The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[GUT]

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]

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.

[Jeff Leahy]

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

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

[MayBea]

"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.

[London Fog]

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.

[Errata]

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

"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 !

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

[Jeff Leahy]

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]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jmenges]

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

[Ben]

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?

[Pcdunn]

That catchy name...

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.

[London Fog]

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.

[GUT]

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]

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?