The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[MayBea]

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]

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

[Jeff Leahy]

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

[MayBea]

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.

[London Fog]

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.

[Jeff Leahy]

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]

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.

[MayBea]

Thank you, Admin.

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.

[Admin]

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.

[Jeff Leahy]

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

[Jeff Leahy]

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

[London Fog]

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.

[Errata]

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?

[Wickerman]

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.

[London Fog]

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.