The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[Errata]

So how much blood did each woman lose?

No idea. We didn't exactly get accurate measurements of pools of blood as you well know. But based on the absorption rates of wool, cotton, and linen and the areas of clothing that were bloodstained, we do know that every woman was wearing at least 20 oz. of blood on her clothing alone (barring Liz Stride), and thats right about half a liter. So we can say based on clothing alone that four out of five of the victims were killed where they lay.

With Liz Stride, a witness says that about two quarts of blood had drained away from the victim, and while is certainly more than a liter, it's compromised by their having been rain presumable flowing in that same gutter diluting the blood. However a pound of clotted blood was found, so totting up the percentage of platelets, we are looking at more than two liters of liquid blood leaving that much clot barring some sort of clotting disorder like factor V Leiden. So she was killed where she lay as well.

Now Catherine Eddowes did have Bright's Disease, and in all likelihood did have a clotting issue which could potentially throw off calculations as to how much blood she actually lost. In reality, had Eddowes died the way Stride did, we would never know. However she was found in more than enough blood to account for being killed in that square.

[London Fog]

No idea. We didn't exactly get accurate measurements of pools of blood as you well know. But based on the absorption rates of wool, cotton, and linen and the areas of clothing that were bloodstained, we do know that every woman was wearing at least 20 oz. of blood on her clothing alone (barring Liz Stride), and thats right about half a liter. So we can say based on clothing alone that four out of five of the victims were killed where they lay.

With Liz Stride, a witness says that about two quarts of blood had drained away from the victim, and while is certainly more than a liter, it's compromised by their having been rain presumable flowing in that same gutter diluting the blood. However a pound of clotted blood was found, so totting up the percentage of platelets, we are looking at more than two liters of liquid blood leaving that much clot barring some sort of clotting disorder like factor V Leiden. So she was killed where she lay as well.

Now Catherine Eddowes did have Bright's Disease, and in all likelihood did have a clotting issue which could potentially throw off calculations as to how much blood she actually lost. In reality, had Eddowes died the way Stride did, we would never know. However she was found in more than enough blood to account for being killed in that square.

1/2 liter of blood doesn't prove that the women were killed where they were found. As you say, we don't even know exactly how much blood they lost. Everything is a guess, and that's about all we have at this point.

[Jeff Leahy]

1/2 liter of blood doesn't prove that the women were killed where they were found. As you say, we don't even know exactly how much blood they lost. Everything is a guess, and that's about all we have at this point.

Given what is known, and the various eye witnesses..

It can be concluded the victims were killed and died where they were discovered..

Erratas comments seem to confirm this?

Yours jeff

[London Fog]

Given what is known, and the various eye witnesses..

It can be concluded the victims were killed and died where they were discovered..

Erratas comments seem to confirm this?

Yours jeff

There's so little that IS known, you only say that because it's what you want to believe. That's fine, but you really should admit that Erratas comments confirms nothing, anymore than any other thing has in 127 years since the murders. Do we know how much blood the women lost? No. Errata and I agree on that point, and that point means we don't know where the women were murdered.

[Errata]

There's so little that IS known, you only say that because it's what you want to believe. That's fine, but you really should admit that Erratas comments confirms nothing, anymore than any other thing has in 127 years since the murders. Do we know how much blood the women lost? No. Errata and I agree on that point, and that point means we don't know where the women were murdered.

Actually there is a slight difference between the correct interpretation of this data and what you are saying.

I honestly have no idea how much blood they lost, and anyone who says they do is a lying liar. We do know they didn't lose all of it, because that's remarkable enough it would have been mentioned in autopsy. Like it's actually really hard to drain a body of blood, fairly easy to drain 3/4s of it. So no blood is as remarkable as no scalp. And I think we all agree that if these women had been scalped we would know about that.

Because a woman can have her throat cut and die losing as little as half a liter of blood, anything under than amount means she had to have been murdered elsewhere. And blood flow stops within minutes of death, and it slows a lot once unconscious. So .5 liters is sort of a hard line forensically. Under half a liter, there has to be another crime scene.

Over half a liter of blood at the scene means that there is no forensic reason to suspect someone was killed elsewhere. It doesn't mean they couldn't have been, the Tate murders prove that. But barring a trail or some other forensic link to a different location (like water in the lungs, fresh paint on the body when there is no fresh pain around, imprints of patterns that don't exist around the body) there is nothing to support the idea of them being killed elsewhere. Even today, nothing about the blood evidence would trigger a forensics team to look for a second location.

[London Fog]

Over half a liter of blood at the scene means that there is no forensic reason to suspect someone was killed elsewhere. It doesn't mean they couldn't have been, the Tate murders prove that. But barring a trail or some other forensic link to a different location (like water in the lungs, fresh paint on the body when there is no fresh pain around, imprints of patterns that don't exist around the body) there is nothing to support the idea of them being killed elsewhere. Even today, nothing about the blood evidence would trigger a forensics team to look for a second location.

I think that's sort of the point of this theory. They left no reason to suspect what actually happened, other than maybe the way they were butchered, which was masonic ritual, according to the theory. And even that may have been a signal to other masons, and not to the general public. We simply don't know for sure, one way or the other.

[Jeff Leahy]

There's so little that IS known, you only say that because it's what you want to believe. That's fine, but you really should admit that Erratas comments confirms nothing, anymore than any other thing has in 127 years since the murders. Do we know how much blood the women lost? No. Errata and I agree on that point, and that point means we don't know where the women were murdered.

I don't think its what I want to believe and what the CSI tells us. Of course that may depend which victims you count as Ripper kills.

But I think it logical to conclude the Cannon were all killed where they were discovered, thats what the facts tell us.

Yours Jeff

[London Fog]

I don't think its what I want to believe and what the CSI tells us. Of course that may depend which victims you count as Ripper kills.

But I think it logical to conclude the Cannon were all killed where they were discovered, thats what the facts tell us.

Yours Jeff

Not facts. Opinions.

[Rosella]

I think that's sort of the point of this theory. They left no reason to suspect what actually happened, other than maybe the way they were butchered, which was masonic ritual, according to the theory. And even that may have been a signal to other masons, and not to the general public. We simply don't know for sure, one way or the other.

How is the way they were butchered according to Masonic ritual?

Even if you ignore the fact that the declarations of the Three Ruffians hadn't been used in Masonic ritual since the early 19th century--which of the C-5 (and Martha Tabram) had their tongues cut out or 'their bodies buried in the rough sands of the sea, at low water mark...?'

Which of them had their 'heart and vitals taken and thrown over the LEFT shoulder', and which of the victims were 'severed in two in the midst, and divided to the north and south, with their bowels burned to ashes in the centre?'

[jmenges]

Here are the timeline notes I made for the 'Royal Conspiracy A Go-Go' show several years ago. A couple of things are left out, but those gaps are filled in and the whole thing is talked over in great detail on the podcast. Of course the Royal Conspiracy theory and the Royal/Masonic Conspiracy theory has gone through many permutations over the years.

1) RJ LEES (Spiritualist / Psychic)
1895-1960
Robert James Lees' story first published in 1895 in The Chicago Sunday Times Herald and reprinted in The People.
Lees was able to lead the police to a fashionable house in London which was home to a physician. The doctor was put in an asylum under the name of Thomas Mason 124, and a mock funeral held. A Dr. Howard of London, when drunk, told the tale to a man who informed the paper.
Melvin Harris suggests the story was hoaxed by the Whitechapel Club of Chicago.
The article was reprinted later in various papers and in various forms throughout the years, up all copying the essentials of the original CST story.
Stephen Knight used this tale to bolster his argument that William Gull was involved in the murders, and the Lees story has been discussed in documentaries and portrayed in various film versions of the Whitechapel murders.
The "Lees" letter quoted by Knight, is actually "tecs" - LFH (SPE/KS)

Clarence Gordon Haddon
1929
Clarence Gordon Haddon's book 'My Uncle George V' in which he claims he is the illegitimate son of Prince Eddy and Margery Haddon. The affair would have happened in India in 1889. In his book, he suggests a Royal and Met cover up that led to letters and documents being burned, the mistress deported back to India, and the illegitimate son arrested and jailed.

Dr. Thomas Dutton
1932-1959 Thomas Dutton, via McCormick, 'The Chronicle of Crime' Jack the Ripper was a middle aged doctor who had become embittered by the death of his brilliant son. McCormick uses this to name Dr. Alexander Padachenko.
The Daily Express 13 November 1935 mentions that Dr. Dutton was a friend of the Duke of Clarence (Prince Eddy) and a "keen student of crime" who kept a "secret diary". Later newspaper articles around 1935 mention the Chronicles of Crime and the "middle aged embittered doctor" theory. It is very possible that McCormick was the writer of these Dutton "theory" articles of the 1930's., but not the one that mentions the friendship with Prince Eddy.

Dr. Thomas Stowell
1960-1970
First contacted Colin Wilson in 1960 after reading Wilson's 'My Search for Jack the Ripper' in the Evening Standard and related his theory that DoC was Jack the Ripper. Wilson shared this story with several individuals including McCormick, Farson and Nigel Morland editor of The Criminologist.

Colin Wilson
1961
In Wilson's Encyclopaedia of Murder (1961) he discusses the Lees story and in this we see the first suggestion in print that the murderer was either "the Queen's physician" or a "relative of the Royal Family".
Chain of the tale: Stowell - Wilson - Sir Harold Nicholson - Philippe Jullian

Philippe Jullian
1962
In Edouard VII says "The rumour gained ground that he was Jack the Ripper (others attributed the crimes committed in Whitechapel to the Duke of Bedford)."

Dr. Thomas Stowell cont.
1970
The Criminologist, Vol. 5 No. 18, November 1970, "'Jack the Ripper' -A Solution?"
a demented and syphilitic suspect 'S' is Jack the Ripper and the Royal Physician, Sir William Gull, attempting to certify his errant patient as insane. Repeats the R.J. Lees story.

Wlater Sickert
1970-2001
First mentioned by McCormick in the 1970 edition (not in earlier editions) of The Identity of Jack the Ripper: "Yet another suggestion made is that Walter Sickert, the painter, was Jack the Ripper. The reason for Sickert being suspected is that he was believed to have made sketches and paintings of the Ripper crimes"

Michael Harrison
1972
In his book 'Clarence' he definitively proved Eddy's whereabouts, establishing an alibi for him for the murders, but then goes on to accuse JK Stephen.

Godfrey Kwok
1972
Author of 'The Royal Ripper', which had a limited run of 50 copies, Dr. Thomas Stowall's theory is first described in book form

1973- Barlow & Watt
A Scotland Yard detective suggested to the producers that they interview Jospeh Gorman Sickert, who told them about the secret marriage between Eddy and Alice Elizabeth Crook. All the essential elements of the popular Royal Conspiracy are revealed by Gorman. Sickert is Eddy's mentor, Eddie meets Crook and gets her pregnant, the Queen finds out and orders Lord Salisbury to take care of the matter. Sailsbury enlists Gull who kidnaps Crook and lobotomizes her and puts her into an asylum. Mary Kelly was the child of Eddy and Annie's (Alice) nanny, puts the child with nuns and flees into the East End. Gull and the coachman Netly, with Sir Robert Anderson acting as a look out and cover-up, carry out the murders. In B&W, Sickert says that the murders occurred "out of fear that MJK might talk".
Gorman never mentions the Masons, Blackmail, or Walter Sickert being directly involved in the murders.

Stephen Knight
1973-1976
Interviews Gorman for initially a newspaper article which he switched to become the book 'The Final Solution'. In it, Knight repeats much of what Gorman said in the BBC interviews, adding the Masonic Conspiracy and Walter Sickert having first hand.
Points to ponder:
Annie Elizabeth Crook and Alice Margaret Crook
Eddy's connection to the Cleveland Street Scandal (the initials PAV)
In 1891 at the height of the Cleveland St Saga, Sir Francis Knollys the Prince of Wales's private secretary wrote to the Prime Minister's private secretary a private note;
"As you are aware, the Queen strongly advocates Prince Albert Victor travelling in Europe, instead of visiting the Cape of Good Hope, New Zealand, Canada etc. Unfortunately her views on certain social subjects are so strong that the Prince of Wales does not like to tell her the real reason for sending PAV away, which is intended as a punishment, and as a means of keeping him out of harm's way."
There was no 'raid' on Cleveland Street (Scandal), but rather an apprehension of Hammond and attempted apprehension of Somerset and others on the Continent. There were raids that were popular (raid on Fitzroy St. re Oscar Wilde). So Gorman claims Eddy was detained in a raid directly opposite.
Masonic connection of Anderson and Warren
Masonic Conspiracy: Evidence does not exist because it's a conspiracy

In popular media:
The Final Solution Doc
In Search of... Doc
Murder By Decree (Holmes & Watson)
Jack the Ripper (Michael Caine)
From Hell
http://www.casebook.org/suspects/knight.html Dissertation by Rumbelow

1987
Simon Wood's article about the Royal Conspiracy which was published in Bloodhound. His research into Annie Elizabeth Crook, Elizabeth Cook, and the changing topography of Cleveland Street pretty much destroyed Stephen Knight's "Final Solution".

Jean Overton Fuller
1990
The book features alleged family recollections of Mary Kelly as a nanny and model, and covers the Cleveland street scandal too.
It has a chapter on Sickerts art, and what they are supposed to mean, and several theories put forward by Stephen Knight are rubbished.

Melvyn Fairclough
1991
Wrote 'The Ripper and the Royals" in which the Masonic Conspiracy is again the plot. Lord randolph Churchill and Reg Hutchinson. Although Gorman-Sickert repudiated Knight's earlier book, he returns now to offer up the Abberline Diaries.

Paul West
1994
Wrote a book of fiction called The Woman of Whitechapel and Jack the Ripper mentioning the Royal Conspiracy and Walter Sickert. A novel. Mary Kelly is portrayed as a part-time model for Sickert.

Patricia Cornwell
2002
In her book Portrait of a Killer: Case Closed, the author dismisses the claims that Gull and Prince Eddy had anything to do with the murders, and singles out Sickert, acting alone.

JM

[London Fog]

How is the way they were butchered according to Masonic ritual?

Even if you ignore the fact that the declarations of the Three Ruffians hadn't been used in Masonic ritual since the early 19th century...

Well, at least you're admitting that such rituals did exist.

Which of them had their 'heart and vitals taken and thrown over the LEFT shoulder'...?'

At least three of them.

[MayBea]

Various
2006-Present

Speculations based on Mary Jane Kelly research and partly inspired by Dan Brown has led to new variations on the Royal Conspiracy. Now Mary Kelly had a child with Arthur Sullivan. This is even repeated as Ripper lore by a member of the Savoy.net.

I connected this theory to the original Conspiracy theory by way of Carnarvon or the Carnarvons. MJK reportedly came from Carnarvon and maybe there was some confusion with the Earls. Stowell gave his source as Gull's daughter who married Theodore Dyke Acland, whose family has long ties to the Carnarvons through estate ownership and whose cousin married the Earl. Then there is the mystery man name Arthur John Sullivan who married into the Carnarvon servants in 1919 and whose mother was a Mary Jane Kelly....

[MayBea]

Karen Tenouth
2006

Karen connects the Ripper murders to the Cleveland Street Scandal. Mary Kelly find out whats going on on Cleveland Street and blows the whistle. Lord Arthur Somerset, Henry James Fitzroy, Herbrand Arthur Russel and William Humble Ward go after her and her friends, with Dr. Alfred Pearson doing the killings instead of Gull.

[Errata]

I think that's sort of the point of this theory. They left no reason to suspect what actually happened, other than maybe the way they were butchered, which was masonic ritual, according to the theory. And even that may have been a signal to other masons, and not to the general public. We simply don't know for sure, one way or the other.

Right. But from an investigative standpoint, if there is no reason to suspect that these women were killed elsewhere, that line of inquiry is terminated. So it would make sense that only new evidence (or reinterpreted evidence) would bring into question the murder sites. I mean nobody can prove that these murders were not committed by the ghost of Ulysses S. Grant. Which sounds insane, and your theory sounds much more reasonable, but as far as the evidence goes your theory and mine are on an equal level. No evidence it happened, no evidence it didn't. And when putting forth a theory of a crime, you really want to be able to muster more science than the crazy chick with her spectral dead president theory.

[MayBea]

All the logic and science in the world can still be logically circumvented with some mental flexibility. There's no need to dismiss anything at any point short of a full solution.

But if you did want to eliminate all Royal Conspiracy theories, you would have to prove that:

A. the unknowns, Jack the Ripper and Mary Jane Kelly, had absolutely no connection to the Royals or the Masons.

And if one of the other or both are connected to the Royals or Masons, then your only recourse is to prove:

B. their connection to the Royals or Masons had nothing to do with the murders, even as a motivating factor for the murders and/or the M.O.

Reducing any one of the theories to it's perceived weakest point and then demolishing it doesn't effect anything because the theory doesn't hinge on any one point, except the ones mentioned above.