Ed Glinert's east end book big revelation?

[claire]

Personally I find Wellclose-square pretty interesting. I don't know if it has links to the case, but the place is teeming with fascinating incidents. Seconds from MJK's old digs on Breezer's-hill, too.

[Krinoid]

well,not what I expected but there are 2 triangles though and as it says a very very "twisted" kind of star of david.

[m_w_r]

It does not look like Colin has used the complete information...

Probably a good job Colin isn't around to hear you say that!... Wellclose Square is, as Glinert's solution implies, the southernmost point on the Kelly-Nichols-Wellclose triangle (the larger of the two on the diagram). It's south of the east-west railway line, if that helps.

Regards,

Mark

[Krinoid]

It does not look like Colin has used the complete information, wher eis wellclose square on the map for example and did he use Dorset street?

[Krinoid]

Wait a minute read closely

Bucks Row/Durwood Street - site of the first murder is 2,000 cubits from Wellclose Square (which itself is 2,000 cubits from the centre of London)
Dorset Street - the location of the last murder (Mary Kelly) and the addresses of each of the victims (all of whom lived in that neighbourhood) is 2,000 cubits from both Wellclose Square and Bucks Row/Durwood Street.

Taken together these three places form a triangle over the East End.
The other murder sites - Hanbury Street (Mary Anne Chapman), Berner Street (Liz Stride) and Mitre Square (Catherine Eddowes) all stand 1,600 cubits from each other (another length enshrined in Masonic and biblical lore - corresponding to the size of the outer court of the Masons' idealised temple). These three sites form a smaller triangle. Placed together these two shapes form a twisted image of the Star of David/Seal of Solomon. It's almost certainly coincidence.

[m_w_r]

Hi Krinoid,

It may interest you to know that someone has drawn the lines between the murder sites, etc, to which you have referred in this thread. The image can be seen in "the other place", by following this link:

click here

The creator and copyright holder of the overlay image, Colin Roberts, does not post on this site at the moment.

I hope you find this interesting.

Regards,

Mark

[Krinoid]

If we are only allowed to discuss on this forum pure "facts"that can be verified,then we might as well shut down the forum. Even the so called descriptions of witness testimony from people who saw what they thought was the ripper (for example) vary in every detail not to mention police records, are non consistent.So they should not be discussed?? I mean they can't even prove all the crimes were the same killer by method.

[The Grave Maurice]

Krinoid,

I did not ridicule you. I asked you only to show me why I should take Glinert's "solution" seriously since that, in my opinion, is more than he did.

[The Good Michael]

And if there is not enough evidence yet fine ,but as they say there's no smoke without fire

They are often wrong about smoke and fire. Sometimes the smoke is imagined and then fire is conjured from that imagining. It is the way of conspiracy theories quite often, and it happens on this site, like as not.

Mike

[Krinoid]

BTW I was not trying to ever justify the facts in Glinert's book as I don't know enough to test them or backgroud info, that is why I posted here to see if others ( the so called experts) had and what their ideas were,not just blatant dismissal with no comments. And I wanted to alert people to the book, tried that 2 years ago. People are acting like these are my theories, they are not, Glinert says in another book "London's Dead" that many "ripperologists" believe what I posted on various theories.
And if there is not enough evidence yet fine ,but as they say there's no smoke without fire and someone will deduce it eventually...and it won't probabbly on this site LOL
end of postings

[Krinoid]

In the last two replies, Claire and Joel have simply said, perhaps more politely than some of us, that the "solution" put forward by Glinert was either a joke or a load of old cobblers. If you believe differently, Krinoid, the onus is on you to prove it.

Oh I didn't know this was a challenge for a duel!, I thought this was a discussion forum where people discuss theories and add some constructive comments instead of just ridicule members like you are doing. There is such a tendancy on this site to prove how above some members are on others due to their superior knowledge. Well, I was compared to Peter Ackroyd above, not bad.Considered highly intellectual along with Iain sinclair who has proposed similiar theories.I guess they are stupid also and below the contempt of "premium "members. As far as I know "ripperologists" is not a learned degree, so therefore I would side with Historians like Glinert,ackroyd , sinclair and others.

[The Grave Maurice]

In the last two replies, Claire and Joel have simply said, perhaps more politely than some of us, that the "solution" put forward by Glinert was either a joke or a load of old cobblers. If you believe differently, Krinoid, the onus is on you to prove it.

[Krinoid]

the Last two replies were very good-more feedback and ideas please..

[joelhall]

The horse's head I thought was very funny when I read that as that I was an item I found on the web and posted..
I was basically trying to ask the experts on here if they had read Glinert's book and could explain his theories as I thought he made a breakthrough especially on the importance of Wellclose square-I thought the Ripperologists were on here but they are ignoring my postings or just dismissing them without facts, so we will never know. W.S. no matter how you look at it has some significance to the early planners of London (Wren),many mystics (falk etc) lived there, The Ratcliffe hghwy murders (both of them) were literally across the street from the Square and Swedenborg squares(which adjoins it),both squares had signifacant churches next to each other and they were all next to another Hawksmoor church St george in the East.
Then Glinert stated those measurements and a lot made sense to me on why those Murder sites were chosen and no one never heard anything or saw anything at the time of those murders??I think some of them were placed there for a reason IMHO,but we will never know.
I almost get the idea there is a kind of snobbery on here that even if I am completely wrong, people are not open to new ideas and theories.

Well I can tell you about the London planning in this instance, with regards to Wren. He redesigned the area with St. Pauls in the cntre and the rest spreading out to make an easy to navigate geometric shape. He was very artistic and this was simply for design function and artistic merit. There was no conspiracy, but the past allows people to rad more into things and even dream up fascinating stories.

With regard to churches and other significant buildings - if you ever visit London you will no this isn't perculiar to that area. London is full of nooks and crannies and all manner of old and important buildings in small areas. Bloomsbury is almost like the Bermuda Triangle

The reason so many similar buildings were in particular places was to do with the population, especially immigrants. They would tend to stick together in the same places for solidarity, and build their own communities within communities, much the same as today. Also the sheer amount of people in a small space called for more buildings. London, especially the East End was particularly densely populated, and there are only so many people you can fit into a church.

Churches didn't have the same purposes as they do today. They were not simply for singing hymns and hearing a service, but were outlets for community announcements, social events - they were the hub of the town (as well as the pubs for gossip - some things never change). Cities began to be planned around the needs of people, rather than just finding decent land and placing a building there. Land was scarse and had to be used efficiently and had to have a prominent position for easy navigation for people. Not many Eastenders would bother to walk all the way from Walthamstow to Clapham simply for church. They'd prefer to have their own or set up some other means of meeting which would prove havoc for the church authorities who were charged with not just religion, but public, social and at times, legal affairs of their parishes, as well as record keeping, etc.

Anyway, I can vouch there is the bit of snobbery and such, but that's bound to happen and it's nothing personal - you get it in all walks of life, and it's often because those with more knowledge have seen these sorts of things again and again and again, and are really just tired of debunking them. Now and then it might be because people end up assuming themselves right and everyone else wrong. Even so, it's nothing that's inherent in the members of this site, even the more knowledgeable ones.

One of the things to remember with conspiracy theories is they are usually only that - simply theories with no basis. For instance picking murder sites to make shapes on a map - what is the point? If it's some mystical thing no one got it or really cared for anything other than people being ripped up; if it's to send out a warning no one understood it, and certainly there was no panicky upheaval; if it was something sacred then it really was a momumental waste of time.

And of course these things are based on the FLIMSIEST of evidence. These include the sites making shapes, the initials of the victims, someone once walked past someone elses second cousin twice removed, something to do with the moon...

Besides it's a lot of trouble to go to simply to kill a few, at the time, unknown, virtually nameless prostitutes from the East End.

The golden rule here is to think about what you read. It makes it a good story, it plays into the atmosphere and general feeling of mystery and intrigue of the times - but in all honesty is it really that likely?

For instance the Royal conspiracy - is it really that likely? Would freemasons go around killing people in ritualistic killings in public places leaving clues behind to protect a Royal prince? Or if the very fabric of the British government was really at stake, would they not simply have arrested them as spies or made them disappear (sometimes the powers that be do do this)? To be honest I wouldn't think they'd want to draw attention to themselves, much less even care if these people spoke. Or better yet they could just say 'prove it' to any claims made, which they know would be impossible.

Of course if you think a theory is viable then by all means explore it, then cite the evidence for analysis by others. If it's merely circumstantial and does not tie in with logic, then abandon it.

[claire]

I think, with respect, Krinoid, that the issue is not the novelty of the idea, but the fact that the 'facts' that you want to use to justify the discussion aren't actually facts. In other words, the measurements just don't match, unless you're prepared to be very imprecise about it (which, surely, defeats the purpose?).
Of course, Wellclose-square is a fascinating place (or was; it's not terribly exciting now, but that's 'progress' for you), and it's always bloody tempting to try and link interesting places with interesting events (Peter Ackroyd's made a career of it). However, if you want to link Wellclose-square with any of the 1888 murders, you'll need to look at something other than measurements, I suspect.