The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[Jeff Leahy]

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

[Rosella]

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.

[London Fog]

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.

[MacGuffin]

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]

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.

[London Fog]

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?

[GUT]

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

[Rosella]

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.

[London Fog]

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.

[London Fog]

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.

[GUT]

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]

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.

[London Fog]

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.

[GUT]

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]

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.