The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[London Fog]

So that's your answer to my 4 questions?

Not even which bodies you say were laid out in the Masonic way? [which I didn't ask about by the way.

What about the other questions no idea at all huh?

If you want to know, AGAIN, what I believe and why, just go back and reread my posts. You know the case, and you've already been told what I believe and why. All you want to do is argue, because you know you're paddling down stream. It's a little harder to paddle against the waves, but I'll take it.

[GUT]

Have you not read my posts up to this point? You are welcome to go back and read them. There's where you will find your answer.

I say that some of the bodies were displayed that way because they actually were. Can't beat that for factual statement.

So that's your answer to my 4 questions?

Not even which bodies you say were laid out in the Masonic way? [which I didn't ask about by the way.

What about the other questions no idea at all huh?

[London Fog]

London Fog

since when you are told something about the theory that discredits it, you say something like



Please spell out just what theory you are such a supporter of, you can't support all the Royal Theories because they are all different, so please tell us

Which victims
Who killed them
Where they were killed
Why


You might also care to tell us what your standard of proof is, beyond reasonable doubt, on the balance of probabilities, it is a hypothesis consistent with the evidence, it just sounds good to me, or what.

Maybe then people can engage in sensible debate with you.

Have you not read my posts up to this point? You are welcome to go back and read them. There's where you will find your answer.

I say that some of the bodies were displayed that way because they actually were. Can't beat that for factual statement.

[GUT]

London Fog

since when you are told something about the theory that discredits it, you say something like

Who said they had to do them all that way? The fact that a few of them WERE done that way could not be ignored by any thinking person.

Please spell out just what theory you are such a supporter of, you can't support all the Royal Theories because they are all different, so please tell us

Which victims
Who killed them
Where they were killed
Why


You might also care to tell us what your standard of proof is, beyond reasonable doubt, on the balance of probabilities, it is a hypothesis consistent with the evidence, it just sounds good to me, or what.

Maybe then people can engage in sensible debate with you.

[London Fog]

Still somehow believing in a Royal/Masonic conspiracy despite all previous versions of the theory being convincingly discredited, is in my opinion a futile attempt to reinvent a wheel that's best left alone, given what we know of serial killers, and how that knowledge has been (and pretty much has to be) ignored by Royal Conspiracists. 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 the Royal Geographical Society, the Fenian Brotherhood, or whatever group of people you'd like to hang with the name 'Jack the Ripper'. It's the old game of 'I have a suspect, there's no proof he didn't do it, so I'm right', this time assigned to a group of people rather than an individual. Not convincing at all.

JM

I keep hearing about this convincingly discrediting evidence against this theory, but for some strange reason I never see it. Maybe it got lost.

[London Fog]

Well, in that case the Ripper couldn't tell his left from his right or remember the Masonic ritual, as, with Chapman only her small intestines, not her heart, were thrown over her RIGHT shoulder, (contrary to the ritual) attached by a cord to the rest of the intestines.

With Eddowes, again 'the intestines were drawn out to a large extent' according to Dr Brown 'and placed over the RIGHT shoulder...' 'A piece of two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design.' Not over the left shoulder. Neither Chapman's nor Eddowes' heart was missing.

Who said they had to do them all that way? The fact that a few of them WERE done that way could not be ignored by any thinking person.

A strange sort of arrangement for such a keen Freemason, eager to leave signals for his fellow masons. Just right, however, for a non-mason serial killer who like to grub about inside dead women's bodies.

So you're an expert on masonic killings, and non-masonic killings too? Wow, I can't help but wonder why such a mind can't tell us who the Ripper was.

[Rosella]

Well, at least you're admitting that such rituals did exist.



At least three of them.

Well, in that case the Ripper couldn't tell his left from his right or remember the Masonic ritual, as, with Chapman only her small intestines, not her heart, were thrown over her RIGHT shoulder, (contrary to the ritual) attached by a cord to the rest of the intestines.

With Eddowes, again 'the intestines were drawn out to a large extent' according to Dr Brown 'and placed over the RIGHT shoulder...' 'A piece of two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design.' Not over the left shoulder. Neither Chapman's nor Eddowes' heart was missing.

A strange sort of arrangement for such a keen Freemason, eager to leave signals for his fellow masons. Just right, however, for a non-mason serial killer who like to grub about inside dead women's bodies.

[Mayerling]

"When you take away the rest of all possible Royal Ripper Consipiracies
You are left with the best of all possible Royal Ripper Conspiracies!"

"Sir William Gull Pangloss"

[With apologies to Voltaire, Leonard Bernstein, and others.]

[jmenges]

But if you did want to eliminate all Royal Conspiracy theories, you would have to prove that:

A. the unknowns, Jack the Ripper and Mary Jane Kelly, had absolutely no connection to the Royals or the Masons.

And if one of the other or both are connected to the Royals or Masons, then your only recourse is to prove:

B. their connection to the Royals or Masons had nothing to do with the murders, even as a motivating factor for the murders and/or the M.O.

Still somehow believing in a Royal/Masonic conspiracy despite all previous versions of the theory being convincingly discredited, is in my opinion a futile attempt to reinvent a wheel that's best left alone, given what we know of serial killers, and how that knowledge has been (and pretty much has to be) ignored by Royal Conspiracists. 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 the Royal Geographical Society, the Fenian Brotherhood, or whatever group of people you'd like to hang with the name 'Jack the Ripper'. It's the old game of 'I have a suspect, there's no proof he didn't do it, so I'm right', this time assigned to a group of people rather than an individual. Not convincing at all.

JM

[London Fog]

When has having no proof ever stopped anyone proposing a theory about this case.

Theory is not a dirty word. If there were no such thing as theory, there would probably be fewer cases solved than there are.

[Harry D]

All the logic and science in the world can still be logically circumvented with some mental flexibility. There's no need to dismiss anything at any point short of a full solution.

But if you did want to eliminate all Royal Conspiracy theories, you would have to prove that:

A. the unknowns, Jack the Ripper and Mary Jane Kelly, had absolutely no connection to the Royals or the Masons.

And if one of the other or both are connected to the Royals or Masons, then your only recourse is to prove:

B. their connection to the Royals or Masons had nothing to do with the murders, even as a motivating factor for the murders and/or the M.O.

Reducing any one of the theories to it's perceived weakest point and then demolishing it doesn't effect anything because the theory doesn't hinge on any one point, except the ones mentioned above.

Since when is the burden of proof on those to prove that something doesn't exist?

[pinkmoon]

When has having no proof ever stopped anyone proposing a theory about this case.

[GUT]

Question about the "MANY DISPUTE" comment. How is it that those many disputes require no proof, yet the other side of the theory does? You are willing to CONSIDER the side you think most probable, even without hard proof. That's pretty much what the rest of us are doing. We're more alike than we are different, I think.

They do require proof, at least to me, and so far none forthcoming.

[London Fog]

And of course to prove the theory you need to prove these things, I have yet to see anything even remotely approaching proof that MJK had any connection to the Royals.

And considering many dispute that whe was even named MJK it seems they have a lot of work ahead of them.

Question about the "MANY DISPUTE" comment. How is it that those many disputes require no proof, yet the other side of the theory does? You are willing to CONSIDER the side you think most probable, even without hard proof. That's pretty much what the rest of us are doing. We're more alike than we are different, I think.

[GUT]

All the logic and science in the world can still be logically circumvented with some mental flexibility. There's no need to dismiss anything at any point short of a full solution.

But if you did want to eliminate all Royal Conspiracy theories, you would have to prove that:

A. the unknowns, Jack the Ripper and Mary Jane Kelly, had absolutely no connection to the Royals or the Masons.

And if one of the other or both are connected to the Royals or Masons, then your only recourse is to prove:

B. their connection to the Royals or Masons had nothing to do with the murders, even as a motivating factor for the murders and/or the M.O.

Reducing any one of the theories to it's perceived weakest point and then demolishing it doesn't effect anything because the theory doesn't hinge on any one point, except the ones mentioned above.

And of course to prove the theory you need to prove these things, I have yet to see anything even remotely approaching proof that MJK had any connection to the Royals.

And considering many dispute that whe was even named MJK it seems they have a lot of work ahead of them.