The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[Rosella]

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?

Not at all. I'm very interested in many of the theories discussed on the Forum. You haven't shown me anything except harkings back to the Knight/Sickert story, which has been debunked time and time again.

[Jeff Leahy]

Really Jeff?

I thought you yourself were now proposing a conspiracy theory; in which Dr Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson conspired to conceal from their Scotland Yard colleagues that the Ripper had been positively identified by a witness?

I dont believe in conspiracy theories.

What I'm suggesting is something quite different. "A political Hot potato'

Its simply known fact that the East end was a potentially dangerous situation. There had been riots in Trafalgar square people were generally frightened…

So discovering that Jack the Ripper was a polish Jew immigrant was a potentially explosive happening..

So placing the man in an asylum out of harms way with the minimum of fuss is hardly a conspiracy theory, its simply how things were done in Victorian era. Gentlemen kept their mouths shut and there honour intact, it had meaning.

Keeping it quiet is not a conspiracy theory. Indeed Anderson said as much in his book…"Revealing his name would serve NO purpose"

Yours Jeff

[London Fog]

Not at all. I'm very interested in many of the theories discussed on the Forum. You haven't shown me anything except harkings back to the Knight/Sickert story, which has been debunked time and time again.

You haven't given me anything to SHOW what you just said is true. I keep hearing it, but it never gets shown. The only thing that's been shown are things that are misconstrued.

I have shown precisely what I believe. I can't understand why so many people haven't read what I've said. It's there, just go back and read it.

What you were given is a relative who confirmed Joseph's story. But that's not what you want to hear, so you have to pooh pooh it.

[Jonathan H]

Not so fast, Jeff

Are you, or are you not, claiming--or theorizing-- that Sir Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson concealed from their Scotland Yard colleagues (at least until 1910) that the Ripper had been positively identified by a witness who refused to testify on reportedly sectarian grounds.

[MacGuffin]

Hi Jeff Leahy,

I dont believe in conspiracy theories.

What I'm suggesting is something quite different. "A political Hot potato'

Its simply known fact that the East end was a potentially dangerous situation. There had been riots in Trafalgar square people were generally frightened…

So discovering that Jack the Ripper was a polish Jew immigrant was a potentially explosive happening..

So placing the man in an asylum out of harms way with the minimum of fuss is hardly a conspiracy theory, its simply how things were done in Victorian era. Gentlemen kept their mouths shut and there honour intact, it had meaning.

Keeping it quiet is not a conspiracy theory. Indeed Anderson said as much in his book…"Revealing his name would serve NO purpose"

Yours Jeff

I think this is one of the factors that those of us who grew up in a more transparent age/era often loose sight of and fail to understand.
Much of the silence and "secrecy" that surrounds the crime seems to be of a mysterious nature at first glance, unless the viewer mentally places themselves (and hence, the crimes) in the proper context of place, time and societal norms, beliefs, and interactions.
Once this is done, much of the perceived mystique tends to dissipate like smoke in the wind.

Regards,
MacGuffin

(edited to add): This is not in regards to any particular suspect, just an observation of the thought processes and perceptual differences
that have changed in the past 126 years.

[Errata]

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.

This isn't an expertise thing, like a coroner speculating on the amount of medical knowledge the killer might possess. This is a blood thing.

These women were found in appropriately sized pools of blood given what was done to them and how long they were in situ. In order for them to have been killed elsewhere, the killer would have needed to collect the blood shed during the murder, and then pour it on the ground before placing the body where it was found. He also would have had to have killed them on some kind of surface that leaves no marks, and wood and cloth both leave marks. And a carriage is a cramped space, so her limbs would have been pressed against the seat or the door, and that leaves marks as well.

The blood evidence says they were killed where they were found. And while it is possible that certain elaborate procedures could have been done to feign the blood evidence, those procedures require quite a bit of space and time. So a carriage is out.

[London Fog]

This isn't an expertise thing, like a coroner speculating on the amount of medical knowledge the killer might possess. This is a blood thing.

These women were found in appropriately sized pools of blood given what was done to them and how long they were in situ. In order for them to have been killed elsewhere, the killer would have needed to collect the blood shed during the murder, and then pour it on the ground before placing the body where it was found. He also would have had to have killed them on some kind of surface that leaves no marks, and wood and cloth both leave marks. And a carriage is a cramped space, so her limbs would have been pressed against the seat or the door, and that leaves marks as well.

The blood evidence says they were killed where they were found. And while it is possible that certain elaborate procedures could have been done to feign the blood evidence, those procedures require quite a bit of space and time. So a carriage is out.

On the point of the amount of blood present, many say there was NOT the amount of blood present to justify the murders being done where the bodies were found. So yes, it actually is a matter of opinion, and once again, opinions differ.

[miss marple]

Has London Fog ever been to the East End? The idea of a carriage [ not a Hackney cab or cart] rattling around the back streets of Whitechapel, without being noticed, then stopping and someone getting out [ not Dr Gull, poor man was incapacitated] spraying the blood ,laying out bodies without being seen by anyone and an invisable carriage that vanished without trace gave me a real laugh. Still the old favourites are the best. Van Gogh aint got no legs.


Miss Marple

[London Fog]

Has London Fog ever been to the East End? The idea of a carriage [ not a Hackney cab or cart] rattling around the back streets of Whitechapel, without being noticed, then stopping and someone getting out [ not Dr Gull, poor man was incapacitated] spraying the blood ,laying out bodies without being seen by anyone and an invisable carriage that vanished without trace gave me a real laugh. Still the old favourites are the best. Van Gogh aint got no legs.


Miss Marple

You could ask him if he's ever been to the East End.

Is the carriage Idea more ridiculous than a man walking those streets, spending the time to mutilate the women, under the noses of the police, and never being caught? Even after such murders began, on those same streets, this guy was able to hide such goings on, in almost plain sight. If you can believe that, you should be able to consider the other.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff Leahy,

Not so fast, Jeff

Are you, or are you not, claiming--or theorizing-- that Sir Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson concealed from their Scotland Yard colleagues (at least until 1910) that the Ripper had been positively identified by a witness who refused to testify on reportedly sectarian grounds.

No, I'm certainly not using the word 'concealed'. Indeed I used the phrase 'Hot Potatoe' which is a clear reference to Monroe.

Do I believe that Anderson would necessarily have had to inform every officer under his command? No I don't.

Its also clear that Anderson didn't have a high opinion of MacNaughten, thats fairly well known and recorded.

I think this is one of the factors that those of us who grew up in a more transparent age/era often loose sight of and fail to understand.
Much of the silence and "secrecy" that surrounds the crime seems to be of a mysterious nature at first glance, unless the viewer mentally places themselves (and hence, the crimes) in the proper context of place, time and societal norms, beliefs, and interactions.
Once this is done, much of the perceived mystique tends to dissipate like smoke in the wind.

Regards,
MacGuffin

(edited to add): This is not in regards to any particular suspect, just an observation of the thought processes and perceptual differences
that have changed in the past 126 years.

Yes the Police force certainly seemed to operate differently as did politicians. I suppose I should here plug Neil Bells book and admit I've not ordered a copy as I'm busy with a back log…poor excuse.

But Anderson clearly says in his book that he could see no good coming from naming his suspect. They'd be an out cry if someone published that today. It simply was seen differently back in Victorian/Edwardian society

Many thanks

Yours Jeff

PS we recently re-named our boat the MacGuffin!

PS PS Sorry about the attribution of Jonathons comments to MacGuffin, I was trying to be clever and join two posts into one, saving ink…

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Why do you believe that truth dripped like nectar from the lips of Sir Robert Anderson?

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

So, your answer is yes-- whatever semantic games you want to play.

Anderson and Swanson (and also Monro, Macnaghten's patron and friend) concealed from Macnaghten and, let's say, Major Smith, that the Ripper had been successfully identified but he could not be brought to book because he was--those in the know wrongly believed--deceased for several years.

When I argued on the other site that Macnaghten concealed from Scotland Yard--he had a very low opinion of Anderson--his solution of a deceased suspect you accused me of the lowest kind of trashy conspiracy mongering.

I argue that Macnaghten conspired with Sims, and no other, exactly as you say: a gentlemanly bit of discretion very typical of their class (in my thesis to protect a fellow gent's family).

Now it has become your theory too, and thus suddenly legit and respectable.

It is practically plagiarism!

We agree, Jeff, we just favor different police chiefs concealing the solution for their colleagues; because the Ripper cannot be brought to court and because said chief does not trust the solution not to leak and ruin the family of the murderer.

But do you have any concept of how shaky is the ground upon which you tread?

In 1910 Mac went to see Monro to warn him of how Anderson was making all sorts of false claims about his former chief sanctioning his political interference. Monro wrote to the papers to firmly deny this. Are you seriously suggesting that Monro, nonetheless, with-held from Macnaghten that the Polish madmen was definitely the Ripper?

Your newest theory of two incarcerations of Kosminski will not fly because the details that Macnaghten supplies (and via his proxies) clearly refers to the sectioning of the Polish suspect in 1891, e.g. attacking a female relative and the chronic masturbation but backdated to 1889, when Anderson implies the identification took place (hence Cullen, Farson, Rumbelow and Fido thinking he must mean Pizer).

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Why do you believe that truth dripped like nectar from the lips of Sir Robert Anderson?

Regards,

Simon

What is the Truth?

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff

So, your answer is yes-- whatever semantic games you want to play.

Anderson and Swanson (and also Monro, Macnaghten's patron and friend) concealed from Macnaghten and, let's say, Major Smith, that the Ripper had been successfully identified but he could not be brought to book because he was--those in the know wrongly believed--deceased for several years.

I clearly said the word 'concealed' isn't what I was arguing. Would Anderson have had any reason to inform subordinate officers? Especuially given the sensitive nature of what he was dealing with?

When I argued on the other site that Macnaghten concealed from Scotland Yard--he had a very low opinion of Anderson--his solution of a deceased suspect you accused me of the lowest kind of trashy conspiracy mongering.

I argue that Macnaghten conspired with Sims, and no other, exactly as you say: a gentlemanly bit of discretion very typical of their class (in my thesis to protect a fellow gent's family).

You argued that MacNaughten Conspired with Simm's.

Thats something quite different

Now it has become your theory too, and thus suddenly legit and respectable. It is practically plagiarism!

It certainly isn't my theory. I'm simply saying that by late 1891 Anderson dealt with a situation and kept it quiet because of the sensitive nature. He would be under no obligation to inform MacNaughten.

We agree, Jeff, we just favor different police chiefs concealing the solution for their colleagues; because the Ripper cannot be brought to court and because said chief does not trust the solution not to leak and ruin the family of the murderer.

But do you have any concept of how shaky is the ground upon which you tread?

Again you use the term Conceal. That implies deliberate action when Anderson would have had no need to inform subordinate officers.

Your newest theory of two incarcerations of Kosminski will not fly because the details that Macnaghten supplies (and via his proxies) clearly refers to the sectioning of the Polish suspect in 1891, e.g. attacking a female relative and the chronic masturbation but backdated to 1889, when Anderson implies the identification took place (hence Cullen, Farson, Rumbelow and Fido thinking he must mean Pizer).

MacNaughtenb never mentions 1891 as you well know. Thats because he only reads a file that gives a clear date March 1889.. That is incontrovertible.

Yours Jeff

[London Fog]

The idea of a carriage [ not a Hackney cab or cart] rattling around the back streets of Whitechapel, without being noticed, then stopping and someone getting out [ not Dr Gull, poor man was incapacitated] spraying the blood ,laying out bodies without being seen by anyone and an invisable carriage that vanished without trace gave me a real laugh.
Miss Marple

I think the theory is that the carriage would be stationary (parked), and the bodies carried to their location. So the carriage would not be barreling down any streets. IF true, this would explain how such could be done, without ever being caught, because the Ripper's work didn't happen on the street. No need for a carriage to be rumbling down any street, including those that were too small for a carriage. As far as spraying blood, that's a new one on me.