The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[Jeff Leahy]

No, Jeff.

That's quite wrong.

The cops may have thought they knew, but were mistaken.

But isn't that the entire PIONT? Were they or were they NOT mistaken

That is the question

after all, no suspect was accorded due process, which is hardly infallible either.

Macnaghten wrote a report, a non-identical twin version of which was used for a public relations campaign. That campaign was adamant that the Polish suspect was weak compared to the drowned Englishman (in 1907, Sims will claim that an American suspect is the strongest after the drowned man).

No this is just a MAD Wierdo thing you have made up in your own head…it never happened

What you are missing is that there was not just one police chief who said it was likely solved, but two.

Actually they all say very similar things. They think they knew..but no proof could make a conviction… Its a very different thing..

This is one of the failings of of modern so-called Ripeprology. That only Anderson claimed such certainty.

Not so.

Anderson says 'undiscovered crimes in London are rare but the Jtr Crimes are not within that category" the definitive ascertain fact is, that the suspect was a polish Jew..

I quite understand why you and others are mortally threatened by this unwelcome revisionist take.

An over-relaince on Macnaghten's report(s) has led many researchers to underestimate--even ignore--the press accounts of 1913 regarding Macnaghten's retirement press conference and/or his 1914 memoirs.

He claimed it was solved, by him alone, and that Jack was a 'Simon Pure' who took his own life after a breakdown.

In 1910 the same police chief via Sims ridiculed Anderson's claim that the Jewish suspect was protected by his fellow members of the Faith.

Yet could Anderson have been right and Macnaghten wrong?

Sure, anything is possible, but the extant sources show that of the two police chiefs one was better informed than the other about the details of each other's Jacks, and it is Macnaghten not Anderson.

You write that the Crawford letter is definitely connected to Aaron Kosminski. That's not so. It is a theory. It might be right, but it is more likely not to be when measured agaisnt other contemporaneous sources.

Two events…March 1889 ..Kosminski placed in a private asylum… End of investigation and what everyone believed…

Event Two: The Crawford Letter (Conection Montegu) Feb 1891

Two separate events that explain the differences in the police stories

A complete theory that joins the various anomalies together

It is unique… And it will be a new documentary coming soon with detailed explanation on why the various police officers believed what they did at the time

It is a Theory that unites Begg and Fido at long last..

Yours Jeff

[London Fog]

Hi London Fog,

None of the C5 were killed in a carriage, they were all killed where they were respectively found.
These crime scenes were murder sites, not dump sites.
If something never happened, then it can not be proven to have happened - this is what in fact is meant when saying a negative can not be proven.
Learning the facts of the case is essential prior to postulating theories.

Regards,
MacGuffin

"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.

[London Fog]

Yes, it was highly entertaining. I remember getting it when it was first published and reading it in one sitting. It wasn't my introduction to the Ripper. That was Cullen's 'Autumn of Terror,' many years before, but it was an enthralling read.

The trouble was though, I believe, that Knight implicitly believed what Joseph Gorman told him. Knight had the advantage of a team of BBC researchers and yet suppressed facts that didn't fit in with his theory (so, what else is new) but also published details which he must have known at the time were not the truth. That's unforgivable for a serious writer in my opinion.

Knight gave his opinions, just like you're doing here. Only difference is, he gave reasons why.

[GUT]

Laying out

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.

[London Fog]

Alice Margaret Crook, Joseph Gorman's mother, was born in London on 18th April 1885, and was christened an Anglican, not a Roman Catholic.

Christened one thing at birth doesn't mean she couldn't have become something else in latter life. Does it?

Her conception must then have been between 18th July and 11th August 1884. The Duke of Clarence was then in Germany. He had departed for Heidelberg with his German tutor on 18th June and he did not return to England until 18th August.

Are you telling me that a pregnancy has to be nine months? Seriously?

He could therefore not have been Alice Crook's father, and he was certainly not Joseph Gorman's grandfather.

What you are offering as proof is embarrassing. You are ignoring a lot of things to say what you hare saying here. I think you should give more though before typing. And how do you know that Walter Sickert was CERTAINLY not the father of Joseph?

It is not up to any of us to prove or disprove your theories culled from Stephen Knight's long ago Final Solution that Wasn't. If you believe that Joseph Sickert's story is believable then offer proof. If you believe in the Royal theory then, London Fog, offer proof of a connection between these conspiracists and the Ripper victims.

If you say the sky is not blue, then yes, you are required to show proof, just like anyone else. This is not MY theory, and I have repeatedly said on here that it may or may not be right, but it's a theory in which I see great possibility. I have offered the circumstantial evidence whyI believe this possibility. That a lot more that you, or anyone so far, has offered against it. So put up, or shut up.

[GUT]

You're wrong. The fact that the victim's bodies were laid out the way they were is circumstantial evidence, as is the word "Jewes" on the wall. Both of those things are related to a secret society that the Royals were part of. Also, Walter Sickert believed in his latter years that he was JTR. True or false, these things are circumstantial evidence. And there is more.

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.

[London Fog]

Hi London Fog,


The problem is there is no factual evidence, circumstantial, or otherwise regarding any of Knight's theory.
There is nothing that can be proven, not about a masonic connection, a royal connection, or a Sickert connection - it's all speculation that embraces
extreme improbabilities, and requires the reader to assume huge leaps into the realm of the illogical and unsubstantiated.
According to Knight, the only source for all of this was Joesph Gorman, who later recanted the story, then recanted his previous recanting.
It might help to read other forum posts regarding this theory, as nearly every assertion made by Gorman via Knight has been repeatedly refuted previously elsewhere.

As to ridicule, this seems to happen to everyone at some point, and in every theory and/or speculation that's posted. It's just par for the JtR course.

Regards,
MacGuffin

You're wrong. The fact that the victim's bodies were laid out the way they were is circumstantial evidence, as is the word "Jewes" on the wall. Both of those things are related to a secret society that the Royals were part of. Also, Walter Sickert believed in his latter years that he was JTR. True or false, these things are circumstantial evidence. And there is more.

[MayBea]

Reptilian Theory?

Only if we're in a court of law, which we're not. You are worried about peer review, and I am concerned with truth.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

My theory is that space aliens are responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders. You can't prove that it's not true so therefore it's equally as good a theory as any other.

Actually its not, because at this point in time we know for sure that there are, and were, Royals.

Cheers

[jerryd]

My theory is that space aliens are responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders. You can't prove that it's not true so therefore it's equally as good a theory as any other.

Santa did it. Caught red-handed. Murder weapon proof below!



This was found on the doorstep of Mr Lusk. It may provide a clue.

[gnote]

My theory is that space aliens are responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders. You can't prove that it's not true so therefore it's equally as good a theory as any other.

[Mayerling]

In your long post, I saw not one bit of proof against the theory. Once again, all I see is someone stating how wrong it has to be. You can talk about people's fascination with Royals all night long, but that doesn't show any proof that the Royals weren't involved in the JTR case. I don't know that the Royals were involved, and you don't know that they weren't. That is the bottom line, no matter how much say otherwise. What I'm asking of you is to show me where I'm wrong. Don't TELL me, SHOW me. Can you?

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.

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

[MacGuffin]

Hi London Fog,

A man that had suffered a stroke would not be able to SIT in a carriage and use a knife? That's what the theory states. I really don't think you know the theory.

None of the C5 were killed in a carriage, they were all killed where they were respectively found.
These crime scenes were murder sites, not dump sites.
If something never happened, then it can not be proven to have happened - this is what in fact is meant when saying a negative can not be proven.
Learning the facts of the case is essential prior to postulating theories.

Regards,
MacGuffin

[Rosella]

Yes, it was highly entertaining. I remember getting it when it was first published and reading it in one sitting. It wasn't my introduction to the Ripper. That was Cullen's 'Autumn of Terror,' many years before, but it was an enthralling read.

The trouble was though, I believe, that Knight implicitly believed what Joseph Gorman told him. Knight had the advantage of a team of BBC researchers and yet suppressed facts that didn't fit in with his theory (so, what else is new) but also published details which he must have known at the time were not the truth. That's unforgivable for a serious writer in my opinion.

[pinkmoon]

I know this theory fell to bits when it was examined properly but I think we have to thank the late stephen knight because it was a highly entertaining yarn that introduced a lot of people to this fascinating subject .