The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[MacGuffin]

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]

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.

[jmenges]

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]

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.

[MacGuffin]

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]

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.

[jmenges]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Jeff Leahy]

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

[London Fog]

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.

[jmenges]

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]

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.