph Sickert and the Duke of Clarence. Apart from Joseph being a known fantasist, his mother was conceived at a time when Prince Eddy was in Germany. Ergo, his mother cannot have been the Duke's daughter. And yes, the vast majority of pregnancies are of nine months duration.

A great portion of the Knight/Gorman tale was that Annie Crook, Prince Eddy's sweetheart was a Roman Catholic. She wasn't. Her daughter was christened as an Anglican. Whether Alice converted to Roman Catholicism later in life is neither here nor there, as it has nothing to do with Knight's story of Prince Eddy and Alice Crook.

Do you have proof that Alice was the daughter of the Duke of Clarence? Show it then!

Joseph was born the middle child of a marriage in which there is no evidence of infidelity at all.
There is no known provable link that Alice Gorman even knew the painter Walter Sickert.

If you have evidence that she did, then show it!

I have given you facts and evidence about Joseph, the Gormans and Prince Eddy's whereabouts. Instead of being so rude, why not produce something that shows that Joseph Gorman wasn't a liar and a fantasist.

Every theory has to have some link to reality, some factual base, or it is nothing but gossamer.

MayBea
02-25-2015, 06:54 PM
How does believing in the possibility of a certain theory go against common sense? When you consider the Masonic angle, common sense tells you it's possible. This doesn't go back to the 1970's, it was done in 1888.
It doesn't go against common sense, but it might go against someone's logic or 'scientific' reasoning which might be based on some sort of 'legality' or elitist thinking (e.g. burden of proof stuff where proof means a document or DNA-type evidence). That's just a good way to get rid of someone.

Knight's theory goes back to the 1970s. There have been other updated incarnations that are much better, which I think definitely link, at least Mary Jane Kelly, to the basic Knight theory, if not the whole Ripper story.

Rosella
02-25-2015, 08:18 PM
I gave dates etc. which London Fog chose to ignore and rubbish. He didn't offer any contrasting evidence of his own. I don't happen to consider logic as elitist or a way to get 'rid' of London Fog or anyone else.

Conspiracy theories, whether involving Freemasons or not. are always popular, aren't they? If there are no perceptible links supporting any of it it's put down to the elite concerned getting rid of everything.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 09:44 PM
Show me were I've ever said I'm 100% sure. What I keep saying is SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

By what you call reasoning I can claim that it was a 6 year old child who lost his mummy and everytime he found a woman who wasn't his mummy he spat the dummy and killed her. Would anyone buy that without some sort of evidence, hope not and that's what I keep asking for some evidence and you give us laying out, which MIGHT apply to two victims, you give us JUWES [if that was even how it was spelt as one police recorded it as JEWES] and can't prove it was a Masonic term, and you give us Walter thought he was JtR without a shred of proof that he actually did so or what his mental state was at the time.

Well, for someone who's not sure, you don't have any problem telling me how wrong I am. You should be sure before saying such things. I, on the other hand, am stating I am not sure. I consider a certain theory to have strong possibilities. You are still saying show you the evidence? Are you actually reading these posts? Look, if you did believe in a 6 year old child theory, why would that threaten me?

London Fog
02-25-2015, 09:46 PM
No Common sense tells you it's unlikely, like all conspiracy theories..

However replace the word 'Conspiracy' with the words 'major "=ock up" and you might have something…

But the whole mason thing doesn't hold much water even though it must be accepted many of the top players were Masons…that was simply the nature of victorian social society..

You can't avoid the fact the victorian social world and class has an effect on what happened

Yours Jeff

Is there, or has there ever been such a thing as a conspiracy about anything? If so, then you have to admit the possibility. Common sense. I personally see a deeper possibility than that, but if you don't, that's okay.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 10:03 PM
There is no biological link between Joseph Sickert and the Duke of Clarence.

Oh, so you've done the DNA testing? Can you post the results here?

Apart from Joseph being a known fantasist, his mother was conceived at a time when Prince Eddy was in Germany. Ergo, his mother cannot have been the Duke's daughter. And yes, the vast majority of pregnancies are of nine months duration.

I assume then that you were there to witness said conception. If you weren't, then I will tell you, not every pregnancy is a nine month ordeal. Ask any doctor.

A great portion of the Knight/Gorman tale was that Annie Crook, Prince Eddy's sweetheart was a Roman Catholic. She wasn't. Her daughter was christened as an Anglican. Whether Alice converted to Roman Catholicism later in life is neither here nor there, as it has nothing to do with Knight's story of Prince Eddy and Alice Crook.

If she converting to catholocism, that had nothing to do with her being a catholic? Can you please explain that?

Do you have proof that Alice was the daughter of the Duke of Clarence? Show it then!

Okay, I'm getting a little tired of saying the same things over and over. Please read my posts about what I've said concerning proof, and why I believe in the possibility of this theory.

Joseph was born the middle child of a marriage in which there is no evidence of infidelity at all.
There is no known provable link that Alice Gorman even knew the painter Walter Sickert.

You might be 100% correct. But if you don't know, FOR SURE that this is true, then you can't rightly call me crazy for considering the theory.


I have given you facts and evidence about Joseph, the Gormans and Prince Eddy's whereabouts. Instead of being so rude, why not produce something that shows that Joseph Gorman wasn't a liar and a fantasist.

No, you really haven't given any facts at all. You have given your reasons for believing what you believe, just as I have. If all pregnancies are exactly nine months in duration, and if a catholic convert isn't called a catholic, then you might have something. You have to do better than that.

I'm the rude one here? That's more sad than it is funny. If you were reading these posts, you would see how silly that statement is.

Every theory has to have some link to reality, some factual base, or it is nothing but gossamer.

You're allowed to say that, but I'm not, right?

GUT
02-25-2015, 10:06 PM
Can I summarise London Fog has no proof just s/he likes the idea and will out of hand reject anything that might be contrary to him liking the idea.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 10:11 PM
It doesn't go against common sense, but it might go against someone's logic or 'scientific' reasoning which might be based on some sort of 'legality' or elitist thinking (e.g. burden of proof stuff where proof means a document or DNA-type evidence). That's just a good way to get rid of someone.

Knight's theory goes back to the 1970s. There have been other updated incarnations that are much better, which I think definitely link, at least Mary Jane Kelly, to the basic Knight theory, if not the whole Ripper story.

If the theory is correct, it goes back to 1888. It was in 1888 when the women were laid out in a fashion that very well could have been masonic ritual. It was 1888 when the word JEWES was written on the wall. It was the Royal family of 1888 who were members of the masonic order. So MAYBE this was a 1970 concoction, but then, MAYBE it wasn't. I believe in the possibility.

GUT
02-25-2015, 10:19 PM
If the theory is correct, it goes back to 1888. It was in 1888 when the women were laid out in a fashion that very well could have been masonic ritual. It was 1888 when the word JEWES was written on the wall. It was the Royal family of 1888 who were members of the masonic order. So MAYBE this was a 1970 concoction, but then, MAYBE it wasn't. I believe in the possibility.

There we go again the women were laid out in a fashion that very well could have been masonic ritual, but the fact that we can only say two were in positions even remotely the same doesn't matter.

If the killer was laying out his victims in the "Masonic Manner" for whatever that was supposed to be, why would he lay them all out in that same manner?

London Fog
02-25-2015, 10:23 PM
Can I summarise London Fog has no proof just s/he likes the idea and will out of hand reject anything that might be contrary to him liking the idea.

Well at least you've started reading my posts. I did say I had no proof.

Here's where you're wrong about me. I don't mind so much if anyone here don't believe this theory. I welcome anyone to discuss it and tell why they do or don't believe it. But that's not what's happening here. What I'm seeing are people who think they know it all, so that nothing can be possible unless they endorse it. I have a passion for the JTR case. Maybe that's a bit twisted of me, but it's true. I really enjoy discussing all theories on the case. And I try to keep an open mind about all theories, until I have hard proof to the contrary. If you have such, I welcome it. If you don't, then please stop harassing me for having an open mind.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 10:29 PM
There we go again the women were laid out in a fashion that very well could have been masonic ritual, but the fact that we can only say two were in positions even remotely the same doesn't matter.

If the killer was laying out his victims in the "Masonic Manner" for whatever that was supposed to be, why would he lay them all out in that same manner?

I don't know. According to the theory, there were more than one man involved in this. That COULD explain it, though I don't expect you to grasp that I'm saying "COULD."

Here we go again? If you don't want to "go again," then you certainly don't have to. If you don't want to, goodbye.

GUT
02-25-2015, 10:36 PM
Well at least you've started reading my posts. I did say I had no proof.

Here's where you're wrong about me. I don't mind so much if anyone here don't believe this theory. I welcome anyone to discuss it and tell why they do or don't believe it. But that's not what's happening here. What I'm seeing are people who think they know it all, so that nothing can be possible unless they endorse it. I have a passion for the JTR case. Maybe that's a bit twisted of me, but it's true. I really enjoy discussing all theories on the case. And I try to keep an open mind about all theories, until I have hard proof to the contrary. If you have such, I welcome it. If you don't, then please stop harassing me for having an open mind.

Well how about as Rosella pointed out wt the most likely time of conception he was out of the Country. You keep saying pregnancy isn't 9 months and your actually right a normal term pregnancy is 40 weeks, guess what 9 months and a couple of days.

What about the simple fact that baby born even 4 weeks premature in 1888 had about a 1% chance of survival.

How about that the doctors at the time said the bodies were killed where they were found.

How about the fact that there is no proof that JtR even wrote the Graffiti.

How about the fact that there is nothing to show that Juwes or Jewes has anything to do with Masons.

How about the likelihood as was believed by Warren at the time that it referred to Jews.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 10:56 PM
Well how about as Rosella pointed out wt the most likely time of conception he was out of the Country. You keep saying pregnancy isn't 9 months and your actually right a normal term pregnancy is 40 weeks, guess what 9 months and a couple of days.

Okay, I guess you did want to "go again."

It's not false that not all pregnancies are of nine month duration. I know you know that's true, but I can't figure out how you can justify pretending that it's not true. EVERY adult on earth knows that's true.

What about the simple fact that baby born even 4 weeks premature in 1888 had about a 1% chance of survival. I would say that 1% would have a chance of surviving. What would you say?

How about that the doctors at the time said the bodies were killed where they were found.

From what I've seen of doctors reports, they didn't agree on much. Some of them say it was a Doctor, and others of them say it wasn't a doctor. How would they even know that the bodies were killed on the spot they were found? The lack of blood strongly suggests otherwise.

How about the fact that there is no proof that JtR even wrote the Graffiti.

Do you think such a writing existed? If you do, I'll explain why I ask that question.

How about the fact that there is nothing to show that Juwes or Jewes has anything to do with Masons.

According to you. According to others, there is. Anything you want to believe, you call facts. Notice I'm using the word "possibility." And you try to paint me as the gullible one.

How about the likelihood as was believed by Warren at the time that it referred to Jews.

None who weren't masons would have any reason to think otherwise. Those who were masons wouldn't admit this was being done by them.

London Fog
02-25-2015, 11:40 PM
From another thread:

Ellen May Lackner backed up Joseph Sickerts story in an interview with Fairclough,Begg and Feldman.
If you haven't read Faircloughs book may i suggest you read it if only for this.
Whenever I try to dismiss Josephs story(despite his yo-yoing from assertion to retraction) I keep coming back to 'why would this old lady lie'.
I just can't see it,pensioners in my experience are generally honest.
Why would she sit and tell a barefaced lie to these three ripperologists.
I don't think she did.
Basically what she said was that Joseph's grandfather was royalty and that 'the artist'(sickert) helped with the cover up by pretending the child was his.She also talked about her grandfathers link with the stephens.
Feldman stated in his book that although Annie was welcomed at Ellen's family home,Alice was not as she reminded Ellens mother of Jack the ripper.

Rosella
02-26-2015, 12:03 AM
Family stories are often adopted into family lore and believed and embellished, over the generations. What about the tale of Eddowes' shawl, made into the centrepiece of a book?

I post on the Lizzie Borden Forum. On there we had a poster, an old lady who in her youth had been told by another old lady the 'truth' about the Borden murders.

It involved a sweetheart of Lizzie's being refused permission to marry her and so he had killed her parents. He was a young man, the son of wealthy parents, and a whole theory had grown up about him in the years since by some who followed the case

. Until people started dismantling the story. Lizzie never had any sweetheart and this young man was not a killer.

GUT
02-26-2015, 12:21 AM
Ellen May Lackner backed up Joseph Sickerts story in an interview with Fairclough,Begg and Feldman.
If you haven't read Faircloughs book may i suggest you read it if only for this.
Whenever I try to dismiss Josephs story(despite his yo-yoing from assertion to retraction) I keep coming back to 'why would this old lady lie'.
I just can't see it,pensioners in my experience are generally honest.
Why would she sit and tell a barefaced lie to these three ripperologists.
I don't think she did.
Basically what she said was that Joseph's grandfather was royalty and that 'the artist'(sickert) helped with the cover up by pretending the child was his.She also talked about her grandfathers link with the stephens.
Feldman stated in his book that although Annie was welcomed at Ellen's family home,Alice was not as she reminded Ellens mother of Jack the ripper.

Couldn't help but laugh at this bit.

Pretty much every pensioner was once not a pensioner and the propensity to lie doesn't really change, pensioners are generally honest.

Just the sort of generalisation that leads the gullible to believe the theory

London Fog
02-26-2015, 12:24 AM
Family stories are often adopted into family lore and believed and embellished, over the generations. What about the tale of Eddowes' shawl, made into the centrepiece of a book?

I post on the Lizzie Borden Forum. On there we had a poster, an old lady who in her youth had been told by another old lady the 'truth' about the Borden murders.

It involved a sweetheart of Lizzie's being refused permission to marry her and so he had killed her parents. He was a young man, the son of wealthy parents, and a whole theory had grown up about him in the years since by some who followed the case

. Until people started dismantling the story. Lizzie never had any sweetheart and this young man was not a killer.

Why ask for something and then try to discredit it when you receive it? Because your mind is made up, and nothing will change it, right? Anything you are shown, you can come up with statements such as you just did. So why would anyone go to any lengths to show you anything?

London Fog
02-26-2015, 12:25 AM
Couldn't help but laugh at this bit.

Pretty much every pensioner was once not a pensioner and the propensity to lie doesn't really change, pensioners are generally honest.

Just the sort of generalisation that leads the gullible to believe the theory

Well I'm glad you got a jolly. Maybe now you'll be a little less judgmental of other people's views. But I won't hold my breath.

Pick apart what you can laugh at, and ignore the rest. I guess you need to do that, since you are determined to keep your mind closed.

MacGuffin
02-26-2015, 12:35 AM
Hi London Fog,
"None of the C5 were killed in a carriage, they were all killed where they were respectively found"

That is a statement. It requires proof, just as any other statement.
No it's a fact, read the case files and coroner inquest reports.

Regards
MacGuffin

London Fog
02-26-2015, 12:39 AM
Hi London Fog,

No it's a fact, read the case files and coroner inquest reports.

Regards
MacGuffin

So they examined the bodies and then stated in their report, " These women were not killed in a carriage." Is that correct?

Like I said before, there was a lot of disagreement over things like that. Some experts said JTR was a doctor, or had medical knowledge. Other experts said that was not the case. The same is true today. You have medical experts saying the one thing, and other medical experts saying the other.

Rosella
02-26-2015, 01:20 AM
Why ask for something and then try to discredit it when you receive it? Because your mind is made up, and nothing will change it, right? Anything you are shown, you can come up with statements such as you just did. So why would anyone go to any lengths to show you anything?

Not at all. I'm very interested in many of the theories discussed on the Forum. You haven't shown me anything except harkings back to the Knight/Sickert story, which has been debunked time and time again.

Jeff Leahy
02-26-2015, 01:35 AM
Really Jeff?

I thought you yourself were now proposing a conspiracy theory; in which Dr Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson conspired to conceal from their Scotland Yard colleagues that the Ripper had been positively identified by a witness?

I dont believe in conspiracy theories.

What I'm suggesting is something quite different. "A political Hot potato'

Its simply known fact that the East end was a potentially dangerous situation. There had been riots in Trafalgar square people were generally frightened…

So discovering that Jack the Ripper was a polish Jew immigrant was a potentially explosive happening..

So placing the man in an asylum out of harms way with the minimum of fuss is hardly a conspiracy theory, its simply how things were done in Victorian era. Gentlemen kept their mouths shut and there honour intact, it had meaning.

Keeping it quiet is not a conspiracy theory. Indeed Anderson said as much in his book…"Revealing his name would serve NO purpose"

Yours Jeff

London Fog
02-26-2015, 01:48 AM
Not at all. I'm very interested in many of the theories discussed on the Forum. You haven't shown me anything except harkings back to the Knight/Sickert story, which has been debunked time and time again.

You haven't given me anything to SHOW what you just said is true. I keep hearing it, but it never gets shown. The only thing that's been shown are things that are misconstrued.

I have shown precisely what I believe. I can't understand why so many people haven't read what I've said. It's there, just go back and read it.

What you were given is a relative who confirmed Joseph's story. But that's not what you want to hear, so you have to pooh pooh it.

Jonathan H
02-26-2015, 02:59 AM
Not so fast, Jeff

Are you, or are you not, claiming--or theorizing-- that Sir Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson concealed from their Scotland Yard colleagues (at least until 1910) that the Ripper had been positively identified by a witness who refused to testify on reportedly sectarian grounds.

MacGuffin
02-26-2015, 03:26 AM
Hi Jeff Leahy,
I dont believe in conspiracy theories.

What I'm suggesting is something quite different. "A political Hot potato'

Its simply known fact that the East end was a potentially dangerous situation. There had been riots in Trafalgar square people were generally frightened…

So discovering that Jack the Ripper was a polish Jew immigrant was a potentially explosive happening..

So placing the man in an asylum out of harms way with the minimum of fuss is hardly a conspiracy theory, its simply how things were done in Victorian era. Gentlemen kept their mouths shut and there honour intact, it had meaning.

Keeping it quiet is not a conspiracy theory. Indeed Anderson said as much in his book…"Revealing his name would serve NO purpose"

Yours Jeff

I think this is one of the factors that those of us who grew up in a more transparent age/era often loose sight of and fail to understand.
Much of the silence and "secrecy" that surrounds the crime seems to be of a mysterious nature at first glance, unless the viewer mentally places themselves (and hence, the crimes) in the proper context of place, time and societal norms, beliefs, and interactions.
Once this is done, much of the perceived mystique tends to dissipate like smoke in the wind.

Regards,
MacGuffin

(edited to add): This is not in regards to any particular suspect, just an observation of the thought processes and perceptual differences
that have changed in the past 126 years.

Errata
02-26-2015, 09:47 AM
So they examined the bodies and then stated in their report, " These women were not killed in a carriage." Is that correct?

Like I said before, there was a lot of disagreement over things like that. Some experts said JTR was a doctor, or had medical knowledge. Other experts said that was not the case. The same is true today. You have medical experts saying the one thing, and other medical experts saying the other.

This isn't an expertise thing, like a coroner speculating on the amount of medical knowledge the killer might possess. This is a blood thing.

These women were found in appropriately sized pools of blood given what was done to them and how long they were in situ. In order for them to have been killed elsewhere, the killer would have needed to collect the blood shed during the murder, and then pour it on the ground before placing the body where it was found. He also would have had to have killed them on some kind of surface that leaves no marks, and wood and cloth both leave marks. And a carriage is a cramped space, so her limbs would have been pressed against the seat or the door, and that leaves marks as well.

The blood evidence says they were killed where they were found. And while it is possible that certain elaborate procedures could have been done to feign the blood evidence, those procedures require quite a bit of space and time. So a carriage is out.

London Fog
02-26-2015, 10:18 AM
This isn't an expertise thing, like a coroner speculating on the amount of medical knowledge the killer might possess. This is a blood thing.

These women were found in appropriately sized pools of blood given what was done to them and how long they were in situ. In order for them to have been killed elsewhere, the killer would have needed to collect the blood shed during the murder, and then pour it on the ground before placing the body where it was found. He also would have had to have killed them on some kind of surface that leaves no marks, and wood and cloth both leave marks. And a carriage is a cramped space, so her limbs would have been pressed against the seat or the door, and that leaves marks as well.

The blood evidence says they were killed where they were found. And while it is possible that certain elaborate procedures could have been done to feign the blood evidence, those procedures require quite a bit of space and time. So a carriage is out.

On the point of the amount of blood present, many say there was NOT the amount of blood present to justify the murders being done where the bodies were found. So yes, it actually is a matter of opinion, and once again, opinions differ.

miss marple
02-26-2015, 10:26 AM
Has London Fog ever been to the East End? The idea of a carriage [ not a Hackney cab or cart] rattling around the back streets of Whitechapel, without being noticed, then stopping and someone getting out [ not Dr Gull, poor man was incapacitated] spraying the blood ,laying out bodies without being seen by anyone and an invisable carriage that vanished without trace gave me a real laugh. Still the old favourites are the best. Van Gogh aint got no legs.


Miss Marple

London Fog
02-26-2015, 10:44 AM
Has London Fog ever been to the East End? The idea of a carriage [ not a Hackney cab or cart] rattling around the back streets of Whitechapel, without being noticed, then stopping and someone getting out [ not Dr Gull, poor man was incapacitated] spraying the blood ,laying out bodies without being seen by anyone and an invisable carriage that vanished without trace gave me a real laugh. Still the old favourites are the best. Van Gogh aint got no legs.


Miss Marple

You could ask him if he's ever been to the East End.

Is the carriage Idea more ridiculous than a man walking those streets, spending the time to mutilate the women, under the noses of the police, and never being caught? Even after such murders began, on those same streets, this guy was able to hide such goings on, in almost plain sight. If you can believe that, you should be able to consider the other.

Jeff Leahy
02-26-2015, 10:59 AM
Hi Jeff Leahy,

Not so fast, Jeff

Are you, or are you not, claiming--or theorizing-- that Sir Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson concealed from their Scotland Yard colleagues (at least until 1910) that the Ripper had been positively identified by a witness who refused to testify on reportedly sectarian grounds.

No, I'm certainly not using the word 'concealed'. Indeed I used the phrase 'Hot Potatoe' which is a clear reference to Monroe.

Do I believe that Anderson would necessarily have had to inform every officer under his command? No I don't.

Its also clear that Anderson didn't have a high opinion of MacNaughten, thats fairly well known and recorded.

I think this is one of the factors that those of us who grew up in a more transparent age/era often loose sight of and fail to understand.
Much of the silence and "secrecy" that surrounds the crime seems to be of a mysterious nature at first glance, unless the viewer mentally places themselves (and hence, the crimes) in the proper context of place, time and societal norms, beliefs, and interactions.
Once this is done, much of the perceived mystique tends to dissipate like smoke in the wind.

Regards,
MacGuffin

(edited to add): This is not in regards to any particular suspect, just an observation of the thought processes and perceptual differences
that have changed in the past 126 years.

Yes the Police force certainly seemed to operate differently as did politicians. I suppose I should here plug Neil Bells book and admit I've not ordered a copy as I'm busy with a back log…poor excuse.

But Anderson clearly says in his book that he could see no good coming from naming his suspect. They'd be an out cry if someone published that today. It simply was seen differently back in Victorian/Edwardian society

Many thanks

Yours Jeff

PS we recently re-named our boat the MacGuffin!

PS PS Sorry about the attribution of Jonathons comments to MacGuffin, I was trying to be clever and join two posts into one, saving ink…

Simon Wood
02-26-2015, 11:45 AM
Hi Jeff,

Why do you believe that truth dripped like nectar from the lips of Sir Robert Anderson?

Regards,

Simon

Jonathan H
02-26-2015, 12:46 PM
To Jeff

So, your answer is yes-- whatever semantic games you want to play.

Anderson and Swanson (and also Monro, Macnaghten's patron and friend) concealed from Macnaghten and, let's say, Major Smith, that the Ripper had been successfully identified but he could not be brought to book because he was--those in the know wrongly believed--deceased for several years.

When I argued on the other site that Macnaghten concealed from Scotland Yard--he had a very low opinion of Anderson--his solution of a deceased suspect you accused me of the lowest kind of trashy conspiracy mongering.

I argue that Macnaghten conspired with Sims, and no other, exactly as you say: a gentlemanly bit of discretion very typical of their class (in my thesis to protect a fellow gent's family).

Now it has become your theory too, and thus suddenly legit and respectable.

It is practically plagiarism!

We agree, Jeff, we just favor different police chiefs concealing the solution for their colleagues; because the Ripper cannot be brought to court and because said chief does not trust the solution not to leak and ruin the family of the murderer.

But do you have any concept of how shaky is the ground upon which you tread?

In 1910 Mac went to see Monro to warn him of how Anderson was making all sorts of false claims about his former chief sanctioning his political interference. Monro wrote to the papers to firmly deny this. Are you seriously suggesting that Monro, nonetheless, with-held from Macnaghten that the Polish madmen was definitely the Ripper?

Your newest theory of two incarcerations of Kosminski will not fly because the details that Macnaghten supplies (and via his proxies) clearly refers to the sectioning of the Polish suspect in 1891, e.g. attacking a female relative and the chronic masturbation but backdated to 1889, when Anderson implies the identification took place (hence Cullen, Farson, Rumbelow and Fido thinking he must mean Pizer).

Jeff Leahy
02-26-2015, 12:51 PM
Hi Jeff,

Why do you believe that truth dripped like nectar from the lips of Sir Robert Anderson?

Regards,

Simon

What is the Truth?

Jeff Leahy
02-26-2015, 01:06 PM
To Jeff

So, your answer is yes-- whatever semantic games you want to play.

Anderson and Swanson (and also Monro, Macnaghten's patron and friend) concealed from Macnaghten and, let's say, Major Smith, that the Ripper had been successfully identified but he could not be brought to book because he was--those in the know wrongly believed--deceased for several years.

I clearly said the word 'concealed' isn't what I was arguing. Would Anderson have had any reason to inform subordinate officers? Especuially given the sensitive nature of what he was dealing with?

When I argued on the other site that Macnaghten concealed from Scotland Yard--he had a very low opinion of Anderson--his solution of a deceased suspect you accused me of the lowest kind of trashy conspiracy mongering.

I argue that Macnaghten conspired with Sims, and no other, exactly as you say: a gentlemanly bit of discretion very typical of their class (in my thesis to protect a fellow gent's family).

You argued that MacNaughten Conspired with Simm's.

Thats something quite different

Now it has become your theory too, and thus suddenly legit and respectable. It is practically plagiarism!

It certainly isn't my theory. I'm simply saying that by late 1891 Anderson dealt with a situation and kept it quiet because of the sensitive nature. He would be under no obligation to inform MacNaughten.

We agree, Jeff, we just favor different police chiefs concealing the solution for their colleagues; because the Ripper cannot be brought to court and because said chief does not trust the solution not to leak and ruin the family of the murderer.

But do you have any concept of how shaky is the ground upon which you tread?

Again you use the term Conceal. That implies deliberate action when Anderson would have had no need to inform subordinate officers.

Your newest theory of two incarcerations of Kosminski will not fly because the details that Macnaghten supplies (and via his proxies) clearly refers to the sectioning of the Polish suspect in 1891, e.g. attacking a female relative and the chronic masturbation but backdated to 1889, when Anderson implies the identification took place (hence Cullen, Farson, Rumbelow and Fido thinking he must mean Pizer).

MacNaughtenb never mentions 1891 as you well know. Thats because he only reads a file that gives a clear date March 1889.. That is incontrovertible.

Yours Jeff

London Fog
02-26-2015, 01:36 PM
The idea of a carriage [ not a Hackney cab or cart] rattling around the back streets of Whitechapel, without being noticed, then stopping and someone getting out [ not Dr Gull, poor man was incapacitated] spraying the blood ,laying out bodies without being seen by anyone and an invisable carriage that vanished without trace gave me a real laugh.
Miss Marple

I think the theory is that the carriage would be stationary (parked), and the bodies carried to their location. So the carriage would not be barreling down any streets. IF true, this would explain how such could be done, without ever being caught, because the Ripper's work didn't happen on the street. No need for a carriage to be rumbling down any street, including those that were too small for a carriage. As far as spraying blood, that's a new one on me.

MayBea
02-26-2015, 02:29 PM
How do you like the Casebook Gauntlet, LF?
If the theory is correct, it goes back to 1888...It was 1888 when the word JEWES was written on the wall. It was the Royal family of 1888 who were members of the masonic order. So MAYBE this was a 1970 concoction, but then, MAYBE it wasn't...
I don't use the word concoction, but maybe 'collation' of reports, tips, rumor and conjecture. It's worth tracing the source of the rumor.

Obviously anyone theorizing on the case without bias would come to the conclusion that Jack knew the significance of Mitre Square and the Apron and they would pass on rumors that fit the scenario.
http://victorianripper.niceboard.org/t1558-gull-treated-the-ripper

London Fog
02-26-2015, 02:39 PM
How do you like the Casebook Gauntlet, LF?

I don't use the word concoction, but maybe 'collation' of reports, tips, rumor and conjecture. It's worth tracing the source of the rumor.

Obviously anyone theorizing on the case without bias would come to the conclusion that Jack knew the significance of Mitre Square and the Apron and they would pass on rumors that fit the scenario.
http://victorianripper.niceboard.org/t1558-gull-treated-the-ripper

That would be called circumstantial evidence, or at least suggestive evidence. You either know the Mitre Square thing is significant, or you know it isn't, or you're not sure. Which of those fits you?

Jonathan H
02-26-2015, 03:03 PM
To Jeff

What a terribly weak response, even for you.

An omission is concealment if it misleads another.

So, according to you Sir Robert Anderson discovers that aaron Kosminski is the Ripper but can never be brought to trial. He informs the operational head of the case, Swanson, but not his immediate subordinate, Macnaghten--the No. 2 at CID.

When they were investigating Grant as the fiend in 1895, Macnaghten was wasting his time (as were they all) because Anderson and Swanson already knew who Jack was, but did not let on.

Therefore Swanson miseld by omission, his superior, Macnaghten. Anderson in turn misled, by omission, his junior, Mac.

I am not suggesting gentlemanly misleading could not have happened.

Not at all, since I first proposed it. I just argue it is the other way round: Mac misled his superior and his junior--which is not a conspiracy by the way because it is only a self-amused Macnaghten doing it (e.g. Sims was not a cop).

I understand why you must vehemently resist the word 'cocnealment', because, Jeff, you are now embarked on the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

Jeff Leahy
02-26-2015, 03:21 PM
To Jeff
So, according to you Sir Robert Anderson discovers that aaron Kosminski is the Ripper but can never be brought to trial. He informs the operational head of the case, Swanson, but not his immediate subordinate, Macnaghten--the No. 2 at CID.

HAve you ever read the Swanson Marginalia?

When they were investigating Grant as the fiend in 1895, Macnaghten was wasting his time (as were they all) because Anderson and Swanson already knew who Jack was, but did not let on.

Swanson would have been under obligation to investigate.

Therefore Swanson miseld by omission, his superior, Macnaghten. Anderson in turn misled, by omission, his junior, Mac.

I am not suggesting gentlemanly misleading could not have happened. .

Have you ever read the Swanson Marginalia?

Not at all, since I first proposed it. I just argue it is the other way round: Mac misled his superior and his junior--which is not a conspiracy by the way because it is only a self-amused Macnaghten doing it (e.g. Sims was not a cop).

I understand why you must vehemently resist the word 'cocnealment', because, Jeff, you are now embarked on the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

You argued that Simm's and MacNaughten conspired a story in order to deliberately mislead everyone away from the suspect Druit..

I'm simply saying that Anderson employed Swanson to investigate claims made by a close female member of the suspects family..

They couldn't get enough to place the suspect in Broadmore so he was placed out of harms way..Colney Hatch

Given the sensitive nature and because Anderson gave his word to a lady, they kept stom… Anderson later claiming no good could come from revealing the identity of the Killer…Swanson never did, only in private …the marginalia

Yours Jeff

Jonathan H
02-26-2015, 03:46 PM
To Jeff

Now comes the condescension, with no doubt personal invective soon bringing up the rear.

Simply repeating your errors won't wear me down, mate, and it will not convince anybody else.

Omission from CID's No. 2 is concealment, an issue you have now dodged.

Yes, I have read the Swanson Marginalia, a primary source whose limitations outweigh its strengths, to say the least.

Swanson (and Anderson) mistakenly and self-servingly believed that 'Kosminski' was long deceased. Both mistakenly thought a Jewish witness had positively identified this suspect, but who had refused to testify on sectarian grounds--the bloody swine!--and both mistakenly claimed that the Ripper murders ended with this suspect's incarceration.

All three bits of data are demonstably false.

Anderson in his memoir writes an incredibly bitchy put-down of Macnaghten, albeit un-named (but revealed by another of Swanson's annotations). It has to be said that Anderson comes out of that little episode very badly. In his 1914 memoir Macnaghten took the gloves off: no witness, no detention in an asylum, not a Jew and no cognition by CID, not for years, that the real Ripper was deceased.

Macnaghten and Sims (who both show they knew the Polish madman was not deceased) conspired, very deftly, to lead the press and public away from finding the real Druitt. That's a definitely ascertained fact. The question is why?

You reallt don't need to repeat my theiry to me. It is the lack of collegiality in adopting it as your own that is so indefensible.

MayBea
02-26-2015, 04:22 PM
That would be called circumstantial evidence, or at least suggestive evidence. You either know the Mitre Square thing is significant, or you know it isn't, or you're not sure. Which of those fits you?
I know it's significant because I'm sure the Ripper knew it's significance. He doesn't even have to be a Mason to know that.

The opposing belief only shows the extremes people go to to divorce the field from the Royal Masonic theory, without, of course giving us a better alternative than the unknown, illiterate and ignorant, local which is not even based on a whisper of a rumor.

London Fog
02-26-2015, 04:26 PM
I know it's significant because I'm sure the Ripper knew it's significance. He doesn't even have to be a Mason to know that.

The opposing belief only shows the extremes people go to to divorce the field from the Royal Masonic theory, without, of course giving us a better alternative than the unknown, illiterate and ignorant, local which is not even based on a whisper of a rumor.

Agreed. People just can't let themselves believe in anything that's not considered mainstream. Mainstream is not always the right stream.

Errata
02-26-2015, 07:02 PM
On the point of the amount of blood present, many say there was NOT the amount of blood present to justify the murders being done where the bodies were found. So yes, it actually is a matter of opinion, and once again, opinions differ.

No, actually knowledge differs. We think that these kinds of mutilations generate vast quantities of blood. And they do, relatively speaking. But the majority of blood in an abdominal mutilation like that of say, Chapman stays in the abdomen. It flows into the body cavity, not out of it. So the mutilations generally only produce a few teaspoons of blood on the outside of the body. Everything else comes from neck, and depending on temperature, blood thinners like alchohol, vessel health, elevation etc. The average woman wounded in this way bleeds out .5 - 2 liters of blood. All of these women bled enough to fall well within what would be expected of having been murdered where they lay.

Now anyone who hadn't encountered someone cut like that usually thinks there should be enough blood to fill a kiddie pool. That's just not how it works. And while this was known in 1888, it wasn't well known. Anyone who had served as a combat medic knew it, and those who specifically studied blood or death knew it, but a gp chosen based on proximity probably didn't. And frankly when people see a cut throat, the first thing they think about is the blood loss. Of course that's not how a person with a cut throat dies. It's asphyxiation or drowning. Sometimes if the arteries are only nicked, they die of shock. But almost never blood loss. And of course once a person dies, the blood flow essentially stops. No more arterial pressure. Carotid output is essentially 1 liter per minute. With a severed trachea it takes 60-90 seconds to die. So the baseline is that with two carotids and the trachea cut, a person loses 2-3 liters of blood.

But that's the baseline. There is a mechanism in animals that regulates carotid pressure in order to supply an appropriate amount of oxygen to the brain. When the carotid is severed and there is that initial pressure drop, not only does the person faint, but the carotid pressure is reduced dramatically. So after about a second the carotid actually starts bleeding less. It's not the amount of blood lost that kills. A skilled torturer can remove as much as five liters from the body while the victim remains conscious. It's the lack of oxygenated blood to the brain that is the typical cause of death. Basically when the carotid is cut the brain seals itself off and lives off of the blood already in the brain, which is good for maybe a minute. When the oxygen in that blood is used up, nothing replaces it. Because of the drop in carotid pressure, the blood loss is cut in half at least. So someone with a severed carotid in reality loses only about a liter of blood before death. And as it happens, the average handkerchief can absorb about a quarter of that amount. So while there seemed to not be enough blood loss for Nichols to have been murdered where she lay, there really was. And a great deal of it was sucked up by her dress.

This we know now. It is not surprising that it would not be widely known in 1888. But that's the advantage of looking at the case now. We know if what should have been there was there. And it was.

London Fog
02-26-2015, 10:40 PM
No, actually knowledge differs. We think that these kinds of mutilations generate vast quantities of blood. And they do, relatively speaking. But the majority of blood in an abdominal mutilation like that of say, Chapman stays in the abdomen. It flows into the body cavity, not out of it. So the mutilations generally only produce a few teaspoons of blood on the outside of the body. Everything else comes from neck, and depending on temperature, blood thinners like alchohol, vessel health, elevation etc. The average woman wounded in this way bleeds out .5 - 2 liters of blood. All of these women bled enough to fall well within what would be expected of having been murdered where they lay.

Now anyone who hadn't encountered someone cut like that usually thinks there should be enough blood to fill a kiddie pool. That's just not how it works. And while this was known in 1888, it wasn't well known. Anyone who had served as a combat medic knew it, and those who specifically studied blood or death knew it, but a gp chosen based on proximity probably didn't. And frankly when people see a cut throat, the first thing they think about is the blood loss. Of course that's not how a person with a cut throat dies. It's asphyxiation or drowning. Sometimes if the arteries are only nicked, they die of shock. But almost never blood loss. And of course once a person dies, the blood flow essentially stops. No more arterial pressure. Carotid output is essentially 1 liter per minute. With a severed trachea it takes 60-90 seconds to die. So the baseline is that with two carotids and the trachea cut, a person loses 2-3 liters of blood.

But that's the baseline. There is a mechanism in animals that regulates carotid pressure in order to supply an appropriate amount of oxygen to the brain. When the carotid is severed and there is that initial pressure drop, not only does the person faint, but the carotid pressure is reduced dramatically. So after about a second the carotid actually starts bleeding less. It's not the amount of blood lost that kills. A skilled torturer can remove as much as five liters from the body while the victim remains conscious. It's the lack of oxygenated blood to the brain that is the typical cause of death. Basically when the carotid is cut the brain seals itself off and lives off of the blood already in the brain, which is good for maybe a minute. When the oxygen in that blood is used up, nothing replaces it. Because of the drop in carotid pressure, the blood loss is cut in half at least. So someone with a severed carotid in reality loses only about a liter of blood before death. And as it happens, the average handkerchief can absorb about a quarter of that amount. So while there seemed to not be enough blood loss for Nichols to have been murdered where she lay, there really was. And a great deal of it was sucked up by her dress.

This we know now. It is not surprising that it would not be widely known in 1888. But that's the advantage of looking at the case now. We know if what should have been there was there. And it was.

So how much blood did each woman lose?

Jeff Leahy
02-27-2015, 01:13 AM
To Jeff Now comes the condescension, with no doubt personal invective soon bringing up the rear. Simply repeating your errors won't wear me down, mate, and it will not convince anybody else..

Its you trying to personalise this argument. I don't need to as the argument I'm, putting forward is simple clear and requires no conspiracy theories.

Omission from CID's No. 2 is concealment, an issue you have now dodged.

Well this sort of goes to the heart of what is being argued on this thread. Although the conspiracy is in context of the royal family. I'm simply saying that victorian society operated in a different way. And that might be interpreted in our modern far more open society as 'conspiracy' but in the old public school system a gentleman kept his mouth shut. The royal family didn't have press officers or media men, they just kept quiet.

Perhaps thats why MacNaughten was unpopular with Anderson, he was just viewed as a blabber mouth, who said to much at the club after a couple of whiskies….and that simply just wasn't done old boy.

Yes, I have read the Swanson Marginalia, a primary source whose limitations outweigh its strengths, to say the least.

A Primary source. From the horses mouth as they say. By a man who was in charge of the over all investigation. A reliable long serving officer with no reason to make anything up. Just because you don't understand it doesn't give it limitations.

Swanson (and Anderson) mistakenly and self-servingly Your usual attempt to dress your personal opinion as fact. and off course utter rubbish.

believed that 'Kosminski' was long deceased. Both mistakenly thought a Jewish witness had positively identified this suspect, but who had refused to testify on sectarian grounds--the bloody swine!--and both mistakenly claimed that the Ripper murders ended with this suspect's incarceration.

All three bits of data are demonstably false.

In your opinion. Yet it goes directly against the facts in order to serve your theory that Simms (A secondary source at best) conspired with MAcNaughten the supposed super cop…when it seems most likely that MacNAughten knew very much that info up until MArch 1889, and gossip from the club.

Anderson in his memoir writes an incredibly bitchy put-down of Macnaghten, albeit un-named (but revealed by another of Swanson's annotations). It has to be said that Anderson comes out of that little episode very badly. In his 1914 memoir Macnaghten took the gloves off: no witness, no detention in an asylum, not a Jew and no cognition by CID, not for years, that the real Ripper was deceased.

Well that depends on your view point but Anderson clearly didn't like MacNaughten, didn't rate him as an officer, he wanted him back in uniform…so its hardly surprising he didn't chat with him in detail about the ID.

Macnaghten and Sims (who both show they knew the Polish madman was not deceased)

No they didn't, they simply didn't know what happened to the suspect, thats something completely different from knowing he was deceased. What they knew is clearly dated MArch 1889… After that they knew nothing.. as did all the other officers involved (Cox , Sagar , Reid, Abberline,Drew etc), hence their beliefs also.

conspired Yeah right…where's the evidence?

very deftly, to lead the press and public away from finding the real Druitt. That's a definitely ascertained fact. The question is why?

The only thing that has ever left Druit as a credible suspect are the words of MAcNAughten himself… 'From private info' thats all you have…thats all any Druit advocate has ever had...

You reallt don't need to repeat my theiry to me. It is the lack of collegiality in adopting it as your own that is so indefensible.

You don't require a wild complicated conspiracy theory, its not necessary. The police had a suspect at the time of the murders, they follow him until MArch 1889 but don't catch him red handed, and he is placed out of there duristriction by being placed in a Private Asylum in MArch 1889… End of investigation…

Thats what Mac Naughten knows as he has access to the files.

After July 1890, The Earl of Crawford makes a private introduction on a sensitive political subject by a woman who knows the identity of the Whitechapel murderer… Anderson asks Swanson to sort it. He does at the Private Asylum (Seaside Home) an ID takes place. The witness won't testify.

They can't get him in broadmoore, so a compromise with the family is reached.. We don't give out the name if you make sure he can't be back on the street…

No conspiracy they just did the gentlemanly thing as Victorian gentlemen did, and kept quiet. Anderson even says so in his memoirs. Swanson never opens his mouth in public, thats what they did in those days. Its that simple.

Anderson probably kept an eye on Kosminski at colney Hatch, there is evidence of Anderson staying in touch with the person in charge. When Kosminski was transferred in April 1894 to Leavesdon, Anderson was told he was dead….he may aswell have been so by this time.

Thats a smile answer to all the various problems everyone has argued about for so long.

Yours Jeff

Jonathan H
02-27-2015, 02:26 AM
To Jeff

You are so terrified of the standard term about all sources, e.g. self-serving, that it is sort of touching.

So you hastily beat a retreat behind Anderson-was-either-truthful-or-a-liar, your tiresomely redundant straw man.

Everything you have written is false, as usual, but I understand you have now backed yourself into a very, very small and tight and clammy corner.

Your Anderson/Swanson conspiracy theory is lifted from mine, but I am of course to receive no credit -- only hit-the-bricks-sucker.

How you must have been hurt, painfully and acutely, by the speedy and ignominious collapse of the DNA 'resolution' last year for you to stoop this low.

Predictably you made it personal by asking absurd and insulting questions: such as have I read the Marginalia when you already know the answer.

Let me show what this looks like.

Jeff, have you ever read Anderson's memoirs? You sure do not write like you have?

Have you ever read Martin Fido's excellent book from 1987? You sure do not write like you have.

Worse, I know for a fact that you have not understood what Paul Begg has argued since 1987.

As for the casual reader, here are the facts:

Anderson began bragging about having probably solved the case in 1895 and he was fired in 1901 (the events are not connected). Swanson may have briefed a journalist about Kosminski in 1895--and got it wrong about him being deceased.

Macnaghten never associated himself with the case, in the public sphere, until he retired in 1913. H. L. Adam called him calculating and close-mouthed.

There is no mystery as to the two chief's mutual detestation: Anderson was your classic conceited, righteous, desk-bound reactionary who took all the credit for Mac's legwork. He was not an upper class gentleman like Macnaghten, e.g. no charm and no generosity.

Anderson and Swanson both wrongly believed that Kosminski was deceased. In 1907 Sims shows he knows he was still alive, which means Mac knew this too (as he did in 1898, when he used that material for Griffiths). It is not their fault, Anderson and Swanson, as they were relying on what Macnaghten told them, as in misled them. Nonetheless you are so desperate you argue that up is down, and black is white, the earth is flat, ans so on.

Jeff, you had a go at me for offering a 'conspiracy' theory (but mine was never institutional, just upper class gents being discreet) and now you do the same --and yours is institutional--and then deny the theft whilst also denying your pair plotted together to conceal their solution.

You wrote that for me to argue that Mac and Sims were in cahoots was the worst kind of gutter trash conspiracy-theorizing. Now you do the same and it's perfectly fine and all is right in the world.

You are a shameless humbugger.

And, incredibly, you have managed to do a huge historical disservice to both Anderson and Swanson, who in my opinion would never have concealed such definitive information from Macnaghten or Major Smith.

Yes Anderson was an appalling figure, but he was not that sort of appalling, whereas Mac saw himself as apart from his peers as an Old Etonian and in a cold war with Anderson. Plus Mac could not trust the old buzzard to keep his mouth shut--with good reason as the moment he learned about the Polish madman, in 1895, he began bragging about it. That solution became merged with the Sadler fiasco by the time Anderson wrote his memoirs in 1910.

Finally the Druitt solution does not just rest on Macnaghten, not for some years. Did you not know that, Jeff?

In 1991 Keith Skinner discovered the 'West of England' MP article (in 2011 Begg discovered another) that proved that belief in the drowned barrister as the fiend did not originate with the Chief Constable, but rather in the region the deceased had grown up (among the Dorset-Tory bourgeoisie). In 2008 Spallek discovered a newspaper source from 1992 that identified the MP as Henry Richard Farquharson, another Old Etonian. The missing link source that had eluded Farson and Cullen had at last been found. That same year the late Chris Scott published the 'North Country Vicar' articles, and another piece of this protracted jigsaw puzzle fell into place. And then my researcher last year found something unknown since 1922 which is, arguably, the final piece.

For all your reflexive bile directed at me we actually do agree in outline: a police chief of the day, for reasons of discretion about the family of the best suspect--who was beyond due process--concealed from his indiscreet colleague at the Yard that it was solved.

But my police chief did share this solution, broadly, with the public (via the most famous writer of two eras) and in doing so he did not let the 'better classes' off the hook with a solution that Jack was 'one of them'; a local, Jewish immigrant--instead it was, shockingly, 'one of us'; an English gentleman above suspicion.

Jeff Leahy
02-27-2015, 03:18 AM
To Jeff
You are so terrified of the standard term about all sources, e.g. self-serving, that it is sort of touching. So you hastily beat a retreat behind Anderson-was-either-truthful-or-a-liar, your tiresomely redundant straw man.

You appear to have trouble understanding the difference between your opinion, which 'Selfserving' clearly is and the facts.


Everything you have written is false, as usual,

This is Not a coherent argument its just play ground sniping, grow up.


Your Anderson/Swanson conspiracy theory is lifted from mine, but I am of course to receive no credit -- only hit-the-bricks-sucker.

Its not lifted from anything. Its just observation about the differences of talking openly in Victorian society, which you still have NOT addressed. The nature of police work in democratic society is that it involves a certain amount of secrecy, I'm arguing that that is NOT Conspiracy.

How you must have been hurt, painfully and acutely, by the speedy and ignominious collapse of the DNA 'resolution' last year for you to stoop this low.

Not one jot. I;ve addressed this on numerous occasions and you just look foolish constantly harping on, when everyone who knows me, knows I have no connection with Russell Edwards or his theories, although I wish him well in further testing.

Predictably you made it personal by asking absurd and insulting questions: such as have I read the Marginalia when you already know the answer.

No I was simply pointing out the obvious that the Swans Marginalia contradicts everything you were arguing.

Let me show what this looks like.

Go on we could all do with a good laugh this time of morning

Jeff, have you ever read Anderson's memoirs? You sure do not write like you have? Have you ever read Martin Fido's excellent book from 1987? You sure do not write like you have.

Worse, I know for a fact that you have not understood what Paul Begg has argued since 1987.

You must be the only person in the world that has never watched 'The Definitive Story'

As for the casual reader, here are the facts:
Anderson began bragging about having probably solved the case in 1895 and he was fired in 1901 (the events are not connected). Swanson may have briefed a journalist about Kosminski in 1895--and got it wrong about him being deceased..

Kosmihnski was transfered to Leavesdon in April 1894

Macnaghten never associated himself with the case, in the public sphere, until he retired in 1913. H. L. Adam called him calculating and close-mouthed.

I've never criticised Macnaughten, I've simply argued he only ever knew info in the files dated unto MArch 1889. That isn't a criticism it simply explains why he dosnt know about the ID and why he favours Druit. Which was reasonable given what information he had.

There is no mystery as to the two chief's mutual detestation: Anderson was your classic conceited, righteous, desk-bound reactionary who took all the credit for Mac's legwork. He was not an upper class gentleman like Macnaghten, e.g. no charm and no generosity.

I'll leave you to poor scorn on their individual characters, I prefer sticking to the facts, they are more useful

Anderson and Swanson both wrongly believed that Kosminski was deceased. In 1907 Sims shows he knows he was still alive, which means Mac knew this too (as he did in 1898, when he used that material for Griffiths). It is not their fault, Anderson and Swanson, as they were relying on what Macnaghten told them, as in misled them. Nonetheless you are so desperate you argue that up is down, and black is white, the earth is flat, ans so on..

You seem to work on the theory that if you say this trash as fact often enough it becomes the truth… Simms doesn't know the suspect is alive, he doesn't know whether he is dead, he probably only knew what MacNaughten Told him, which is information up to MArch 1889.

Jeff, you had a go at me for offering a 'conspiracy' theory (but mine was never institutional, just upper class gents being discreet) and now you do the same --and yours is institutional--and then deny the theft whilst also denying your pair plotted together to conceal their solution..

It became a conspiracy theory when you argued they deliberately set out to 'Miss inform'. I've never suggested that Anderson or Swanson set out to Miss Inform' I simply argued they kept 'Stum' they said nothing, as was common in British society at that time.

You wrote that for me to argue that Mac and Sims were in cahoots was the worst kind of gutter trash conspiracy-theorizing. Now you do the same and it's perfectly fine and all is right in the world. You are a shameless humbugger.

There is a clear difference between deceminating 'Miss information' and simply 'keeping quiet'. Your fail our to understand the difference is your own stupidity.

And, incredibly, you have managed to do a huge historical disservice to both Anderson and Swanson, who in my opinion would never have concealed such definitive information from Macnaghten or Major Smith. Yes Anderson was an appalling figure,

So you come out with this statement, and I'm doing a huge Historical in service? Your really are a clown of the first division. That is your opinion of Anderson not FACT.

but he was not that sort of appalling, whereas Mac saw himself as apart from his peers as an Old Etonian and in a cold war with Anderson. Plus Mac could not trust the old buzzard to keep his mouth shut--with good reason as the moment he learned about the Polish madman, in 1895, he began bragging about it. That solution became merged with the Sadler fiasco by the time Anderson wrote his memoirs in 1910.

Finally the Druitt solution does not just rest on Macnaghten, not for some years. Did you not know that, Jeff?

Yardie Yada, Farqueson was probably MacNaughtens private 'info'


For all your reflexive bile directed at me we actually do agree in outline: a police chief of the day, for reasons of discretion about the family of the best suspect--who was beyond due process--concealed from his indiscreet colleague at the Yard that it was solved.

Yes bizarrely I argue there are two positions either it was solved or it was not. So on that we appear to be in accord. From there on you go into conspiracy theories while I stick with the facts.

But my police chief did share this solution, broadly, with the public (via the most famous writer of two eras) and in doing so he did not let the 'better classes' off the hook with a solution that Jack was 'one of them'; a local, Jewish immigrant--instead it was, shockingly, 'one of us'; an English gentleman above suspicion.

An English gentleman who travelled from Black heath simply would have had a wider kill zone. Elephanyt and Castle being a closer happy hunting ground…

whoever Jack was he lived in the area and new the territory like the back of his hand… Thats what rules Druit out for me.

Yours Jeff

Jonathan H
02-27-2015, 04:24 AM
You are an incompetent and incoherent fraud, Jeff.

'Debating' with you is like watching FoxNews; you can never be wrong and the truth is what you say it is.

You dissemble as easily as you breathe, even about things that you yourself have posted. That are right in front of us.

To give but one example among so many fabrications. I never said you were connected to Russell Edwards. You deny a charge I did not make, and have never made.

But you don't give a toss, because you don't care about facts--you just make it up as you please.

You once admitted to being 'cantankerous'. Not the adjective I and many others would choose.

I know you loathe me--the feeling is mutual-- but for goodness sake can't you at least stop sabotaging, with your trashy, infantile theories, Paul Begg's judiciously argued theory about Anderson as the most reliable police source.

Jeff Leahy
02-27-2015, 04:37 AM
You are an incompetent and incoherent fraud, Jeff.

Will you please stick to the subject. Conspiracy theories..

Please address why you think remaining quiet is the same thing as deceminating false information?

Surely a conspiracy is about two people or more conspiring to create false information to miss-lead others..

And that is fairly central to the theme of this thread?

I know you loathe me--the feeling is mutual-- but for goodness sake can't you at least stop sabotaging, with your trashy, infantile theories, Paul Begg's judiciously argued theory about Anderson as the most reliable police source.

I dont loath you , I don't know you. I simply don't think your theory holds any water, which incidentally a number of people including Paul Begg, believe also.. Its heavily reliant on assumptions and interpretations of what various people (MAinly Simms) did or didn't say. Its complex and involves MAcAnugten and Simms conspiring to mislead, which is a conspiracy.

Paul Begg dosnt actually say Anderson is the most reliable source he quotes Martin Fido…'That Anderson wouldn't lie for personal kudos'

And thats also my position on Anderson. Because I believe that Begg and Fido are the greatest ripperologist who ever existed and who's work is central to solving the case.

Yours Jeff

Jeff Leahy
02-27-2015, 05:17 AM
To give but one example among so many fabrications. I never said you were connected to Russell Edwards. You deny a charge I did not make, and have never made.


"How you must have been hurt, painfully and acutely, by the speedy and ignominious collapse of the DNA 'resolution' last year for you to stoop this low".

Does this or does this not imply I had a connection to the DNA claims made last year?

Apart from the odd post on the subject….'it really had nothing to do with me' as the Not the Nine o'clock news... once put it…

Yours Jeff

Errata
02-27-2015, 12:49 PM
So how much blood did each woman lose?

No idea. We didn't exactly get accurate measurements of pools of blood as you well know. But based on the absorption rates of wool, cotton, and linen and the areas of clothing that were bloodstained, we do know that every woman was wearing at least 20 oz. of blood on her clothing alone (barring Liz Stride), and thats right about half a liter. So we can say based on clothing alone that four out of five of the victims were killed where they lay.

With Liz Stride, a witness says that about two quarts of blood had drained away from the victim, and while is certainly more than a liter, it's compromised by their having been rain presumable flowing in that same gutter diluting the blood. However a pound of clotted blood was found, so totting up the percentage of platelets, we are looking at more than two liters of liquid blood leaving that much clot barring some sort of clotting disorder like factor V Leiden. So she was killed where she lay as well.

Now Catherine Eddowes did have Bright's Disease, and in all likelihood did have a clotting issue which could potentially throw off calculations as to how much blood she actually lost. In reality, had Eddowes died the way Stride did, we would never know. However she was found in more than enough blood to account for being killed in that square.

London Fog
02-27-2015, 12:58 PM
No idea. We didn't exactly get accurate measurements of pools of blood as you well know. But based on the absorption rates of wool, cotton, and linen and the areas of clothing that were bloodstained, we do know that every woman was wearing at least 20 oz. of blood on her clothing alone (barring Liz Stride), and thats right about half a liter. So we can say based on clothing alone that four out of five of the victims were killed where they lay.

With Liz Stride, a witness says that about two quarts of blood had drained away from the victim, and while is certainly more than a liter, it's compromised by their having been rain presumable flowing in that same gutter diluting the blood. However a pound of clotted blood was found, so totting up the percentage of platelets, we are looking at more than two liters of liquid blood leaving that much clot barring some sort of clotting disorder like factor V Leiden. So she was killed where she lay as well.

Now Catherine Eddowes did have Bright's Disease, and in all likelihood did have a clotting issue which could potentially throw off calculations as to how much blood she actually lost. In reality, had Eddowes died the way Stride did, we would never know. However she was found in more than enough blood to account for being killed in that square.

1/2 liter of blood doesn't prove that the women were killed where they were found. As you say, we don't even know exactly how much blood they lost. Everything is a guess, and that's about all we have at this point.

Jeff Leahy
02-27-2015, 02:06 PM
1/2 liter of blood doesn't prove that the women were killed where they were found. As you say, we don't even know exactly how much blood they lost. Everything is a guess, and that's about all we have at this point.

Given what is known, and the various eye witnesses..

It can be concluded the victims were killed and died where they were discovered..

Erratas comments seem to confirm this?

Yours jeff

London Fog
02-27-2015, 02:13 PM
Given what is known, and the various eye witnesses..

It can be concluded the victims were killed and died where they were discovered..

Erratas comments seem to confirm this?

Yours jeff

There's so little that IS known, you only say that because it's what you want to believe. That's fine, but you really should admit that Erratas comments confirms nothing, anymore than any other thing has in 127 years since the murders. Do we know how much blood the women lost? No. Errata and I agree on that point, and that point means we don't know where the women were murdered.

Errata
02-27-2015, 06:54 PM
There's so little that IS known, you only say that because it's what you want to believe. That's fine, but you really should admit that Erratas comments confirms nothing, anymore than any other thing has in 127 years since the murders. Do we know how much blood the women lost? No. Errata and I agree on that point, and that point means we don't know where the women were murdered.

Actually there is a slight difference between the correct interpretation of this data and what you are saying.

I honestly have no idea how much blood they lost, and anyone who says they do is a lying liar. We do know they didn't lose all of it, because that's remarkable enough it would have been mentioned in autopsy. Like it's actually really hard to drain a body of blood, fairly easy to drain 3/4s of it. So no blood is as remarkable as no scalp. And I think we all agree that if these women had been scalped we would know about that.

Because a woman can have her throat cut and die losing as little as half a liter of blood, anything under than amount means she had to have been murdered elsewhere. And blood flow stops within minutes of death, and it slows a lot once unconscious. So .5 liters is sort of a hard line forensically. Under half a liter, there has to be another crime scene.

Over half a liter of blood at the scene means that there is no forensic reason to suspect someone was killed elsewhere. It doesn't mean they couldn't have been, the Tate murders prove that. But barring a trail or some other forensic link to a different location (like water in the lungs, fresh paint on the body when there is no fresh pain around, imprints of patterns that don't exist around the body) there is nothing to support the idea of them being killed elsewhere. Even today, nothing about the blood evidence would trigger a forensics team to look for a second location.

London Fog
02-27-2015, 11:50 PM
Over half a liter of blood at the scene means that there is no forensic reason to suspect someone was killed elsewhere. It doesn't mean they couldn't have been, the Tate murders prove that. But barring a trail or some other forensic link to a different location (like water in the lungs, fresh paint on the body when there is no fresh pain around, imprints of patterns that don't exist around the body) there is nothing to support the idea of them being killed elsewhere. Even today, nothing about the blood evidence would trigger a forensics team to look for a second location.

I think that's sort of the point of this theory. They left no reason to suspect what actually happened, other than maybe the way they were butchered, which was masonic ritual, according to the theory. And even that may have been a signal to other masons, and not to the general public. We simply don't know for sure, one way or the other.

Jeff Leahy
02-28-2015, 05:06 AM
There's so little that IS known, you only say that because it's what you want to believe. That's fine, but you really should admit that Erratas comments confirms nothing, anymore than any other thing has in 127 years since the murders. Do we know how much blood the women lost? No. Errata and I agree on that point, and that point means we don't know where the women were murdered.

I don't think its what I want to believe and what the CSI tells us. Of course that may depend which victims you count as Ripper kills.

But I think it logical to conclude the Cannon were all killed where they were discovered, thats what the facts tell us.

Yours Jeff

London Fog
02-28-2015, 05:48 AM
I don't think its what I want to believe and what the CSI tells us. Of course that may depend which victims you count as Ripper kills.

But I think it logical to conclude the Cannon were all killed where they were discovered, thats what the facts tell us.

Yours Jeff

Not facts. Opinions.

Rosella
02-28-2015, 06:00 AM
I think that's sort of the point of this theory. They left no reason to suspect what actually happened, other than maybe the way they were butchered, which was masonic ritual, according to the theory. And even that may have been a signal to other masons, and not to the general public. We simply don't know for sure, one way or the other.

How is the way they were butchered according to Masonic ritual?

Even if you ignore the fact that the declarations of the Three Ruffians hadn't been used in Masonic ritual since the early 19th century--which of the C-5 (and Martha Tabram) had their tongues cut out or 'their bodies buried in the rough sands of the sea, at low water mark...?'

Which of them had their 'heart and vitals taken and thrown over the LEFT shoulder', and which of the victims were 'severed in two in the midst, and divided to the north and south, with their bowels burned to ashes in the centre?'

jmenges
02-28-2015, 06:49 AM
Here are the timeline notes I made for the 'Royal Conspiracy A Go-Go' show several years ago. A couple of things are left out, but those gaps are filled in and the whole thing is talked over in great detail on the podcast. Of course the Royal Conspiracy theory and the Royal/Masonic Conspiracy theory has gone through many permutations over the years.

1) RJ LEES (Spiritualist / Psychic)
1895-1960
Robert James Lees' story first published in 1895 in The Chicago Sunday Times Herald and reprinted in The People.
Lees was able to lead the police to a fashionable house in London which was home to a physician. The doctor was put in an asylum under the name of Thomas Mason 124, and a mock funeral held. A Dr. Howard of London, when drunk, told the tale to a man who informed the paper.
Melvin Harris suggests the story was hoaxed by the Whitechapel Club of Chicago.
The article was reprinted later in various papers and in various forms throughout the years, up all copying the essentials of the original CST story.
Stephen Knight used this tale to bolster his argument that William Gull was involved in the murders, and the Lees story has been discussed in documentaries and portrayed in various film versions of the Whitechapel murders.
The "Lees" letter quoted by Knight, is actually "tecs" - LFH (SPE/KS)

Clarence Gordon Haddon
1929
Clarence Gordon Haddon's book 'My Uncle George V' in which he claims he is the illegitimate son of Prince Eddy and Margery Haddon. The affair would have happened in India in 1889. In his book, he suggests a Royal and Met cover up that led to letters and documents being burned, the mistress deported back to India, and the illegitimate son arrested and jailed.

Dr. Thomas Dutton
1932-1959 Thomas Dutton, via McCormick, 'The Chronicle of Crime' Jack the Ripper was a middle aged doctor who had become embittered by the death of his brilliant son. McCormick uses this to name Dr. Alexander Padachenko.
The Daily Express 13 November 1935 mentions that Dr. Dutton was a friend of the Duke of Clarence (Prince Eddy) and a "keen student of crime" who kept a "secret diary". Later newspaper articles around 1935 mention the Chronicles of Crime and the "middle aged embittered doctor" theory. It is very possible that McCormick was the writer of these Dutton "theory" articles of the 1930's., but not the one that mentions the friendship with Prince Eddy.

Dr. Thomas Stowell
1960-1970
First contacted Colin Wilson in 1960 after reading Wilson's 'My Search for Jack the Ripper' in the Evening Standard and related his theory that DoC was Jack the Ripper. Wilson shared this story with several individuals including McCormick, Farson and Nigel Morland editor of The Criminologist.

Colin Wilson
1961
In Wilson's Encyclopaedia of Murder (1961) he discusses the Lees story and in this we see the first suggestion in print that the murderer was either "the Queen's physician" or a "relative of the Royal Family".
Chain of the tale: Stowell - Wilson - Sir Harold Nicholson - Philippe Jullian

Philippe Jullian
1962
In Edouard VII says "The rumour gained ground that he was Jack the Ripper (others attributed the crimes committed in Whitechapel to the Duke of Bedford)."

Dr. Thomas Stowell cont.
1970
The Criminologist, Vol. 5 No. 18, November 1970, "'Jack the Ripper' -A Solution?"
a demented and syphilitic suspect 'S' is Jack the Ripper and the Royal Physician, Sir William Gull, attempting to certify his errant patient as insane. Repeats the R.J. Lees story.

Wlater Sickert
1970-2001
First mentioned by McCormick in the 1970 edition (not in earlier editions) of The Identity of Jack the Ripper: "Yet another suggestion made is that Walter Sickert, the painter, was Jack the Ripper. The reason for Sickert being suspected is that he was believed to have made sketches and paintings of the Ripper crimes"

Michael Harrison
1972
In his book 'Clarence' he definitively proved Eddy's whereabouts, establishing an alibi for him for the murders, but then goes on to accuse JK Stephen.

Godfrey Kwok
1972
Author of 'The Royal Ripper', which had a limited run of 50 copies, Dr. Thomas Stowall's theory is first described in book form

1973- Barlow & Watt
A Scotland Yard detective suggested to the producers that they interview Jospeh Gorman Sickert, who told them about the secret marriage between Eddy and Alice Elizabeth Crook. All the essential elements of the popular Royal Conspiracy are revealed by Gorman. Sickert is Eddy's mentor, Eddie meets Crook and gets her pregnant, the Queen finds out and orders Lord Salisbury to take care of the matter. Sailsbury enlists Gull who kidnaps Crook and lobotomizes her and puts her into an asylum. Mary Kelly was the child of Eddy and Annie's (Alice) nanny, puts the child with nuns and flees into the East End. Gull and the coachman Netly, with Sir Robert Anderson acting as a look out and cover-up, carry out the murders. In B&W, Sickert says that the murders occurred "out of fear that MJK might talk".
Gorman never mentions the Masons, Blackmail, or Walter Sickert being directly involved in the murders.

Stephen Knight
1973-1976
Interviews Gorman for initially a newspaper article which he switched to become the book 'The Final Solution'. In it, Knight repeats much of what Gorman said in the BBC interviews, adding the Masonic Conspiracy and Walter Sickert having first hand.
Points to ponder:
Annie Elizabeth Crook and Alice Margaret Crook
Eddy's connection to the Cleveland Street Scandal (the initials PAV)
In 1891 at the height of the Cleveland St Saga, Sir Francis Knollys the Prince of Wales's private secretary wrote to the Prime Minister's private secretary a private note;
"As you are aware, the Queen strongly advocates Prince Albert Victor travelling in Europe, instead of visiting the Cape of Good Hope, New Zealand, Canada etc. Unfortunately her views on certain social subjects are so strong that the Prince of Wales does not like to tell her the real reason for sending PAV away, which is intended as a punishment, and as a means of keeping him out of harm's way."
There was no 'raid' on Cleveland Street (Scandal), but rather an apprehension of Hammond and attempted apprehension of Somerset and others on the Continent. There were raids that were popular (raid on Fitzroy St. re Oscar Wilde). So Gorman claims Eddy was detained in a raid directly opposite.
Masonic connection of Anderson and Warren
Masonic Conspiracy: Evidence does not exist because it's a conspiracy

In popular media:
The Final Solution Doc
In Search of... Doc
Murder By Decree (Holmes & Watson)
Jack the Ripper (Michael Caine)
From Hell
http://www.casebook.org/suspects/knight.html Dissertation by Rumbelow

1987
Simon Wood's article about the Royal Conspiracy which was published in Bloodhound. His research into Annie Elizabeth Crook, Elizabeth Cook, and the changing topography of Cleveland Street pretty much destroyed Stephen Knight's "Final Solution".

Jean Overton Fuller
1990
The book features alleged family recollections of Mary Kelly as a nanny and model, and covers the Cleveland street scandal too.
It has a chapter on Sickerts art, and what they are supposed to mean, and several theories put forward by Stephen Knight are rubbished.

Melvyn Fairclough
1991
Wrote 'The Ripper and the Royals" in which the Masonic Conspiracy is again the plot. Lord randolph Churchill and Reg Hutchinson. Although Gorman-Sickert repudiated Knight's earlier book, he returns now to offer up the Abberline Diaries.

Paul West
1994
Wrote a book of fiction called The Woman of Whitechapel and Jack the Ripper mentioning the Royal Conspiracy and Walter Sickert. A novel. Mary Kelly is portrayed as a part-time model for Sickert.

Patricia Cornwell
2002
In her book Portrait of a Killer: Case Closed, the author dismisses the claims that Gull and Prince Eddy had anything to do with the murders, and singles out Sickert, acting alone.

JM

London Fog
02-28-2015, 07:05 AM
How is the way they were butchered according to Masonic ritual?

Even if you ignore the fact that the declarations of the Three Ruffians hadn't been used in Masonic ritual since the early 19th century...

Well, at least you're admitting that such rituals did exist.


Which of them had their 'heart and vitals taken and thrown over the LEFT shoulder'...?'

At least three of them.

MayBea
02-28-2015, 09:34 AM
Various
2006-Present

Speculations based on Mary Jane Kelly research and partly inspired by Dan Brown has led to new variations on the Royal Conspiracy. Now Mary Kelly had a child with Arthur Sullivan. This is even repeated as Ripper lore by a member of the Savoy.net.

I connected this theory to the original Conspiracy theory by way of Carnarvon or the Carnarvons. MJK reportedly came from Carnarvon and maybe there was some confusion with the Earls. Stowell gave his source as Gull's daughter who married Theodore Dyke Acland, whose family has long ties to the Carnarvons through estate ownership and whose cousin married the Earl. Then there is the mystery man name Arthur John Sullivan who married into the Carnarvon servants in 1919 and whose mother was a Mary Jane Kelly....

MayBea
02-28-2015, 10:02 AM
Karen Tenouth
2006

Karen connects the Ripper murders to the Cleveland Street Scandal. Mary Kelly find out whats going on on Cleveland Street and blows the whistle. Lord Arthur Somerset, Henry James Fitzroy, Herbrand Arthur Russel and William Humble Ward go after her and her friends, with Dr. Alfred Pearson doing the killings instead of Gull.

Errata
02-28-2015, 11:52 AM
I think that's sort of the point of this theory. They left no reason to suspect what actually happened, other than maybe the way they were butchered, which was masonic ritual, according to the theory. And even that may have been a signal to other masons, and not to the general public. We simply don't know for sure, one way or the other.

Right. But from an investigative standpoint, if there is no reason to suspect that these women were killed elsewhere, that line of inquiry is terminated. So it would make sense that only new evidence (or reinterpreted evidence) would bring into question the murder sites. I mean nobody can prove that these murders were not committed by the ghost of Ulysses S. Grant. Which sounds insane, and your theory sounds much more reasonable, but as far as the evidence goes your theory and mine are on an equal level. No evidence it happened, no evidence it didn't. And when putting forth a theory of a crime, you really want to be able to muster more science than the crazy chick with her spectral dead president theory.

MayBea
02-28-2015, 01:04 PM
All the logic and science in the world can still be logically circumvented with some mental flexibility. There's no need to dismiss anything at any point short of a full solution.

But if you did want to eliminate all Royal Conspiracy theories, you would have to prove that:

A. the unknowns, Jack the Ripper and Mary Jane Kelly, had absolutely no connection to the Royals or the Masons.

And if one of the other or both are connected to the Royals or Masons, then your only recourse is to prove:

B. their connection to the Royals or Masons had nothing to do with the murders, even as a motivating factor for the murders and/or the M.O.

Reducing any one of the theories to it's perceived weakest point and then demolishing it doesn't effect anything because the theory doesn't hinge on any one point, except the ones mentioned above.

London Fog
02-28-2015, 02:00 PM
All the logic and science in the world can still be logically circumvented with some mental flexibility. There's no need to dismiss anything at any point short of a full solution.

But if you did want to eliminate all Royal Conspiracy theories, you would have to prove that:

A. the unknowns, Jack the Ripper and Mary Jane Kelly, had absolutely no connection to the Royals or the Masons.

And if one of the other or both are connected to the Royals or Masons, then your only recourse is to prove:

B. their connection to the Royals or Masons had nothing to do with the murders, even as a motivating factor for the murders and/or the M.O.

Reducing any one of the theories to it's perceived weakest point and then demolishing it doesn't effect anything because the theory doesn't hinge on any one point, except the ones mentioned above.

I like the way you put that.

pinkmoon
02-28-2015, 02:15 PM
There has been a lot of controversy over the years about police officers rolling up their trouser legs and becoming masons I don't think such a notorious criminal like Jack the ripper would have been let off because his fellow masons in the police wanted to do him a favour but I think we would be very stupid not to think that some criminals havnt been investigated properly by their brother masons.

GUT
02-28-2015, 03:35 PM
All the logic and science in the world can still be logically circumvented with some mental flexibility. There's no need to dismiss anything at any point short of a full solution.

But if you did want to eliminate all Royal Conspiracy theories, you would have to prove that:

A. the unknowns, Jack the Ripper and Mary Jane Kelly, had absolutely no connection to the Royals or the Masons.

And if one of the other or both are connected to the Royals or Masons, then your only recourse is to prove:

B. their connection to the Royals or Masons had nothing to do with the murders, even as a motivating factor for the murders and/or the M.O.

Reducing any one of the theories to it's perceived weakest point and then demolishing it doesn't effect anything because the theory doesn't hinge on any one point, except the ones mentioned above.

And of course to prove the theory you need to prove these things, I have yet to see anything even remotely approaching proof that MJK had any connection to the Royals.

And considering many dispute that whe was even named MJK it seems they have a lot of work ahead of them.

London Fog
02-28-2015, 03:54 PM
And of course to prove the theory you need to prove these things, I have yet to see anything even remotely approaching proof that MJK had any connection to the Royals.

And considering many dispute that whe was even named MJK it seems they have a lot of work ahead of them.

Question about the "MANY DISPUTE" comment. How is it that those many disputes require no proof, yet the other side of the theory does? You are willing to CONSIDER the side you think most probable, even without hard proof. That's pretty much what the rest of us are doing. We're more alike than we are different, I think.

GUT
02-28-2015, 04:06 PM
Question about the "MANY DISPUTE" comment. How is it that those many disputes require no proof, yet the other side of the theory does? You are willing to CONSIDER the side you think most probable, even without hard proof. That's pretty much what the rest of us are doing. We're more alike than we are different, I think.

They do require proof, at least to me, and so far none forthcoming.

pinkmoon
02-28-2015, 04:15 PM
When has having no proof ever stopped anyone proposing a theory about this case.

Harry D
02-28-2015, 04:26 PM
All the logic and science in the world can still be logically circumvented with some mental flexibility. There's no need to dismiss anything at any point short of a full solution.

But if you did want to eliminate all Royal Conspiracy theories, you would have to prove that:

A. the unknowns, Jack the Ripper and Mary Jane Kelly, had absolutely no connection to the Royals or the Masons.

And if one of the other or both are connected to the Royals or Masons, then your only recourse is to prove:

B. their connection to the Royals or Masons had nothing to do with the murders, even as a motivating factor for the murders and/or the M.O.

Reducing any one of the theories to it's perceived weakest point and then demolishing it doesn't effect anything because the theory doesn't hinge on any one point, except the ones mentioned above.

Since when is the burden of proof on those to prove that something doesn't exist?

London Fog
02-28-2015, 04:29 PM
When has having no proof ever stopped anyone proposing a theory about this case.

Theory is not a dirty word. If there were no such thing as theory, there would probably be fewer cases solved than there are.

jmenges
02-28-2015, 04:51 PM
But if you did want to eliminate all Royal Conspiracy theories, you would have to prove that:

A. the unknowns, Jack the Ripper and Mary Jane Kelly, had absolutely no connection to the Royals or the Masons.

And if one of the other or both are connected to the Royals or Masons, then your only recourse is to prove:

B. their connection to the Royals or Masons had nothing to do with the murders, even as a motivating factor for the murders and/or the M.O.

Still somehow believing in a Royal/Masonic conspiracy despite all previous versions of the theory being convincingly discredited, is in my opinion a futile attempt to reinvent a wheel that's best left alone, given what we know of serial killers, and how that knowledge has been (and pretty much has to be) ignored by Royal Conspiracists. The above quoted criteria supposedly needed to prove the nonexistence of a Royal Conspiracy would also be the same criteria needed to disprove a conspiracy involving the Salvation Army, or the Royal Geographical Society, the Fenian Brotherhood, or whatever group of people you'd like to hang with the name 'Jack the Ripper'. It's the old game of 'I have a suspect, there's no proof he didn't do it, so I'm right', this time assigned to a group of people rather than an individual. Not convincing at all.

JM

Mayerling
02-28-2015, 08:46 PM
"When you take away the rest of all possible Royal Ripper Consipiracies
You are left with the best of all possible Royal Ripper Conspiracies!"

"Sir William Gull Pangloss"

[With apologies to Voltaire, Leonard Bernstein, and others.]

Rosella
02-28-2015, 09:38 PM
Well, at least you're admitting that such rituals did exist.



At least three of them.

Well, in that case the Ripper couldn't tell his left from his right or remember the Masonic ritual, as, with Chapman only her small intestines, not her heart, were thrown over her RIGHT shoulder, (contrary to the ritual) attached by a cord to the rest of the intestines.

With Eddowes, again 'the intestines were drawn out to a large extent' according to Dr Brown 'and placed over the RIGHT shoulder...' 'A piece of two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design.' Not over the left shoulder. Neither Chapman's nor Eddowes' heart was missing.

A strange sort of arrangement for such a keen Freemason, eager to leave signals for his fellow masons. Just right, however, for a non-mason serial killer who like to grub about inside dead women's bodies.

London Fog
02-28-2015, 10:03 PM
Well, in that case the Ripper couldn't tell his left from his right or remember the Masonic ritual, as, with Chapman only her small intestines, not her heart, were thrown over her RIGHT shoulder, (contrary to the ritual) attached by a cord to the rest of the intestines.

With Eddowes, again 'the intestines were drawn out to a large extent' according to Dr Brown 'and placed over the RIGHT shoulder...' 'A piece of two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design.' Not over the left shoulder. Neither Chapman's nor Eddowes' heart was missing.

Who said they had to do them all that way? The fact that a few of them WERE done that way could not be ignored by any thinking person.

A strange sort of arrangement for such a keen Freemason, eager to leave signals for his fellow masons. Just right, however, for a non-mason serial killer who like to grub about inside dead women's bodies.

So you're an expert on masonic killings, and non-masonic killings too? Wow, I can't help but wonder why such a mind can't tell us who the Ripper was.

London Fog
02-28-2015, 10:08 PM
Still somehow believing in a Royal/Masonic conspiracy despite all previous versions of the theory being convincingly discredited, is in my opinion a futile attempt to reinvent a wheel that's best left alone, given what we know of serial killers, and how that knowledge has been (and pretty much has to be) ignored by Royal Conspiracists. The above quoted criteria supposedly needed to prove the nonexistence of a Royal Conspiracy would also be the same criteria needed to disprove a conspiracy involving the Salvation Army, or the Royal Geographical Society, the Fenian Brotherhood, or whatever group of people you'd like to hang with the name 'Jack the Ripper'. It's the old game of 'I have a suspect, there's no proof he didn't do it, so I'm right', this time assigned to a group of people rather than an individual. Not convincing at all.

JM

I keep hearing about this convincingly discrediting evidence against this theory, but for some strange reason I never see it. Maybe it got lost.

GUT
02-28-2015, 10:15 PM
London Fog

since when you are told something about the theory that discredits it, you say something like

Who said they had to do them all that way? The fact that a few of them WERE done that way could not be ignored by any thinking person.

Please spell out just what theory you are such a supporter of, you can't support all the Royal Theories because they are all different, so please tell us

Which victims
Who killed them
Where they were killed
Why


You might also care to tell us what your standard of proof is, beyond reasonable doubt, on the balance of probabilities, it is a hypothesis consistent with the evidence, it just sounds good to me, or what.

Maybe then people can engage in sensible debate with you.

London Fog
02-28-2015, 10:24 PM
London Fog

since when you are told something about the theory that discredits it, you say something like



Please spell out just what theory you are such a supporter of, you can't support all the Royal Theories because they are all different, so please tell us

Which victims
Who killed them
Where they were killed
Why


You might also care to tell us what your standard of proof is, beyond reasonable doubt, on the balance of probabilities, it is a hypothesis consistent with the evidence, it just sounds good to me, or what.

Maybe then people can engage in sensible debate with you.

Have you not read my posts up to this point? You are welcome to go back and read them. There's where you will find your answer.

I say that some of the bodies were displayed that way because they actually were. Can't beat that for factual statement.

GUT
02-28-2015, 10:29 PM
Have you not read my posts up to this point? You are welcome to go back and read them. There's where you will find your answer.

I say that some of the bodies were displayed that way because they actually were. Can't beat that for factual statement.



So that's your answer to my 4 questions?

Not even which bodies you say were laid out in the Masonic way? [which I didn't ask about by the way.

What about the other questions no idea at all huh?

London Fog
02-28-2015, 10:32 PM
So that's your answer to my 4 questions?

Not even which bodies you say were laid out in the Masonic way? [which I didn't ask about by the way.

What about the other questions no idea at all huh?

If you want to know, AGAIN, what I believe and why, just go back and reread my posts. You know the case, and you've already been told what I believe and why. All you want to do is argue, because you know you're paddling down stream. It's a little harder to paddle against the waves, but I'll take it.

London Fog
02-28-2015, 10:36 PM
Gut, if you really want to talk about something sensibly, try posting some of that proof so many of you keep claiming, but never showing.

jmenges
02-28-2015, 10:38 PM
I keep hearing about this convincingly discrediting evidence against this theory, but for some strange reason I never see it. Maybe it got lost.

Or maybe you haven't read enough.

JM

London Fog
02-28-2015, 10:39 PM
Or maybe you haven't read enough.

JM

I can't read it if it's not written.

London Fog
02-28-2015, 10:56 PM
Which victims
Who killed them
Where they were killed
Why

Again, the first question can easily be found by studying the JTR case. The other three is asking for what I believe, which can easily be found by reading my posts, which you should have done to start with.

Rosella
03-01-2015, 12:39 AM
OK. Which of the Ripper C-5 were, in your opinion, London Fog, killed and laid out in what you would consider a Masonic way? Were Polly Nichols, or Annie Chapman, or Stride? Who?

I am far from an expert on this case, but you reject everything that doesn't tie up to a Royal Conspiracy involving Freemasonry. And yes, I do know about the rituals and the Three Ruffians. It's just that none of it links in with JTR.

Jeff Leahy
03-01-2015, 03:39 AM
Not facts. Opinions.

Well its been a few years since I've gone over this stuff so may have to check..But off the top of my head

1 Poly Nichols. A large amount of blood had drained under the body and solidified indicating she had bleed to death at the place where she was found. A witness, Harriot Lilly heard nothing apart from a gurgling sound followed by whispering. No witnesses heard or saw a crage or Cart. There were no blood signs that she had been dragged or moved there… So Poly was killed where found.

2. Chapman. Seen talking to a man outside Hanbury street by Mrs Long shortly before being discovered. No mention of a Horse and carage, would have had to have gone down a short hall way (No signs of blood) suggesting strongly Chapman was killed where she was discovered.

3. Stride. Witness Schwartz. Saw a man stop talk to the victim and attach her at 12.45. Blackwells estimated time of Death 12.50. Schwartz doesn't mention a carage although the body was discovered by deimschutz who was driving a small horse and cart.

4. Eddows seen talking to a man appearance of a sailor short before her body was discovered. Mitre Sq was heavily patrolled and its possible PC Harvey saw a man leaving the sq… But Never mentions hearing or seeing a Carage or any other vechile. The blood splatter and wounds inflicted all suggest she was kiled where she lay.

5. Kelly. More problematic because we don't have an accurate time of death. However the post mortum indicates she put up a struggle, the killer slashing through the sheets so she was probably alive when she entered the room. Dr Bonds report indicates that she was probably mutilated where she lay. No witnesses to my knowledge mention hearing a horse and carafe or any such disturbance.

So there we have Five murders all of which suggest the killer operated by foot. Which seems the most logical deduction unless you can proved something to the contrary?

Yours Jeff

London Fog
03-01-2015, 09:15 AM
OK. Which of the Ripper C-5 were, in your opinion, London Fog, killed and laid out in what you would consider a Masonic way? Were Polly Nichols, or Annie Chapman, or Stride? Who?

I am far from an expert on this case, but you reject everything that doesn't tie up to a Royal Conspiracy involving Freemasonry. And yes, I do know about the rituals and the Three Ruffians. It's just that none of it links in with JTR.

Read all my posts. I don't reject anything that doesn't tie up to a Royal Conspiracy involving Freemasonry. I'm only trying to defend myself for my opinions.

1. Mary Ann Nichols - Throat cut from left to right. Bowels cut. Body mutilation.

2. Annie Chapmen - Worse bowel mutilation, cut and thrown over shoulder. Throat cut from left to right. at feet were two farthings and two brass rings.

3. Elizabeth Stride - Throat cut from left to right. No mutilation. General consensus is that killer was interrupted before he could do his work.

4. Catherine Eddowes - Worse bowel mutilation, cut and thrown over shoulder. Throat cut from left to right. Cheeks cut. Eye lids slit. Nose cut off.

5. Marie Kelley - Butchered beyond recognition. Some say her heart was taken away...not sure.

This last seems to have ended the murders of this magnitude.
There's just too much of what looks like ritual in all this, at least to me. Add the word Jewes (Juwes), found written on the wall, which were, and still is, spellings of names tied into masonic slayings, both actual and symbolic. And now consider that the Royals, as well as some of the leaders of the police, were masons.

I don't say any of this is hard proof, but it's at least enough to make you think.

London Fog
03-01-2015, 09:28 AM
Well its been a few years since I've gone over this stuff so may have to check..But off the top of my head

1 Poly Nichols. A large amount of blood had drained under the body and solidified indicating she had bleed to death at the place where she was found. A witness, Harriot Lilly heard nothing apart from a gurgling sound followed by whispering. No witnesses heard or saw a crage or Cart. There were no blood signs that she had been dragged or moved there… So Poly was killed where found.

2. Chapman. Seen talking to a man outside Hanbury street by Mrs Long shortly before being discovered. No mention of a Horse and carage, would have had to have gone down a short hall way (No signs of blood) suggesting strongly Chapman was killed where she was discovered.

3. Stride. Witness Schwartz. Saw a man stop talk to the victim and attach her at 12.45. Blackwells estimated time of Death 12.50. Schwartz doesn't mention a carage although the body was discovered by deimschutz who was driving a small horse and cart.

4. Eddows seen talking to a man appearance of a sailor short before her body was discovered. Mitre Sq was heavily patrolled and its possible PC Harvey saw a man leaving the sq… But Never mentions hearing or seeing a Carage or any other vechile. The blood splatter and wounds inflicted all suggest she was kiled where she lay.

5. Kelly. More problematic because we don't have an accurate time of death. However the post mortum indicates she put up a struggle, the killer slashing through the sheets so she was probably alive when she entered the room. Dr Bonds report indicates that she was probably mutilated where she lay. No witnesses to my knowledge mention hearing a horse and carafe or any such disturbance.

So there we have Five murders all of which suggest the killer operated by foot. Which seems the most logical deduction unless you can proved something to the contrary?

Yours Jeff

We've already talked about those things. A carriage would not have gone barreling down the streets. IF there was a carriage, it would have been used as a planned strategy, to keep from being seen on the streets, taking the time to mutilate five bodies. That brings us to your statement, "Mitre Sq was heavily patrolled." If you think about it, ALL streets were heavily patrolled, at least after the killings started. That makes it all the more unlikely that someone could have done all the rippings on the streets, out in the open.

With Marie Kelly there wouldn't have been no need for a carriage, as she was killed and mutilated in the seclusion of her room.

You use the word, "Suggest" to show what you believe, yet you ask me to show proof. Neither of us have proof, as I have said before. We all believe what we believe because it's what seems most likely to us.

jmenges
03-01-2015, 09:44 AM
at feet were two farthings and two brass rings

Is that a fact?

JM

London Fog
03-01-2015, 09:57 AM
Is that a fact?

JM

Well, I wasn't there, but that's what was said to have been found there.

Errata
03-01-2015, 10:00 AM
We've already talked about those things. A carriage would not have gone barreling down the streets. IF there was a carriage, it would have been used as a planned strategy, to keep from being seen on the streets, taking the time to mutilate five bodies. That brings us to your statement, "Mitre Sq was heavily patrolled." If you think about it, ALL streets were heavily patrolled, at least after the killings started. That makes it all the more unlikely that someone could have done all the rippings on the streets, out in the open.

With Marie Kelly there wouldn't have been no need for a carriage, as she was killed and mutilated in the seclusion of her room.

You use the word, "Suggest" to show what you believe, yet you ask me to show proof. Neither of us have proof, as I have said before. We all believe what we believe because it's what seems most likely to us.

I think that given all we know, which granted isn't a lot, we can rule out Annie Chapman having been moved. And yes the blood evidence supports that she was killed there, but it's more a practical consideration of stashing a dead woman in someone's backyard. Those unfamiliar with the area would have had no idea that backyard was even available. But even more to the point, Annie Chapman was not a small woman and she had very severe injuries. Rolling a body out of carriage is one thing, two guys pulling her out, running through a house, and stashing her in the backyard is a whole other thing. And since she bled in that backyard, she would have been bleeding as they hustled her corpse through the house, and there was no blood evidence in the hallway or at the front door.

Not that moving a body is ever a completely practical endeavor, but in the case of Annie Chapman, that choice of dumping spot would have been utterly ridiculous.

jmenges
03-01-2015, 10:04 AM
I know it was "what's said to have been found there" but you must look at who said it and when and under what circumstances it was said in order to judge whether the information is reliable. In this case, those factors may lead you to doubt that rings were found at the feet of Annie Chapman.

JM

London Fog
03-01-2015, 10:05 AM
I think that given all we know, which granted isn't a lot, we can rule out Annie Chapman having been moved. And yes the blood evidence supports that she was killed there, but it's more a practical consideration of stashing a dead woman in someone's backyard. Those unfamiliar with the area would have had no idea that backyard was even available. But even more to the point, Annie Chapman was not a small woman and she had very severe injuries. Rolling a body out of carriage is one thing, two guys pulling her out, running through a house, and stashing her in the backyard is a whole other thing. And since she bled in that backyard, she would have been bleeding as they hustled her corpse through the house, and there was no blood evidence in the hallway or at the front door.

Not that moving a body is ever a completely practical endeavor, but in the case of Annie Chapman, that choice of dumping spot would have been utterly ridiculous.

That's the first I've heard about taking her body through a house.

London Fog
03-01-2015, 10:07 AM
I know it was "what's said to have been found there" but you must look at who said it and when and under what circumstances it was said in order to judge whether the information is reliable. In this case, those factors may lead you to doubt that rings were found at the feet of Annie Chapman.

JM

Maybe there were no killings at all in 1888. If you think about it, there was a lot of embellishment in order to sell newspapers. Isn't that proof that there were no killings at all? Have we all been lied to?

jmenges
03-01-2015, 10:10 AM
If you would like to make that leap, sadly you'd probably find you'll have more people in agreement with you than continuing to push the Masonic Conspiracy theory.

JM

London Fog
03-01-2015, 10:17 AM
If you would like to make that leap, sadly you'd probably find you'll have more people in agreement with you than continuing to push the Masonic Conspiracy theory.

JM

If I were all about people agreeing with me, you would have a good point there. I care more about knowing the truth than about having everyone agreeing with me. If everyone would be less concerned with being popular, maybe they would learn more.

jmenges
03-01-2015, 10:21 AM
I care more about knowing the truth than about having everyone agreeing with me.

And yet when I attempt to point you in the right direction regarding the supposed rings at Chapman's feet, you respond with sarcasm. So I'll leave you to discover the truth in your own way.

JM

London Fog
03-01-2015, 10:27 AM
And yet when I attempt to point you in the right direction regarding the supposed rings at Chapman's feet, you respond with sarcasm. So I'll leave you to discover the truth in your own way.

JM

Thank you for your attempt to point me in the right direction. I'm just a wayward child.:laugh4:

Jeff Leahy
03-01-2015, 11:06 AM
We've already talked about those things. A carriage would not have gone barreling down the streets. IF there was a carriage, it would have been used as a planned strategy, to keep from being seen on the streets, taking the time to mutilate five bodies.

Well there are only three possibilities:

1. The woman were murdered where they were found. Which all the CSI and witness testament suggest.

2. They were dumped from some sort of transport. Which presumably would have been pulled by Horses not noted for being stealthy, they Nai, *hit and have hooves.

3. They were carried there by person or persons unknown. (Guess they could have used a hand cart or ambulance. But again there is no evidence for this).

So I'm currently failing to understand your argument?

That brings us to your statement, "Mitre Sq was heavily patrolled." If you think about it, ALL streets were heavily patrolled, at least after the killings started. That makes it all the more unlikely that someone could have done all the rippings on the streets, out in the open.

Presuming (As is usually considered) the woman themselves took the killer to a secluded spot to do business, there was enough time to perform the mutilations although its accepted that there were people in close proximity at the murder scenes.

But Jack was a disorganised Serial killer, its sort of what these guys do, take chances, its part of the thrill..

With Marie Kelly there wouldn't have been no need for a carriage, as she was killed and mutilated in the seclusion of her room.

But if he didn't require transport at the Kelly Murder, why would he require transport at the others?

Isn't it simply more logical to presume the killer operated on foot?

You use the word, "Suggest" to show what you believe, yet you ask me to show proof. Neither of us have proof, as I have said before. We all believe what we believe because it's what seems most likely to us.

Well thats not really the case we do have various sources, coroners reports, police accounts, witness statements and news reports which cooborate each other. It might not be a lot but that doesn't mean we should ignore what little survives.

Yours Jeff

Wickerman
03-01-2015, 11:12 AM
Is that a fact?

JM

It is strange that Insp. Reid would mention the farthings in the Chapman case, while at the McKenzie inquest.



Add:
We have a quoted exchange between the Foreman of the Jury & Insp. Reid, at the McKenzie Inquest, in The Man who Hunted Jack the Ripper, Connell & Evans, p 78.

Foreman: In previous cases was any similar coin found as that which you picked up in this instance?

Reid: In the Hanbury Street case two farthings were found.

Foreman: Is it possible that the coin was passed off in the dark for a half sovereign?

Reid: I should think for a sixpence...

Baxter: Was there only one case in which a farthing was found?

Reid: The Hanbury Street case is the only one I remember.

London Fog
03-01-2015, 11:29 AM
Well there are only three possibilities:

1. The woman were murdered where they were found. Which all the CSI and witness testament suggest.

2. They were dumped from some sort of transport. Which presumably would have been pulled by Horses not noted for being stealthy, they Nai, *hit and have hooves.

3. They were carried there by person or persons unknown. (Guess they could have used a hand cart or ambulance. But again there is no evidence for this).

So I'm currently failing to understand your argument?

Seriously, what evidence do you expect there could be for this? Do you imagine they would advertise having done this? There is evidence that these women were killed. The killer was never caught. So all the talk about evidence can be a little misleading.


Presuming (As is usually considered) the woman themselves took the killer to a secluded spot to do business, there was enough time to perform the mutilations although its accepted that there were people in close proximity at the murder scenes.

This goes against the idea of the victims being murdered where they were found, doesn't it?

But Jack was a disorganised Serial killer, its sort of what these guys do, take chances, its part of the thrill..

What was his name? I assume, since you know so much about him, you also know who he was. And I don't mean just one policeman's suspicion.


But if he didn't require transport at the Kelly Murder, why would he require transport at the others?

Is this a serious question? Marie Kelly was murdered in seclusion. The others didn't have a room, as they were street walking.

Isn't it simply more logical to presume the killer operated on foot?

Why would it be more logical to presume that? I would think it would be more logical to consider that a killer would try to keep from getting caught. Taking his time to do the ripping out in the open would have more risk of being caught. And he DID keep from getting caught.


Well thats not really the case we do have various sources, coroners reports, police accounts, witness statements and news reports which cooborate each other. It might not be a lot but that doesn't mean we should ignore what little survives.

Yours Jeff

You don't have anything that shows more than suggestions and more theory. You are pretending to have more than you actually have. We don't know, and that's the bottom line.

jmenges
03-01-2015, 01:21 PM
It is strange that Insp. Reid would mention the farthings in the Chapman case, while at the McKenzie inquest.

I agree. Which is why I suggested that 'London Fog' "must look at who said it and when and under what circumstances it was said in order to judge whether the information is reliable."

JM

London Fog
03-01-2015, 01:28 PM
I agree. Which is why I suggested that 'London Fog' "must look at who said it and when and under what circumstances it was said in order to judge whether the information is reliable."

JM

I guess, in your opinion, the information is not reliable. The only things that will be reliable are things you agree with, is that right? It's always something unreliable, or in some way questionable, until it's your theory. That's sad.

jmenges
03-01-2015, 01:34 PM
I guess, in your opinion, the information is not reliable. The only things that will be reliable are things you agree with, is that right? It's always something unreliable, or in some way questionable, until it's your theory. That's sad.

No, wrong again. But I'm sure you'll keep trying.

JM

London Fog
03-01-2015, 01:44 PM
No, wrong again. But I'm sure you'll keep trying.

JM

I haven't been trying. It's people like you that keep trying to put down my opinions.

MacGuffin
03-01-2015, 01:45 PM
Hi London Fog,
That's the first I've heard about taking her body through a house.

As you know, Annie Chapman's body was found in the backyard of 29 Hanbury St., with her head being a short distance (a meter or so) from the steps of the back door. The backyards on this street contained the outhouses for the dwellings, and were separated by five foot high wooden fences. The killer(s) would have had to either enter the yard via the front door, down the hallway and through the back door, or over the fences.

Here's some discussion on possible alternate entrances/exits of 29 Handbury Street.:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8481

This thread includes photos of the passage/hallway of 29 Hanbury Street.:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2737&highlight=29+Hanbury+St.+passage


As an aside, please keep in mind that while you and I are new to posting on these message boards, a vast majority of the other members have literally spent decades researching and have been exchanging information here long before the "great (forum) crash of 2008".
A little common courtsey during discourse goes a long way in perpetuating others to join in and continuing with the discussions.

London Fog
03-01-2015, 01:54 PM
Hi London Fog,


As you know, Annie Chapman's body was found in the backyard of 29 Hanbury St., with her head being a short distance (a meter or so) from the steps of the back door. The backyards on this street contained the outhouses for the dwellings, and were separated by five foot high wooden fences. The killer(s) would have had to either enter the yard via the front door, down the hallway and through the back door, or over the fences.

Here's some discussion on possible alternate entrances/exits of 29 Handbury Street.:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8481

This thread includes photos of the passage/hallway of 29 Hanbury Street.:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2737&highlight=29+Hanbury+St.+passage


As an aside, please keep in mind that while you and I are new to posting on these message boards, a vast majority of the other members have literally spent decades researching and have been exchanging information here long before the "great (forum) crash of 2008".
A little common courtsey during discourse goes a long way in perpetuating others to join in and continuing with the discussions.

Possible alternate entrances/exits of 29 Handbury Street. Your words, not mine.

While I am new to this site, I am not new to the JTR case. As for common courtesy, that's what I thought I'd find here. I've yet to see it. Here's a suggestion. Go read all my posts and all replies to them. You just might see who isn't being courteous.

jmenges
03-01-2015, 02:24 PM
I haven't been trying. It's people like you that keep trying to put down my opinions.

I've not been putting down your opinions, I simply corrected you when you stated, as a fact, that rings were found at the feet of Annie Chapman. If that was simply your opinion, please do not state your opinions as facts, as it may impede others who are in search of the "truth" you claim to seek yourself.

JM

London Fog
03-01-2015, 02:44 PM
I've not been putting down your opinions, I simply corrected you when you stated, as a fact, that rings were found at the feet of Annie Chapman. If that was simply your opinion, please do not state your opinions as facts, as it may impede others who are in search of the "truth" you claim to seek yourself.

JM

Stop trying to dictate how other people post, and how they choose to believe.

MacGuffin
03-01-2015, 02:54 PM
Hi London Fog,
Possible alternate entrances/exits of 29 Handbury Street. Your words, not mine.

No, it's the title of the thread.

While I am new to this site, I am not new to the JTR case. As for common courtesy, that's what I thought I'd find here. I've yet to see it. Here's a suggestion. Go read all my posts and all replies to them. You just might see who isn't being courteous.

I don't believe or assume that anyone participating here is new to the JtR case, unless otherwise stated, regardless of how long they've been participating here.
Personally, I always read each thread entirely before posting any responses or queries, as it prevents others from having to repeat themselves unnecessarily and helps to insure continuity in the various discussions.

As to courtesy/discourtesy, yes others are guilty as well; however, being new means that one's initial postings will set the tone (if you will) as to how other posters will perceive and interact with the newcomer in future discussions.
Is it fair? No, but it is how people interact in discussion groups throughout the interwebs.
We are in a medium that nullifies all of the usual social prejudices of race, gender, religion, nationality, etc., and instead are judged solely on how we present ourselves in the written word.
Presentation equals perception, the better one presents, the better one is perceived and in turn, received.
It's a honey versus vinegar strategy that works towards attracting poster interaction, as well as flies.

(edited to add): These are merely suggestions, and not intended to dictate how others should post.

London Fog
03-01-2015, 03:16 PM
Hi London Fog,


No, it's the title of the thread.

Yes, I know it's the title of the thread. And in that thread there is indeed alternatives given for intrance/exit. It seems the killer didn't necessarily have to go through the house.

I don't believe or assume that anyone participating here is new to the JtR case, unless otherwise stated, regardless of how long they've been participating here.
Personally, I always read each thread entirely before posting any responses or queries, as it prevents others from having to repeat themselves unnecessarily and helps to insure continuity in the various discussions.

Well, for some reason I have had to repeat myself a lot here.

As to courtesy/discourtesy, yes others are guilty as well; however, being new means that one's initial postings will set the tone (if you will) as to how other posters will perceive and interact with the newcomer in future discussions.
Is it fair? No, but it is how people interact in discussion groups throughout the interwebs.

Maybe you missed my post, but I'm not the one who has been discourteous to posters here. I'm the one who have had to defend myself for simple opinions.

We are in a medium that nullifies all of the usual social prejudices of race, gender, religion, nationality, etc., and instead are judged solely on how we present ourselves in the written word.
Presentation equals perception, the better one presents, the better one is perceived and in turn, received.

And as long as people judge me because of my simple opinions, then what does that say about them? Go ahead and defend such, if you so choose.

It's a honey versus vinegar strategy that works towards attracting poster interaction, as well as flies.

I've met the flies, so now maybe we're getting close to the poster interaction. Here's to hoping.

(edited to add): These are merely suggestions, and not intended to dictate how others should post.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying about my opinions on the JTR case. Mere opinion, and not intended to dictate how others should post, or believe. For some reason, people feel threatened by this.

Wickerman
03-01-2015, 03:40 PM
I agree. Which is why I suggested that 'London Fog' "must look at who said it and when and under what circumstances it was said in order to judge whether the information is reliable."

JM

Ok, I thought you were referring to the press.

Errata
03-01-2015, 07:05 PM
Yes, I know it's the title of the thread. And in that thread there is indeed alternatives given for intrance/exit. It seems the killer didn't necessarily have to go through the house.


Are you referring to the blueprints to the back area? Because they indeed show entrances into the sidemost yards, but no gates between the yards. So to get to the 29 yard, you'd have to jump one or two fences depending on your avenue of approach. Which is fine for an athletic killer (or two, or five) but it seems rather difficult for a guy carrying a 160 pound mutilated body. To the point where it could be forgiven to say that only a lunatic of epic proportions would bother doing that, and rather would have dumped her in one of the yards that had a gate. I mean I'm trying to picture it, but all I'm getting is a rather morbid Three Stooges sketch.

Or are you saying there is an alternate entrance to #29 specifically?

London Fog
03-01-2015, 09:22 PM
Are you referring to the blueprints to the back area? Because they indeed show entrances into the sidemost yards, but no gates between the yards. So to get to the 29 yard, you'd have to jump one or two fences depending on your avenue of approach. Which is fine for an athletic killer (or two, or five) but it seems rather difficult for a guy carrying a 160 pound mutilated body. To the point where it could be forgiven to say that only a lunatic of epic proportions would bother doing that, and rather would have dumped her in one of the yards that had a gate. I mean I'm trying to picture it, but all I'm getting is a rather morbid Three Stooges sketch.

Or are you saying there is an alternate entrance to #29 specifically?

According to what some are saying on that thread, there were other ways in/out. I don't know, but it seems to me a stretch to say there was no way in or out, so a person couldn't have done this.

Jeff Leahy
03-02-2015, 12:51 AM
Seriously, what evidence do you expect there could be for this? Do you imagine they would advertise having done this? There is evidence that these women were killed. The killer was never caught. So all the talk about evidence can be a little misleading..

What? Your not serious.. There are only the three possibilities that I have given. 1 They were killed in site 2. They were bought there by transport 3. They were carried there by person or persons unknown..

Beyong that you only have loon ball theories. They were dropped by Aliens from outer space. They tunnelled there in a gone wrong escape attempt from Holloway prison. They had always been there they just hadn't been noticed before.

You still haven't actually given a credible explanation how the bodies came to be at their murder locations

This goes against the idea of the victims being murdered where they were found, doesn't it? .

Thats what I was asking you. If they weren't killed where they were found what possible alternative explanation could there have been?

What was his name? I assume, since you know so much about him, you also know who he was. And I don't mean just one policeman's suspicion. .

Jack is the name given to the Serial killer. Unless you have a theory that they were all killed by different people , Jack is usually the name given.

Is this a serious question? Marie Kelly was murdered in seclusion. The others didn't have a room, as they were street walking..

Obviously its a serious question perhaps you should give it further thought?

If he didn't require transport at the Kelly murder, why would anyone assume he had to have transport at the other murder scenes. Particularly the Chapman murder scene which was in a secluded back yard?

Why would it be more logical to presume that? I would think it would be more logical to consider that a killer would try to keep from getting caught. Taking his time to do the ripping out in the open would have more risk of being caught. And he DID keep from getting caught..

That would make the assumption that your dealing with a sane human being who would think like one. But if they weren't killed where they were found you still haven't come up with a rational explanation how they came to be where they where found and why there was know evidence of that method?


You don't have anything that shows more than suggestions and more theory. You are pretending to have more than you actually have. We don't know, and that's the bottom line.

OK we'll try going one at a time perhaps that is easier..

How do you explain the large build up of clotted blood underneath Poly Nichols?

Yours jeff

Jeff Leahy
03-02-2015, 12:57 AM
According to what some are saying on that thread, there were other ways in/out. I don't know, but it seems to me a stretch to say there was no way in or out, so a person couldn't have done this.

There was no alternative entrance to Hanbury Street Yard. The only way in and out was down a long corridor from the front of the house. The yard was surrounded by a high fence.

On one side Albert Cadoshe (Who had a urinary infection) made several trips into the back yard that morning when he heard a bang against the fence.

It seems probable given Mrs Longs evidence that he heard Annie Chapman being murdered. But of course you have the problem of time of death, which was estimated earlier by Doctor Philips…

Either Cadoshe or Dr Philips was correct, but given the primitive knowledge and way doctors estimated such things I've always gone with Cadoshe, suggesting she was murdered in Daylight.

Hence the better job performed by the killer on this victim.

Your jeff

Admin
03-02-2015, 05:27 AM
A large percentage of this thread has devolved into personal attacks. What's worse, it's personal attacks that are not germane to the thread topic, so it's hijacking and personal attacks.

The Admin is having a very, very bad week and does not want to deal with the cleanup involved in this thread, and if all infractions point that were earned were assigned, many people would be on a 2 week vacation from the boards, minimum.

From this point on, confine your comments to respectful discussion of the thread topic, and keep the personal invective out of it. Failure to do on this thread will result in double infraction points for each post.

Thank you.

MayBea
03-02-2015, 12:49 PM
Thank you, Admin. :2thumbsup:
The above quoted criteria supposedly needed to prove the nonexistence of a Royal Conspiracy would also be the same criteria needed to disprove a conspiracy involving the Salvation Army... or whatever group of people you'd like to hang with the name 'Jack the Ripper'.
I've already proven that the real MJK was involved with the Salvation Army in the East End. It bolsters what I sometimes call "Salvation Army" theory related to MJK candidate, MJW, whose descendants are connected to Peerage.

It's always easier to 'prove' a negative, or make people believe a negative when you just have to disprove one or two points in one particular version of the theory. Sometimes they're disproved by real facts, sometimes dismissed for far less.

London Fog
03-02-2015, 01:53 PM
There was no alternative entrance to Hanbury Street Yard. The only way in and out was down a long corridor from the front of the house. The yard was surrounded by a high fence.

On one side Albert Cadoshe (Who had a urinary infection) made several trips into the back yard that morning when he heard a bang against the fence.

It seems probable given Mrs Longs evidence that he heard Annie Chapman being murdered. But of course you have the problem of time of death, which was estimated earlier by Doctor Philips…

Either Cadoshe or Dr Philips was correct, but given the primitive knowledge and way doctors estimated such things I've always gone with Cadoshe, suggesting she was murdered in Daylight.

Hence the better job performed by the killer on this victim.

Your jeff

You just destroyed your own argument. I'll leave it up to you to figure it out.

Jeff Leahy
03-02-2015, 03:09 PM
You just destroyed your own argument. I'll leave it up to you to figure it out.

I've not destroyed any argument just pointed out the facts.

There was no way in or out of Hanbury street. One door at front one at the back.

So if Chapman wasn't killer there what other rational argument could there be?

However you have still failed to explain the congealed blood under Poly Nichols

Yours Jeff

London Fog
03-02-2015, 03:13 PM
I've not destroyed any argument just pointed out he facts.

There was no way in or out of Hanbury street. One door at front one at the back.

So if Chapman wasn't killer there what other rational argument could there be?

However you have still failed to explain the congealed blood under Poly Nicho;s

Yours Jeff

Jeff, you win. I'm not welcome here, and it's okay. Carry on.

MayBea
03-02-2015, 03:16 PM
There's plenty of evidence that these murder sites or "dumping sites" were chosen specifically (location near a door, gate or entrance, location with historic, religious, or Masonic significance, etc...). Obviously it's easier to take a dead woman or unconscious woman to the site than a living woman. The alternative is a very persuasive gentleman, above suspicion, which I have no problem with.

Jeff Leahy
03-02-2015, 03:18 PM
Jeff, you win. I'm not welcome here, and it's okay. Carry on.

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. Above I attach the front and back of Hanbury street and a map showing that the yard was closed in on all sides.

I'm just trying to get my head around how else Annie Chapman could have ended up in the yard unless she went of her own violation?

Yours Jeff

Jeff Leahy
03-02-2015, 03:23 PM
There's plenty of evidence that these murder sites or "dumping sites" were chosen specifically (location near a door, gate or entrance, location with historic, religious, or Masonic significance, etc...). Obviously it's easier to take a dead woman or unconscious woman to the site than a living woman. The alternative is a very persuasive gentleman, above suspicion, which I have no problem with.

A dumping site requires transport

If anyone is interested I'm giving a lecture on the Hammersmith Nude Murders in London, all the bodies were dumped…probably murdered in a vechile and transported to the place they were found..

There is a lot of witness evidence to support this

However there is no witness evidence to support this at the JtR murder scenes..the CSI suggests they were murdered were discovered.

Yet you now seem to be suggesting they were unconscious when taken to the scene and then murdered…is that correct?

Your jeff

MayBea
03-02-2015, 04:12 PM
Yet you now seem to be suggesting they were unconscious when taken to the scene and then murdered…is that correct?
No, Jeff. I'm suggesting the sites were chosen and the women brought there on purpose and I believe he didn't have to do anything except persuade them. I'm sure Annie Chapman wondered why a yard was more appropriate than a doorway or a side alley. Unless of course, it was daylight.

But I'm giving London Fog the benefit of the doubt although I don't know if he really believes the carriage theory of is just using it to prove another point. I find it interesting nonetheless.

Jeff Leahy
03-03-2015, 01:42 AM
No, Jeff. I'm suggesting the sites were chosen and the women brought there on purpose and I believe he didn't have to do anything except persuade them. I'm sure Annie Chapman wondered why a yard was more appropriate than a doorway or a side alley. Unless of course, it was daylight.

But I'm giving London Fog the benefit of the doubt although I don't know if he really believes the carriage theory of is just using it to prove another point. I find it interesting nonetheless.

Ok, sometimes people argue the same thing on the boards but most posters have different opinions.

The example I gave above of the Hammersmith Nude murders shows that killers do dump and display bodies. Although only really Mary Flemming fits as a classic pose. But of course all the witness and CSI supports the bodies having been placed where found and murdered else where.

The blood splatter on the fence clearly demonstrates Annie Chapmans heart was pumping when she entered the yard.

Are you saying that rather than the women taking the killer into the yard that Jack the Ripper specifically selected the locations for purpose or meaning?

Pursonally I've always believed until recently that the sites were just randomly selected by the victims but have recently come across information that suggests that the killer may also have been familiar with them.

The site at Hanbury street sold Pet Food.

Yours Jeff

MayBea
03-04-2015, 12:45 PM
Are you saying that rather than the women taking the killer into the yard that Jack the Ripper specifically selected the locations for purpose or meaning?...

The site at Hanbury street sold Pet Food.
This could start a whole new branch of Pet Food theories! Or just "pet theories"!

I see possible significance that Annie Chapman was killed in the backyard of 26 Hanbury and the Salvation Army had a home at 212 Hanbury. All the other sites have some immediate, suggestive association except for Miller's Court. I know of none for Millers Court so I think perhaps the significance of that murder was the identity of Mary Jane Kelly.

MayBea
03-05-2015, 10:42 AM
Correction: On 8 September 1888, the body of Annie Chapman was found in the backyard of No.29 Hanbury Street.

P.S. Anyone with a Ripper theory would obviously be wise to link it to the popular Royal Conspiracy theory to help it gain traction. If you can't beat 'em....

Mayerling
03-05-2015, 12:04 PM
.

P.S. Anyone with a Ripper theory would obviously be wise to link it to the popular Royal Conspiracy theory to help it gain traction. If you can't beat 'em....

Okay, let's see what I can come up with.

It was really not the Duke of Clarence, but his uncle, the supposedly dead Duke of Albany (supposedly dead in 1884) who was in an insane asylum - a very difficult case as the asylum personnel had to keep him from cutting himself or injuring himself due to his hemophelia by getting his weapons away from him without getting cut or stabbed themselves. He managed on five occasions in 1888 (at least five) to evade his guards and doctors, and get (totally unscathed) to London, where he would steal a hansom cab to go to Whitechapel. He attracted his woe-be-gone victims by offering them free cab rides. They'd get into the cabs, he find out of the way, unobservable places, enter the cabs, slaughter them, and drive them to other out of the way spots. Then he'd abandon the cab in some village or other outside London, and hightail it back to the asylum, insisting they give him the papers the next day so he could see the effect of his outings. On the last occasion he was stopped by a man in an Astrokhan hat who explained he knew what he was up to, and demanded he take him to Miller's Court. Annoyed he did. The man gave him a two sovereign tip (due to his exalted station) and went to Mary Kelly's rooms. The Duke left the area in the cab, left the cab near Hyde Park, took a train home, and never ventured out of the Asylum again, as he felt the fun was out of his escapades.

Does that settle everything?

Jeff

MayBea
03-05-2015, 07:20 PM
What? No baby? :pacifier:

MayBea
03-14-2015, 10:50 AM
My theory has a baby that can be attached to a significant Mary Jane Kelly candidate associated, so far post 1919, to Peerage and, potentially, to notable Freemasons - Mary Jane Wilson ne. Kelly.

She is significant because she disappears at the right time (no death record found) and because:

a)The City Missionary said he rescued one of MJK's friends.

b)The same City Missionary rescued one of MJW's niece's.

He rescued 200 such people, some or most through marriage, and one of them happened to be MJW's niece living on Thrawl Street whom he rescued by getting her married in 1887 (Pateman's name added to marriage certificate as witness-curate).

packers stem
10-01-2015, 04:06 AM
I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. Above I attach the front and back of Hanbury street and a map showing that the yard was closed in on all sides.

I'm just trying to get my head around how else Annie Chapman could have ended up in the yard unless she went of her own violation?

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff
We may have been suspecting the fence was more of an obstacle than it actually was.
The times report of the 12th of September mentions the blood found in and around the rear of 25.They state that the police believed the murderer escaped by going 'over or through' the fence! Now you can hardly go through a fence unless there's a gap or a gateway....

curious4
10-01-2015, 04:36 AM
Any morganic marriage would not have legal status. Any marriage without the consent of Parliament would be null and void. Therefore there would be no need for secrecy or basis for blackmail.
A baby born of such a union would have no claim to the throne.

Best wishes
C4