The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[London Fog]

There is no biological link between Joseph Sickert and the Duke of Clarence.

Oh, so you've done the DNA testing? Can you post the results here?

Apart from Joseph being a known fantasist, his mother was conceived at a time when Prince Eddy was in Germany. Ergo, his mother cannot have been the Duke's daughter. And yes, the vast majority of pregnancies are of nine months duration.

I assume then that you were there to witness said conception. If you weren't, then I will tell you, not every pregnancy is a nine month ordeal. Ask any doctor.

A great portion of the Knight/Gorman tale was that Annie Crook, Prince Eddy's sweetheart was a Roman Catholic. She wasn't. Her daughter was christened as an Anglican. Whether Alice converted to Roman Catholicism later in life is neither here nor there, as it has nothing to do with Knight's story of Prince Eddy and Alice Crook.

If she converting to catholocism, that had nothing to do with her being a catholic? Can you please explain that?

Do you have proof that Alice was the daughter of the Duke of Clarence? Show it then!

Okay, I'm getting a little tired of saying the same things over and over. Please read my posts about what I've said concerning proof, and why I believe in the possibility of this theory.

Joseph was born the middle child of a marriage in which there is no evidence of infidelity at all.
There is no known provable link that Alice Gorman even knew the painter Walter Sickert.

You might be 100% correct. But if you don't know, FOR SURE that this is true, then you can't rightly call me crazy for considering the theory.

I have given you facts and evidence about Joseph, the Gormans and Prince Eddy's whereabouts. Instead of being so rude, why not produce something that shows that Joseph Gorman wasn't a liar and a fantasist.

No, you really haven't given any facts at all. You have given your reasons for believing what you believe, just as I have. If all pregnancies are exactly nine months in duration, and if a catholic convert isn't called a catholic, then you might have something. You have to do better than that.

I'm the rude one here? That's more sad than it is funny. If you were reading these posts, you would see how silly that statement is.

Every theory has to have some link to reality, some factual base, or it is nothing but gossamer.

You're allowed to say that, but I'm not, right?

[GUT]

Can I summarise London Fog has no proof just s/he likes the idea and will out of hand reject anything that might be contrary to him liking the idea.

[London Fog]

It doesn't go against common sense, but it might go against someone's logic or 'scientific' reasoning which might be based on some sort of 'legality' or elitist thinking (e.g. burden of proof stuff where proof means a document or DNA-type evidence). That's just a good way to get rid of someone.

Knight's theory goes back to the 1970s. There have been other updated incarnations that are much better, which I think definitely link, at least Mary Jane Kelly, to the basic Knight theory, if not the whole Ripper story.

If the theory is correct, it goes back to 1888. It was in 1888 when the women were laid out in a fashion that very well could have been masonic ritual. It was 1888 when the word JEWES was written on the wall. It was the Royal family of 1888 who were members of the masonic order. So MAYBE this was a 1970 concoction, but then, MAYBE it wasn't. I believe in the possibility.

[GUT]

If the theory is correct, it goes back to 1888. It was in 1888 when the women were laid out in a fashion that very well could have been masonic ritual. It was 1888 when the word JEWES was written on the wall. It was the Royal family of 1888 who were members of the masonic order. So MAYBE this was a 1970 concoction, but then, MAYBE it wasn't. I believe in the possibility.

There we go again the women were laid out in a fashion that very well could have been masonic ritual, but the fact that we can only say two were in positions even remotely the same doesn't matter.

If the killer was laying out his victims in the "Masonic Manner" for whatever that was supposed to be, why would he lay them all out in that same manner?

[London Fog]

Can I summarise London Fog has no proof just s/he likes the idea and will out of hand reject anything that might be contrary to him liking the idea.

Well at least you've started reading my posts. I did say I had no proof.

Here's where you're wrong about me. I don't mind so much if anyone here don't believe this theory. I welcome anyone to discuss it and tell why they do or don't believe it. But that's not what's happening here. What I'm seeing are people who think they know it all, so that nothing can be possible unless they endorse it. I have a passion for the JTR case. Maybe that's a bit twisted of me, but it's true. I really enjoy discussing all theories on the case. And I try to keep an open mind about all theories, until I have hard proof to the contrary. If you have such, I welcome it. If you don't, then please stop harassing me for having an open mind.

[London Fog]

There we go again the women were laid out in a fashion that very well could have been masonic ritual, but the fact that we can only say two were in positions even remotely the same doesn't matter.

If the killer was laying out his victims in the "Masonic Manner" for whatever that was supposed to be, why would he lay them all out in that same manner?

I don't know. According to the theory, there were more than one man involved in this. That COULD explain it, though I don't expect you to grasp that I'm saying "COULD."

Here we go again? If you don't want to "go again," then you certainly don't have to. If you don't want to, goodbye.

[GUT]

Well at least you've started reading my posts. I did say I had no proof.

Here's where you're wrong about me. I don't mind so much if anyone here don't believe this theory. I welcome anyone to discuss it and tell why they do or don't believe it. But that's not what's happening here. What I'm seeing are people who think they know it all, so that nothing can be possible unless they endorse it. I have a passion for the JTR case. Maybe that's a bit twisted of me, but it's true. I really enjoy discussing all theories on the case. And I try to keep an open mind about all theories, until I have hard proof to the contrary. If you have such, I welcome it. If you don't, then please stop harassing me for having an open mind.

Well how about as Rosella pointed out wt the most likely time of conception he was out of the Country. You keep saying pregnancy isn't 9 months and your actually right a normal term pregnancy is 40 weeks, guess what 9 months and a couple of days.

What about the simple fact that baby born even 4 weeks premature in 1888 had about a 1% chance of survival.

How about that the doctors at the time said the bodies were killed where they were found.

How about the fact that there is no proof that JtR even wrote the Graffiti.

How about the fact that there is nothing to show that Juwes or Jewes has anything to do with Masons.

How about the likelihood as was believed by Warren at the time that it referred to Jews.

[London Fog]

Well how about as Rosella pointed out wt the most likely time of conception he was out of the Country. You keep saying pregnancy isn't 9 months and your actually right a normal term pregnancy is 40 weeks, guess what 9 months and a couple of days.

Okay, I guess you did want to "go again."

It's not false that not all pregnancies are of nine month duration. I know you know that's true, but I can't figure out how you can justify pretending that it's not true. EVERY adult on earth knows that's true.

What about the simple fact that baby born even 4 weeks premature in 1888 had about a 1% chance of survival.

I would say that 1% would have a chance of surviving. What would you say?

How about that the doctors at the time said the bodies were killed where they were found.

From what I've seen of doctors reports, they didn't agree on much. Some of them say it was a Doctor, and others of them say it wasn't a doctor. How would they even know that the bodies were killed on the spot they were found? The lack of blood strongly suggests otherwise.

How about the fact that there is no proof that JtR even wrote the Graffiti.

Do you think such a writing existed? If you do, I'll explain why I ask that question.

How about the fact that there is nothing to show that Juwes or Jewes has anything to do with Masons.

According to you. According to others, there is. Anything you want to believe, you call facts. Notice I'm using the word "possibility." And you try to paint me as the gullible one.

How about the likelihood as was believed by Warren at the time that it referred to Jews.

None who weren't masons would have any reason to think otherwise. Those who were masons wouldn't admit this was being done by them.

[London Fog]

From another thread:

Ellen May Lackner backed up Joseph Sickerts story in an interview with Fairclough,Begg and Feldman.
If you haven't read Faircloughs book may i suggest you read it if only for this.
Whenever I try to dismiss Josephs story(despite his yo-yoing from assertion to retraction) I keep coming back to 'why would this old lady lie'.
I just can't see it,pensioners in my experience are generally honest.
Why would she sit and tell a barefaced lie to these three ripperologists.
I don't think she did.
Basically what she said was that Joseph's grandfather was royalty and that 'the artist'(sickert) helped with the cover up by pretending the child was his.She also talked about her grandfathers link with the stephens.
Feldman stated in his book that although Annie was welcomed at Ellen's family home,Alice was not as she reminded Ellens mother of Jack the ripper.

[Rosella]

Family stories are often adopted into family lore and believed and embellished, over the generations. What about the tale of Eddowes' shawl, made into the centrepiece of a book?

I post on the Lizzie Borden Forum. On there we had a poster, an old lady who in her youth had been told by another old lady the 'truth' about the Borden murders.

It involved a sweetheart of Lizzie's being refused permission to marry her and so he had killed her parents. He was a young man, the son of wealthy parents, and a whole theory had grown up about him in the years since by some who followed the case

. Until people started dismantling the story. Lizzie never had any sweetheart and this young man was not a killer.

[GUT]

Ellen May Lackner backed up Joseph Sickerts story in an interview with Fairclough,Begg and Feldman.
If you haven't read Faircloughs book may i suggest you read it if only for this.
Whenever I try to dismiss Josephs story(despite his yo-yoing from assertion to retraction) I keep coming back to 'why would this old lady lie'.
I just can't see it,pensioners in my experience are generally honest.
Why would she sit and tell a barefaced lie to these three ripperologists.
I don't think she did.
Basically what she said was that Joseph's grandfather was royalty and that 'the artist'(sickert) helped with the cover up by pretending the child was his.She also talked about her grandfathers link with the stephens.
Feldman stated in his book that although Annie was welcomed at Ellen's family home,Alice was not as she reminded Ellens mother of Jack the ripper.

Couldn't help but laugh at this bit.

Pretty much every pensioner was once not a pensioner and the propensity to lie doesn't really change, pensioners are generally honest.

Just the sort of generalisation that leads the gullible to believe the theory

[London Fog]

Family stories are often adopted into family lore and believed and embellished, over the generations. What about the tale of Eddowes' shawl, made into the centrepiece of a book?

I post on the Lizzie Borden Forum. On there we had a poster, an old lady who in her youth had been told by another old lady the 'truth' about the Borden murders.

It involved a sweetheart of Lizzie's being refused permission to marry her and so he had killed her parents. He was a young man, the son of wealthy parents, and a whole theory had grown up about him in the years since by some who followed the case

. Until people started dismantling the story. Lizzie never had any sweetheart and this young man was not a killer.

Why ask for something and then try to discredit it when you receive it? Because your mind is made up, and nothing will change it, right? Anything you are shown, you can come up with statements such as you just did. So why would anyone go to any lengths to show you anything?

[London Fog]

Couldn't help but laugh at this bit.

Pretty much every pensioner was once not a pensioner and the propensity to lie doesn't really change, pensioners are generally honest.

Just the sort of generalisation that leads the gullible to believe the theory

Well I'm glad you got a jolly. Maybe now you'll be a little less judgmental of other people's views. But I won't hold my breath.

Pick apart what you can laugh at, and ignore the rest. I guess you need to do that, since you are determined to keep your mind closed.

[MacGuffin]

Hi London Fog,

"None of the C5 were killed in a carriage, they were all killed where they were respectively found"

That is a statement. It requires proof, just as any other statement.

No it's a fact, read the case files and coroner inquest reports.

Regards
MacGuffin

[London Fog]

Hi London Fog,

No it's a fact, read the case files and coroner inquest reports.

Regards
MacGuffin

So they examined the bodies and then stated in their report, " These women were not killed in a carriage." Is that correct?

Like I said before, there was a lot of disagreement over things like that. Some experts said JTR was a doctor, or had medical knowledge. Other experts said that was not the case. The same is true today. You have medical experts saying the one thing, and other medical experts saying the other.