The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[MayBea]

How do you like the Casebook Gauntlet, LF?

If the theory is correct, it goes back to 1888...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 don't use the word concoction, but maybe 'collation' of reports, tips, rumor and conjecture. It's worth tracing the source of the rumor.

Obviously anyone theorizing on the case without bias would come to the conclusion that Jack knew the significance of Mitre Square and the Apron and they would pass on rumors that fit the scenario.
http://victorianripper.niceboard.org...ted-the-ripper

[London Fog]

How do you like the Casebook Gauntlet, LF?

I don't use the word concoction, but maybe 'collation' of reports, tips, rumor and conjecture. It's worth tracing the source of the rumor.

Obviously anyone theorizing on the case without bias would come to the conclusion that Jack knew the significance of Mitre Square and the Apron and they would pass on rumors that fit the scenario.
http://victorianripper.niceboard.org...ted-the-ripper

That would be called circumstantial evidence, or at least suggestive evidence. You either know the Mitre Square thing is significant, or you know it isn't, or you're not sure. Which of those fits you?

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

What a terribly weak response, even for you.

An omission is concealment if it misleads another.

So, according to you Sir Robert Anderson discovers that aaron Kosminski is the Ripper but can never be brought to trial. He informs the operational head of the case, Swanson, but not his immediate subordinate, Macnaghten--the No. 2 at CID.

When they were investigating Grant as the fiend in 1895, Macnaghten was wasting his time (as were they all) because Anderson and Swanson already knew who Jack was, but did not let on.

Therefore Swanson miseld by omission, his superior, Macnaghten. Anderson in turn misled, by omission, his junior, Mac.

I am not suggesting gentlemanly misleading could not have happened.

Not at all, since I first proposed it. I just argue it is the other way round: Mac misled his superior and his junior--which is not a conspiracy by the way because it is only a self-amused Macnaghten doing it (e.g. Sims was not a cop).

I understand why you must vehemently resist the word 'cocnealment', because, Jeff, you are now embarked on the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff
So, according to you Sir Robert Anderson discovers that aaron Kosminski is the Ripper but can never be brought to trial. He informs the operational head of the case, Swanson, but not his immediate subordinate, Macnaghten--the No. 2 at CID.

HAve you ever read the Swanson Marginalia?

When they were investigating Grant as the fiend in 1895, Macnaghten was wasting his time (as were they all) because Anderson and Swanson already knew who Jack was, but did not let on.

Swanson would have been under obligation to investigate.

Therefore Swanson miseld by omission, his superior, Macnaghten. Anderson in turn misled, by omission, his junior, Mac.

I am not suggesting gentlemanly misleading could not have happened. .

Have you ever read the Swanson Marginalia?

Not at all, since I first proposed it. I just argue it is the other way round: Mac misled his superior and his junior--which is not a conspiracy by the way because it is only a self-amused Macnaghten doing it (e.g. Sims was not a cop).

I understand why you must vehemently resist the word 'cocnealment', because, Jeff, you are now embarked on the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

You argued that Simm's and MacNaughten conspired a story in order to deliberately mislead everyone away from the suspect Druit..

I'm simply saying that Anderson employed Swanson to investigate claims made by a close female member of the suspects family..

They couldn't get enough to place the suspect in Broadmore so he was placed out of harms way..Colney Hatch

Given the sensitive nature and because Anderson gave his word to a lady, they kept stom… Anderson later claiming no good could come from revealing the identity of the Killer…Swanson never did, only in private …the marginalia

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

Now comes the condescension, with no doubt personal invective soon bringing up the rear.

Simply repeating your errors won't wear me down, mate, and it will not convince anybody else.

Omission from CID's No. 2 is concealment, an issue you have now dodged.

Yes, I have read the Swanson Marginalia, a primary source whose limitations outweigh its strengths, to say the least.

Swanson (and Anderson) mistakenly and self-servingly believed that 'Kosminski' was long deceased. Both mistakenly thought a Jewish witness had positively identified this suspect, but who had refused to testify on sectarian grounds--the bloody swine!--and both mistakenly claimed that the Ripper murders ended with this suspect's incarceration.

All three bits of data are demonstably false.

Anderson in his memoir writes an incredibly bitchy put-down of Macnaghten, albeit un-named (but revealed by another of Swanson's annotations). It has to be said that Anderson comes out of that little episode very badly. In his 1914 memoir Macnaghten took the gloves off: no witness, no detention in an asylum, not a Jew and no cognition by CID, not for years, that the real Ripper was deceased.

Macnaghten and Sims (who both show they knew the Polish madman was not deceased) conspired, very deftly, to lead the press and public away from finding the real Druitt. That's a definitely ascertained fact. The question is why?

You reallt don't need to repeat my theiry to me. It is the lack of collegiality in adopting it as your own that is so indefensible.

[MayBea]

That would be called circumstantial evidence, or at least suggestive evidence. You either know the Mitre Square thing is significant, or you know it isn't, or you're not sure. Which of those fits you?

I know it's significant because I'm sure the Ripper knew it's significance. He doesn't even have to be a Mason to know that.

The opposing belief only shows the extremes people go to to divorce the field from the Royal Masonic theory, without, of course giving us a better alternative than the unknown, illiterate and ignorant, local which is not even based on a whisper of a rumor.

[London Fog]

I know it's significant because I'm sure the Ripper knew it's significance. He doesn't even have to be a Mason to know that.

The opposing belief only shows the extremes people go to to divorce the field from the Royal Masonic theory, without, of course giving us a better alternative than the unknown, illiterate and ignorant, local which is not even based on a whisper of a rumor.

Agreed. People just can't let themselves believe in anything that's not considered mainstream. Mainstream is not always the right stream.

[Errata]

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.

No, actually knowledge differs. We think that these kinds of mutilations generate vast quantities of blood. And they do, relatively speaking. But the majority of blood in an abdominal mutilation like that of say, Chapman stays in the abdomen. It flows into the body cavity, not out of it. So the mutilations generally only produce a few teaspoons of blood on the outside of the body. Everything else comes from neck, and depending on temperature, blood thinners like alchohol, vessel health, elevation etc. The average woman wounded in this way bleeds out .5 - 2 liters of blood. All of these women bled enough to fall well within what would be expected of having been murdered where they lay.

Now anyone who hadn't encountered someone cut like that usually thinks there should be enough blood to fill a kiddie pool. That's just not how it works. And while this was known in 1888, it wasn't well known. Anyone who had served as a combat medic knew it, and those who specifically studied blood or death knew it, but a gp chosen based on proximity probably didn't. And frankly when people see a cut throat, the first thing they think about is the blood loss. Of course that's not how a person with a cut throat dies. It's asphyxiation or drowning. Sometimes if the arteries are only nicked, they die of shock. But almost never blood loss. And of course once a person dies, the blood flow essentially stops. No more arterial pressure. Carotid output is essentially 1 liter per minute. With a severed trachea it takes 60-90 seconds to die. So the baseline is that with two carotids and the trachea cut, a person loses 2-3 liters of blood.

But that's the baseline. There is a mechanism in animals that regulates carotid pressure in order to supply an appropriate amount of oxygen to the brain. When the carotid is severed and there is that initial pressure drop, not only does the person faint, but the carotid pressure is reduced dramatically. So after about a second the carotid actually starts bleeding less. It's not the amount of blood lost that kills. A skilled torturer can remove as much as five liters from the body while the victim remains conscious. It's the lack of oxygenated blood to the brain that is the typical cause of death. Basically when the carotid is cut the brain seals itself off and lives off of the blood already in the brain, which is good for maybe a minute. When the oxygen in that blood is used up, nothing replaces it. Because of the drop in carotid pressure, the blood loss is cut in half at least. So someone with a severed carotid in reality loses only about a liter of blood before death. And as it happens, the average handkerchief can absorb about a quarter of that amount. So while there seemed to not be enough blood loss for Nichols to have been murdered where she lay, there really was. And a great deal of it was sucked up by her dress.

This we know now. It is not surprising that it would not be widely known in 1888. But that's the advantage of looking at the case now. We know if what should have been there was there. And it was.

[London Fog]

No, actually knowledge differs. We think that these kinds of mutilations generate vast quantities of blood. And they do, relatively speaking. But the majority of blood in an abdominal mutilation like that of say, Chapman stays in the abdomen. It flows into the body cavity, not out of it. So the mutilations generally only produce a few teaspoons of blood on the outside of the body. Everything else comes from neck, and depending on temperature, blood thinners like alchohol, vessel health, elevation etc. The average woman wounded in this way bleeds out .5 - 2 liters of blood. All of these women bled enough to fall well within what would be expected of having been murdered where they lay.

Now anyone who hadn't encountered someone cut like that usually thinks there should be enough blood to fill a kiddie pool. That's just not how it works. And while this was known in 1888, it wasn't well known. Anyone who had served as a combat medic knew it, and those who specifically studied blood or death knew it, but a gp chosen based on proximity probably didn't. And frankly when people see a cut throat, the first thing they think about is the blood loss. Of course that's not how a person with a cut throat dies. It's asphyxiation or drowning. Sometimes if the arteries are only nicked, they die of shock. But almost never blood loss. And of course once a person dies, the blood flow essentially stops. No more arterial pressure. Carotid output is essentially 1 liter per minute. With a severed trachea it takes 60-90 seconds to die. So the baseline is that with two carotids and the trachea cut, a person loses 2-3 liters of blood.

But that's the baseline. There is a mechanism in animals that regulates carotid pressure in order to supply an appropriate amount of oxygen to the brain. When the carotid is severed and there is that initial pressure drop, not only does the person faint, but the carotid pressure is reduced dramatically. So after about a second the carotid actually starts bleeding less. It's not the amount of blood lost that kills. A skilled torturer can remove as much as five liters from the body while the victim remains conscious. It's the lack of oxygenated blood to the brain that is the typical cause of death. Basically when the carotid is cut the brain seals itself off and lives off of the blood already in the brain, which is good for maybe a minute. When the oxygen in that blood is used up, nothing replaces it. Because of the drop in carotid pressure, the blood loss is cut in half at least. So someone with a severed carotid in reality loses only about a liter of blood before death. And as it happens, the average handkerchief can absorb about a quarter of that amount. So while there seemed to not be enough blood loss for Nichols to have been murdered where she lay, there really was. And a great deal of it was sucked up by her dress.

This we know now. It is not surprising that it would not be widely known in 1888. But that's the advantage of looking at the case now. We know if what should have been there was there. And it was.

So how much blood did each woman lose?

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff Now comes the condescension, with no doubt personal invective soon bringing up the rear. Simply repeating your errors won't wear me down, mate, and it will not convince anybody else..

Its you trying to personalise this argument. I don't need to as the argument I'm, putting forward is simple clear and requires no conspiracy theories.

Omission from CID's No. 2 is concealment, an issue you have now dodged.

Well this sort of goes to the heart of what is being argued on this thread. Although the conspiracy is in context of the royal family. I'm simply saying that victorian society operated in a different way. And that might be interpreted in our modern far more open society as 'conspiracy' but in the old public school system a gentleman kept his mouth shut. The royal family didn't have press officers or media men, they just kept quiet.

Perhaps thats why MacNaughten was unpopular with Anderson, he was just viewed as a blabber mouth, who said to much at the club after a couple of whiskies….and that simply just wasn't done old boy.

Yes, I have read the Swanson Marginalia, a primary source whose limitations outweigh its strengths, to say the least.

A Primary source. From the horses mouth as they say. By a man who was in charge of the over all investigation. A reliable long serving officer with no reason to make anything up. Just because you don't understand it doesn't give it limitations.

Swanson (and Anderson) mistakenly and self-servingly

Your usual attempt to dress your personal opinion as fact. and off course utter rubbish.

believed that 'Kosminski' was long deceased. Both mistakenly thought a Jewish witness had positively identified this suspect, but who had refused to testify on sectarian grounds--the bloody swine!--and both mistakenly claimed that the Ripper murders ended with this suspect's incarceration.

All three bits of data are demonstably false.

In your opinion. Yet it goes directly against the facts in order to serve your theory that Simms (A secondary source at best) conspired with MAcNaughten the supposed super cop…when it seems most likely that MacNAughten knew very much that info up until MArch 1889, and gossip from the club.

Anderson in his memoir writes an incredibly bitchy put-down of Macnaghten, albeit un-named (but revealed by another of Swanson's annotations). It has to be said that Anderson comes out of that little episode very badly. In his 1914 memoir Macnaghten took the gloves off: no witness, no detention in an asylum, not a Jew and no cognition by CID, not for years, that the real Ripper was deceased.

Well that depends on your view point but Anderson clearly didn't like MacNaughten, didn't rate him as an officer, he wanted him back in uniform…so its hardly surprising he didn't chat with him in detail about the ID.

Macnaghten and Sims (who both show they knew the Polish madman was not deceased)

No they didn't, they simply didn't know what happened to the suspect, thats something completely different from knowing he was deceased. What they knew is clearly dated MArch 1889… After that they knew nothing.. as did all the other officers involved (Cox , Sagar , Reid, Abberline,Drew etc), hence their beliefs also.

conspired

Yeah right…where's the evidence?

very deftly, to lead the press and public away from finding the real Druitt. That's a definitely ascertained fact. The question is why?

The only thing that has ever left Druit as a credible suspect are the words of MAcNAughten himself… 'From private info' thats all you have…thats all any Druit advocate has ever had...

You reallt don't need to repeat my theiry to me. It is the lack of collegiality in adopting it as your own that is so indefensible.

You don't require a wild complicated conspiracy theory, its not necessary. The police had a suspect at the time of the murders, they follow him until MArch 1889 but don't catch him red handed, and he is placed out of there duristriction by being placed in a Private Asylum in MArch 1889… End of investigation…

Thats what Mac Naughten knows as he has access to the files.

After July 1890, The Earl of Crawford makes a private introduction on a sensitive political subject by a woman who knows the identity of the Whitechapel murderer… Anderson asks Swanson to sort it. He does at the Private Asylum (Seaside Home) an ID takes place. The witness won't testify.

They can't get him in broadmoore, so a compromise with the family is reached.. We don't give out the name if you make sure he can't be back on the street…

No conspiracy they just did the gentlemanly thing as Victorian gentlemen did, and kept quiet. Anderson even says so in his memoirs. Swanson never opens his mouth in public, thats what they did in those days. Its that simple.

Anderson probably kept an eye on Kosminski at colney Hatch, there is evidence of Anderson staying in touch with the person in charge. When Kosminski was transferred in April 1894 to Leavesdon, Anderson was told he was dead….he may aswell have been so by this time.

Thats a smile answer to all the various problems everyone has argued about for so long.

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

You are so terrified of the standard term about all sources, e.g. self-serving, that it is sort of touching.

So you hastily beat a retreat behind Anderson-was-either-truthful-or-a-liar, your tiresomely redundant straw man.

Everything you have written is false, as usual, but I understand you have now backed yourself into a very, very small and tight and clammy corner.

Your Anderson/Swanson conspiracy theory is lifted from mine, but I am of course to receive no credit -- only hit-the-bricks-sucker.

How you must have been hurt, painfully and acutely, by the speedy and ignominious collapse of the DNA 'resolution' last year for you to stoop this low.

Predictably you made it personal by asking absurd and insulting questions: such as have I read the Marginalia when you already know the answer.

Let me show what this looks like.

Jeff, have you ever read Anderson's memoirs? You sure do not write like you have?

Have you ever read Martin Fido's excellent book from 1987? You sure do not write like you have.

Worse, I know for a fact that you have not understood what Paul Begg has argued since 1987.

As for the casual reader, here are the facts:

Anderson began bragging about having probably solved the case in 1895 and he was fired in 1901 (the events are not connected). Swanson may have briefed a journalist about Kosminski in 1895--and got it wrong about him being deceased.

Macnaghten never associated himself with the case, in the public sphere, until he retired in 1913. H. L. Adam called him calculating and close-mouthed.

There is no mystery as to the two chief's mutual detestation: Anderson was your classic conceited, righteous, desk-bound reactionary who took all the credit for Mac's legwork. He was not an upper class gentleman like Macnaghten, e.g. no charm and no generosity.

Anderson and Swanson both wrongly believed that Kosminski was deceased. In 1907 Sims shows he knows he was still alive, which means Mac knew this too (as he did in 1898, when he used that material for Griffiths). It is not their fault, Anderson and Swanson, as they were relying on what Macnaghten told them, as in misled them. Nonetheless you are so desperate you argue that up is down, and black is white, the earth is flat, ans so on.

Jeff, you had a go at me for offering a 'conspiracy' theory (but mine was never institutional, just upper class gents being discreet) and now you do the same --and yours is institutional--and then deny the theft whilst also denying your pair plotted together to conceal their solution.

You wrote that for me to argue that Mac and Sims were in cahoots was the worst kind of gutter trash conspiracy-theorizing. Now you do the same and it's perfectly fine and all is right in the world.

You are a shameless humbugger.

And, incredibly, you have managed to do a huge historical disservice to both Anderson and Swanson, who in my opinion would never have concealed such definitive information from Macnaghten or Major Smith.

Yes Anderson was an appalling figure, but he was not that sort of appalling, whereas Mac saw himself as apart from his peers as an Old Etonian and in a cold war with Anderson. Plus Mac could not trust the old buzzard to keep his mouth shut--with good reason as the moment he learned about the Polish madman, in 1895, he began bragging about it. That solution became merged with the Sadler fiasco by the time Anderson wrote his memoirs in 1910.

Finally the Druitt solution does not just rest on Macnaghten, not for some years. Did you not know that, Jeff?

In 1991 Keith Skinner discovered the 'West of England' MP article (in 2011 Begg discovered another) that proved that belief in the drowned barrister as the fiend did not originate with the Chief Constable, but rather in the region the deceased had grown up (among the Dorset-Tory bourgeoisie). In 2008 Spallek discovered a newspaper source from 1992 that identified the MP as Henry Richard Farquharson, another Old Etonian. The missing link source that had eluded Farson and Cullen had at last been found. That same year the late Chris Scott published the 'North Country Vicar' articles, and another piece of this protracted jigsaw puzzle fell into place. And then my researcher last year found something unknown since 1922 which is, arguably, the final piece.

For all your reflexive bile directed at me we actually do agree in outline: a police chief of the day, for reasons of discretion about the family of the best suspect--who was beyond due process--concealed from his indiscreet colleague at the Yard that it was solved.

But my police chief did share this solution, broadly, with the public (via the most famous writer of two eras) and in doing so he did not let the 'better classes' off the hook with a solution that Jack was 'one of them'; a local, Jewish immigrant--instead it was, shockingly, 'one of us'; an English gentleman above suspicion.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff
You are so terrified of the standard term about all sources, e.g. self-serving, that it is sort of touching. So you hastily beat a retreat behind Anderson-was-either-truthful-or-a-liar, your tiresomely redundant straw man.

You appear to have trouble understanding the difference between your opinion, which 'Selfserving' clearly is and the facts.

Everything you have written is false, as usual,

This is Not a coherent argument its just play ground sniping, grow up.

Your Anderson/Swanson conspiracy theory is lifted from mine, but I am of course to receive no credit -- only hit-the-bricks-sucker.

Its not lifted from anything. Its just observation about the differences of talking openly in Victorian society, which you still have NOT addressed. The nature of police work in democratic society is that it involves a certain amount of secrecy, I'm arguing that that is NOT Conspiracy.

How you must have been hurt, painfully and acutely, by the speedy and ignominious collapse of the DNA 'resolution' last year for you to stoop this low.

Not one jot. I;ve addressed this on numerous occasions and you just look foolish constantly harping on, when everyone who knows me, knows I have no connection with Russell Edwards or his theories, although I wish him well in further testing.

Predictably you made it personal by asking absurd and insulting questions: such as have I read the Marginalia when you already know the answer.

No I was simply pointing out the obvious that the Swans Marginalia contradicts everything you were arguing.

Let me show what this looks like.

Go on we could all do with a good laugh this time of morning

Jeff, have you ever read Anderson's memoirs? You sure do not write like you have? Have you ever read Martin Fido's excellent book from 1987? You sure do not write like you have.

Worse, I know for a fact that you have not understood what Paul Begg has argued since 1987.

You must be the only person in the world that has never watched 'The Definitive Story'

As for the casual reader, here are the facts:
Anderson began bragging about having probably solved the case in 1895 and he was fired in 1901 (the events are not connected). Swanson may have briefed a journalist about Kosminski in 1895--and got it wrong about him being deceased..

Kosmihnski was transfered to Leavesdon in April 1894

Macnaghten never associated himself with the case, in the public sphere, until he retired in 1913. H. L. Adam called him calculating and close-mouthed.

I've never criticised Macnaughten, I've simply argued he only ever knew info in the files dated unto MArch 1889. That isn't a criticism it simply explains why he dosnt know about the ID and why he favours Druit. Which was reasonable given what information he had.

There is no mystery as to the two chief's mutual detestation: Anderson was your classic conceited, righteous, desk-bound reactionary who took all the credit for Mac's legwork. He was not an upper class gentleman like Macnaghten, e.g. no charm and no generosity.

I'll leave you to poor scorn on their individual characters, I prefer sticking to the facts, they are more useful

Anderson and Swanson both wrongly believed that Kosminski was deceased. In 1907 Sims shows he knows he was still alive, which means Mac knew this too (as he did in 1898, when he used that material for Griffiths). It is not their fault, Anderson and Swanson, as they were relying on what Macnaghten told them, as in misled them. Nonetheless you are so desperate you argue that up is down, and black is white, the earth is flat, ans so on..

You seem to work on the theory that if you say this trash as fact often enough it becomes the truth… Simms doesn't know the suspect is alive, he doesn't know whether he is dead, he probably only knew what MacNaughten Told him, which is information up to MArch 1889.

Jeff, you had a go at me for offering a 'conspiracy' theory (but mine was never institutional, just upper class gents being discreet) and now you do the same --and yours is institutional--and then deny the theft whilst also denying your pair plotted together to conceal their solution..

It became a conspiracy theory when you argued they deliberately set out to 'Miss inform'. I've never suggested that Anderson or Swanson set out to Miss Inform' I simply argued they kept 'Stum' they said nothing, as was common in British society at that time.

You wrote that for me to argue that Mac and Sims were in cahoots was the worst kind of gutter trash conspiracy-theorizing. Now you do the same and it's perfectly fine and all is right in the world. You are a shameless humbugger.

There is a clear difference between deceminating 'Miss information' and simply 'keeping quiet'. Your fail our to understand the difference is your own stupidity.

And, incredibly, you have managed to do a huge historical disservice to both Anderson and Swanson, who in my opinion would never have concealed such definitive information from Macnaghten or Major Smith. Yes Anderson was an appalling figure,

So you come out with this statement, and I'm doing a huge Historical in service? Your really are a clown of the first division. That is your opinion of Anderson not FACT.

but he was not that sort of appalling, whereas Mac saw himself as apart from his peers as an Old Etonian and in a cold war with Anderson. Plus Mac could not trust the old buzzard to keep his mouth shut--with good reason as the moment he learned about the Polish madman, in 1895, he began bragging about it. That solution became merged with the Sadler fiasco by the time Anderson wrote his memoirs in 1910.

Finally the Druitt solution does not just rest on Macnaghten, not for some years. Did you not know that, Jeff?

Yardie Yada, Farqueson was probably MacNaughtens private 'info'

For all your reflexive bile directed at me we actually do agree in outline: a police chief of the day, for reasons of discretion about the family of the best suspect--who was beyond due process--concealed from his indiscreet colleague at the Yard that it was solved.

Yes bizarrely I argue there are two positions either it was solved or it was not. So on that we appear to be in accord. From there on you go into conspiracy theories while I stick with the facts.

But my police chief did share this solution, broadly, with the public (via the most famous writer of two eras) and in doing so he did not let the 'better classes' off the hook with a solution that Jack was 'one of them'; a local, Jewish immigrant--instead it was, shockingly, 'one of us'; an English gentleman above suspicion.

An English gentleman who travelled from Black heath simply would have had a wider kill zone. Elephanyt and Castle being a closer happy hunting ground…

whoever Jack was he lived in the area and new the territory like the back of his hand… Thats what rules Druit out for me.

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

You are an incompetent and incoherent fraud, Jeff.

'Debating' with you is like watching FoxNews; you can never be wrong and the truth is what you say it is.

You dissemble as easily as you breathe, even about things that you yourself have posted. That are right in front of us.

To give but one example among so many fabrications. I never said you were connected to Russell Edwards. You deny a charge I did not make, and have never made.

But you don't give a toss, because you don't care about facts--you just make it up as you please.

You once admitted to being 'cantankerous'. Not the adjective I and many others would choose.

I know you loathe me--the feeling is mutual-- but for goodness sake can't you at least stop sabotaging, with your trashy, infantile theories, Paul Begg's judiciously argued theory about Anderson as the most reliable police source.

[Jeff Leahy]

You are an incompetent and incoherent fraud, Jeff.

Will you please stick to the subject. Conspiracy theories..

Please address why you think remaining quiet is the same thing as deceminating false information?

Surely a conspiracy is about two people or more conspiring to create false information to miss-lead others..

And that is fairly central to the theme of this thread?

I know you loathe me--the feeling is mutual-- but for goodness sake can't you at least stop sabotaging, with your trashy, infantile theories, Paul Begg's judiciously argued theory about Anderson as the most reliable police source.

I dont loath you , I don't know you. I simply don't think your theory holds any water, which incidentally a number of people including Paul Begg, believe also.. Its heavily reliant on assumptions and interpretations of what various people (MAinly Simms) did or didn't say. Its complex and involves MAcAnugten and Simms conspiring to mislead, which is a conspiracy.

Paul Begg dosnt actually say Anderson is the most reliable source he quotes Martin Fido…'That Anderson wouldn't lie for personal kudos'

And thats also my position on Anderson. Because I believe that Begg and Fido are the greatest ripperologist who ever existed and who's work is central to solving the case.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

To give but one example among so many fabrications. I never said you were connected to Russell Edwards. You deny a charge I did not make, and have never made.

"How you must have been hurt, painfully and acutely, by the speedy and ignominious collapse of the DNA 'resolution' last year for you to stoop this low".

Does this or does this not imply I had a connection to the DNA claims made last year?

Apart from the odd post on the subject….'it really had nothing to do with me' as the Not the Nine o'clock news... once put it…

Yours Jeff