The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[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]

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?

[London Fog]

No Common sense tells you it's unlikely, like all conspiracy theories..

However replace the word 'Conspiracy' with the words 'major "=ock up" and you might have something…

But the whole mason thing doesn't hold much water even though it must be accepted many of the top players were Masons…that was simply the nature of victorian social society..

You can't avoid the fact the victorian social world and class has an effect on what happened

Yours Jeff

Is there, or has there ever been such a thing as a conspiracy about anything? If so, then you have to admit the possibility. Common sense. I personally see a deeper possibility than that, but if you don't, that's okay.

[London Fog]

Show me were I've ever said I'm 100% sure. What I keep saying is SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

By what you call reasoning I can claim that it was a 6 year old child who lost his mummy and everytime he found a woman who wasn't his mummy he spat the dummy and killed her. Would anyone buy that without some sort of evidence, hope not and that's what I keep asking for some evidence and you give us laying out, which MIGHT apply to two victims, you give us JUWES [if that was even how it was spelt as one police recorded it as JEWES] and can't prove it was a Masonic term, and you give us Walter thought he was JtR without a shred of proof that he actually did so or what his mental state was at the time.

Well, for someone who's not sure, you don't have any problem telling me how wrong I am. You should be sure before saying such things. I, on the other hand, am stating I am not sure. I consider a certain theory to have strong possibilities. You are still saying show you the evidence? Are you actually reading these posts? Look, if you did believe in a 6 year old child theory, why would that threaten me?

[Rosella]

I gave dates etc. which London Fog chose to ignore and rubbish. He didn't offer any contrasting evidence of his own. I don't happen to consider logic as elitist or a way to get 'rid' of London Fog or anyone else.

Conspiracy theories, whether involving Freemasons or not. are always popular, aren't they? If there are no perceptible links supporting any of it it's put down to the elite concerned getting rid of everything.

[MayBea]

How does believing in the possibility of a certain theory go against common sense? When you consider the Masonic angle, common sense tells you it's possible. This doesn't go back to the 1970's, it was done in 1888.

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.

[Rosella]

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

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.

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

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.

If you have evidence that she did, then show it!

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.

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

[Jonathan H]

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?

[Mayerling]

No Common sense tells you it's unlikely, like all conspiracy theories..

However
You can't avoid the fact the victorian social world and class has an effect on what happened

Yours Jeff

Actually Jeff, that really is a good, probably pertinent reflection on the case!

Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

How does believing in the possibility of a certain theory go against common sense? When you consider the Masonic angle, common sense tells you it's possible.

No Common sense tells you it's unlikely, like all conspiracy theories..

However replace the word 'Conspiracy' with the words 'major "=ock up" and you might have something…

But the whole mason thing doesn't hold much water even though it must be accepted many of the top players were Masons…that was simply the nature of victorian social society..

You can't avoid the fact the victorian social world and class has an effect on what happened

Yours Jeff

[GUT]

Show me were I've ever said I'm 100% sure. What I keep saying is SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

By what you call reasoning I can claim that it was a 6 year old child who lost his mummy and everytime he found a woman who wasn't his mummy he spat the dummy and killed her. Would anyone buy that without some sort of evidence, hope not and that's what I keep asking for some evidence and you give us laying out, which MIGHT apply to two victims, you give us JUWES [if that was even how it was spelt as one police recorded it as JEWES] and can't prove it was a Masonic term, and you give us Walter thought he was JtR without a shred of proof that he actually did so or what his mental state was at the time.

[London Fog]

Polly

Probably on her back, but as Cross and Paul at least re-arranged her clothes and may have moved her legs we can't be 100% sure.

Annie

On her back feet flat on the ground knees apart left arm across breast.

Liz

On her side facing the wall, left arm outstretched.

Kate

On her back left leg out straight right leg bent hands by her side facing up.

MJK

Actually similar to Annie


Yep all laid out ritualistically.

If you would read my posts, you would see I didn't say they ALL were laid out that way. The best thing you said was, "we can't ne 100% sure." Too bad you can't take to heart your own words.

[London Fog]

I am trying hard to stay out of this thread it's been done to death over and over but you make three bland statements without offering a tiny bit of proof


The bodies were laid out.

How do you know that that's just not how they fell, they weren't all in identical positions.

Jewes is Masonic

This has been disputed over and over, a work colleague of mine is the 2nd highest Mason in this Country he says this is just not so.

Walter thought he was JtR.

Yeah sure and my wife's Aunty thought she was the Queen of England and made all the nursing home staff call her Your Majesty, so even if you bland statement is correct what does it prove, maybe that Wally was loosing his mind.

I don't have proof. I don't have proof. I don't have proof. Want me to say it again? Okay, I don't have proof. What I have is this. I consider the masonic theory as very strong possibility, due to the circumstantial evidence of how SOME OF the bodies were laid out, intentionally of not. Yes, you can dispute the word Jewes. What has ever been offered that hasn't been disputed?

You know a Mason who says this isn't so. Did he live in 1888? I believe I read a Mason on here who thought it could be right. It comes down to many theories, and everyone's right to choose which one they think has the most possibility. As of right now, all we have is possibilities, and that's what's I've been talking about here. No, I don't have proof. But I believe in the possibility of the Masonic theory. Why does this theory seem to threaten so many people?

Yeah sure and my wife's Aunty thought she was the Queen of England and made all the nursing home staff call her Your Majesty, so even if you bland statement is correct what does it prove, maybe that Wally was loosing his mind.

Is there a JTR type mystery ties in with your wife's aunt? If there is, I'd bet you that the police would look into that. What does it prove? See my words above.

[London Fog]

Reptilian Theory?


Thank you, LF. We're concerned with truth, and common sense is the best way to go about it (when you don't have CSI capabilities), even better than logic, because more people can agree on what common sense is.

My question is, why do people default to the 70s when talking about the Royal Conspiracy? I have my own theory developed in the 21st Century that if it's not the truth about the Ripper, then it's the true source for the Royal Conspiracy theory through Mary Jane Kelly's possible connection to Royals, specifically the Carnarvons who are linked as sources of the Gull story through Gull's daughter, Caroline Acland.

How does believing in the possibility of a certain theory go against common sense? When you consider the Masonic angle, common sense tells you it's possible. This doesn't go back to the 1970's, it was done in 1888.

[London Fog]

Hi London Fog,

Yeah, I admit not believing the "Royal Conspiracy" Theory. I also said that since it had it's adherence (like yourself) we could not dismiss it. Finally I even did a footnote (in my "long post" as you put it) that perhaps the wrong important surgeon was looked at - rather than Sir William Gull it should have been Sir James Paget, who had a clear interest in current homicide cases (i.e. the Bartlett "Pimlico" Mystery" Poisoning of 1885-86). Paget's son John Paget had even written a book about famous mysteries back in the 1860s, and included references in it to then contemporary cases (in that book there were references to the "Stepney" mystery of 1860). Apparently homicide was discussed very commonly in that household. John Paget had died by 1888, but Sir James was still living.

I won't say you're wrong about Paget, because I simply don't know. I won't say it's rubbish. This theory, however, hinges on the story as told by Joseph Gorman/Sickert, which gives William Gull as the man with the knife. Notice I am saying this is ACCORDING TO THIS THEORY. I have never said any of this is set in stone. Most posters here don't seem to see where I've been saying that.

You seem really avid about the "Royal Theory" as provable. Okay - do research on it to prove it. May I please offer you a chance to take a close look at Paget if you get a chance - it may prove to be more rewarding. But whatever you do, just go ahead and do it.

Jeff

No. How many times to I have to explain myself? This is a THEORY, just as a hundred or so other theories out there. The best evidence I have seen for ANY of the theories is circumstantial. The circumstantial evidence for this theory is, for me, a little better than many of the others. That's not to say this is right, or that I can prove it. It is what it is.