The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[Jeff Leahy]

He was also named as one on Macnaghten's three "Better than's" though later Mac appears to have moved on to just one.

This is irrelevant.. there are only two positions

Yours Jeff

[London Fog]

So which lie do you accept and which do you reject? When he said Walter wasn't part of it or when he said we was.

And are you arguing that we shouldn't reject any hypothesis or just that we should accept the Royal Conspiracy?

It was Knight who said Walter Sickert was part of the plot. It was Joseph Sickert who said he wasn't.

I don't accept any lie. All I want to know is, which is lie, and which is truth. Until I know for sure, all I can do is consider the possibilities. I consider it possible that Joseph Sickert would have changed his story because his father's name was being dragged through the mud, something he (Joseph) never intended. Now that might not be the truth, but until I know, I have to consider that it also might be. Again, I have seen no proof to the contrary.

[London Fog]

But the suspect was Named..

"Kosminski was the Suspect' Swanson

Yours Jeff

He wasn't everyone's suspect.

[London Fog]

THere are only two schools of thought..

Either Anderson was Correct…. The Ripper was known..

or 'The Ripper was not known' and I have an alternative theory..etc

Two schools of thought, to which either one you are welcome

Yours Jeff

Two schools of thought to whether the Ripper was know or not. But the case goes far beyond whether or not he was simply know. And by KNOWN, you are saying they had proof. Where is the proof?

[GUT]

This is irrelevant.. there are only two positions

Yours Jeff

What I am saying Jeff is that at one stage Mac supported the position it was Koz. I really can't see how that can be irrelevant.

Nor can I see how the fact that he later preferred another suspect can be irrelevant.

But if you feel it is not relevant you are welcome to ignore it. But it is a simple straightforward fact, something that are not overly common in this case.

[Jeff Leahy]

Two schools of thought to whether the Ripper was know or not. But the case goes far beyond whether or not he was simply know. And by KNOWN, you are saying they had proof. Where is the proof?

I've covered that…Anderson could have been incorrect.

But there are only two positions

Either the coppers knew at the time…but what they knew made what they said confusing, because they knew different things..

or a second position…that they were all incorrect and that we have another explanation such as …Maybrick , Sickert, the Royal Family etc ext ext

But we have two positions..

It was solved or it was not solved

Take your pick

Yours Jeff

[London Fog]

I've covered that…Anderson could have been incorrect.

But there are only two positions

Either the coppers knew at the time…but what they knew made what they said confusing, because they knew different things..

or a second position…that they were all incorrect and that we have another explanation such as …Maybrick , Sickert, the Royal Family etc ext ext

But we have two positions..

It was solved or it was not solved

Take your pick

Yours Jeff

You said Anderson could have been incorrect. If so, then he didn't KNOW. He only suspected. That puts him in the same category with all other theorist.

[Jeff Leahy]

You said Anderson could have been incorrect. If so, then he didn't KNOW. He only suspected. That puts him in the same category with all other theorist.

Of course Anderson could have been incorrect. However Anderson differs from the other positions in that 'he believed' he knew the answer.

Actually when he says 'Defintively ascertained FACT' he is infact referring to the FACT that the suspect was a Polish Jew..

However clearly his position is that the case was solved "Undiscovered murders in London are rare but the Jack the Ripper crimes are not within that category"

But all the policeman actually tell a very similar story..

That a man was suspected. He was followed. No proof could be gained against him. He was placed out of their way in an asylum. END

Reid was the least forward but still told his drinking man at the Princess Alice story which sort of fits what the other coppers say..

So what we have is One story 'at the time'. From individual perspectives but the same story.

AS time passes their individual stories evolve, because no proof was found on the man they followed.

Abberline eventually goes with Chapman, Reid says none will ever know, MacNuaghten (Given the Little he knows) plums for Druit…

But the fact remains that at the time there was a SUSPECT and the police bye and large believed they knew the identity of Jack the Ripper they just couldn't prove it.

The 'mystery' is why they came to different conclusions.

And I think that can be explained

Yours Jeff

[Rosella]

London Fog, do you mean, when you quote Joseph Sickert, Joseph Gorman, the third child (out of five) of William Gorman and his wife Alice née Crook? The Joseph who asserted to Stephen Knight that he was the painter Walter Sickert's illegitimate son?

The same Joseph Sickert who told the News of the World in May 1984 about the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe attempting to kill him.
'Ripper Haunted My Life...He drove his car at me, I had to dive clear.'

[Bridewell]

"...undiscovered murders are rare in London, and the "Jack-the-Ripper" crimes are not in that category...I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him...In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact..."

Anderson's "he refused to give evidence against him" is a non sequitur though, isn't it. Kosminski (if he was indeed the suspect as claimed by DSS) was insane, so there was never any realistic prospect of the witness being required to give evidence.

[Scott Nelson]

Anderson reportedly said: "The necessary evidence for his conviction is unobtainable."

Daily Telegraph 19th, November 1918

[pinkmoon]

Anderson's "he refused to give evidence against him" is a non sequitur though, isn't it. Kosminski (if he was indeed the suspect as claimed by DSS) was insane, so there was never any realistic prospect of the witness being required to give evidence.

Quite possible that the witness did refuse to give evidence but probley because he never had a proper look at the suspect .

[Jeff Leahy]

Anderson reportedly said: "The necessary evidence for his conviction is unobtainable."

Daily Telegraph 19th, November 1918

Yes the Definitively ascertained 'fact' refers to the suspect being a Polish Jew.

What we have is a suspect at the time of the investigation who the police believed was the killer…

November 1888 to March 1889

That is the police case. And i believe all of them can be connected to a single theory at this time.

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

The Royal Theory is a hoax, a modern one at that, inspired initally by a cranky doctor.

Stewart Evans wrote a very good dissertation on it, reprinted on this site.

I would add that Dr. Stowell may have gained his cranky notion from a 1930 article that quoted Macnaghten claiming that the Ripper was the scion of a noble family.

Druitt was no more noble than he was a doctor.

After Odell's demolition of the Druitt theory in 1966, pop culture was ready for the rubbish that Druitt was a decoy in some kind of grander conspiracy. The culture of Watergate made this possible in 1973, and the Royal 'connection' remains embedded in popular culture this this day.

In reality a police chief of the day, Macnaghten, had announced in 1913 that the case was solved, albeit posthumously.

In his memoir the following year the same ex-chief consolidated the claim that the Ripper was a suicide and that this information had come to him alone several years after the suspect had killed himself.

The conceited, poorly informed--with an even poorer memory--Sir Robert Anderson was just a minor sideshow, elevated by secondary sources into a definitive solution. The Swanson 'Marginalia' arguably confirmed this opinion.

[Jeff Leahy]

The conceited, poorly informed--with an even poorer memory--Sir Robert Anderson was just a minor sideshow, elevated by secondary sources into a definitive solution. The Swanson 'Marginalia' arguably confirmed this opinion.

Its not a conceited opinion, if the police had a theory but the suspect was placed in an Asylum in Surrey in March 1889..

Then all the piece fit perfectly in place.

McNaughten far from being a super cop (A joke of course) is simply a newly appointed copper writing a report on the Sun Newspaper claims that Cutbush was JtR…he wasn't of corse but MacNaughten had access to the files and the files reported the police investigation ands following of that suspect up until

Wait for it… MARCH 1889…

So there it is..macNaughten, aubergine (Who left in shortly after march 1889) Reid, Drew Cox Sagar etc ext

The case closes…end of…finish..

There is no more information for all involved…

But then in Autumn 1890.. ANderson receives a letter from the earl of Crawford…

And the rest is History…

There are only two positions..The cops either knew or they did not?

Yours Jeff