The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[London Fog]

So which lie do you accept and which do you reject? When he said Walter wasn't part of it or when he said we was.

And are you arguing that we shouldn't reject any hypothesis or just that we should accept the Royal Conspiracy?

It was Knight who said Walter Sickert was part of the plot. It was Joseph Sickert who said he wasn't.

I don't accept any lie. All I want to know is, which is lie, and which is truth. Until I know for sure, all I can do is consider the possibilities. I consider it possible that Joseph Sickert would have changed his story because his father's name was being dragged through the mud, something he (Joseph) never intended. Now that might not be the truth, but until I know, I have to consider that it also might be. Again, I have seen no proof to the contrary.

[Jeff Leahy]

He was also named as one on Macnaghten's three "Better than's" though later Mac appears to have moved on to just one.

This is irrelevant.. there are only two positions

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

You lump the majority of theories into one category. I could say there are only two schools or thought - those who believe what Stephen Knight said, and those who don't. There are many theories and many schools of thought. They are not so easily categorized.

THere are only two schools of thought..

Either Anderson was Correct…. The Ripper was known..

or 'The Ripper was not known' and I have an alternative theory..etc

Two schools of thought, to which either one you are welcome

Yours Jeff

[GUT]

But the suspect was Named..

"Kosminski was the Suspect' Swanson

Yours Jeff

He was also named as one on Macnaghten's three "Better than's" though later Mac appears to have moved on to just one.

[Jeff Leahy]

They had declared the case solved, but never names the culprit? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

But the suspect was Named..

"Kosminski was the Suspect' Swanson

Yours Jeff

[GUT]

Maybe so. According to Knight's theory, Sickert was just one of two or three helpers in the plot. I don't know if that's true, anymore than you know it's false. According to Joseph Sickert, Walter, his father, was NOT part of the plot. When Knight named Walter as one of the conspiritors, that's when Joseph turned tail and claimed everything he had said was made up. I can see that as a definite possibility.

So which lie do you accept and which do you reject? When he said Walter wasn't part of it or when he said we was.

And are you arguing that we shouldn't reject any hypothesis or just that we should accept the Royal Conspiracy?

[London Fog]

Thats a reasonable question. Of course Anderson could have been wrong..its a point long argued by Paul Begg..

But the fact still remains that there are two points of view..

Either it was SOLVED as the Man in-charge claims…

or it was NOT…as every other theory ill's towards

But there are only the two theories 'Solved' or 'Not Solved' at the time.

Yours Jeff

You lump the majority of theories into one category. I could say there are only two schools or thought - those who believe what Stephen Knight said, and those who don't. There are many theories and many schools of thought. They are not so easily categorized.

[London Fog]

Anderson would hardly have gone around publicly 'naming and shaming' any suspect before that person was charged or even went on trial, even if it was 'an ordinary ole suspect'. What are your views, London Fog? That Anderson and Swanson didnt really believe Koz was the Ripper and instead were protecting a royal? Prince Eddy, for example?

They had declared the case solved, but never names the culprit? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

[London Fog]

Well, London Fog, I'd have to look up where Sickert was in 1907 to satisfy your curiosity, but we do know where he was in September and into October of 1888 and that was in the Dieppe area of France. Both his wife and mother wrote letters regarding this trip and there is an October painting verifying it.

Maybe so. According to Knight's theory, Sickert was just one of two or three helpers in the plot. I don't know if that's true, anymore than you know it's false. According to Joseph Sickert, Walter, his father, was NOT part of the plot. When Knight named Walter as one of the conspiritors, that's when Joseph turned tail and claimed everything he had said was made up. I can see that as a definite possibility.

[pinkmoon]

Just to be clear..

I'm arguing ALL the police accounts at the time…

Anderson, Swanson, Reid, Drew, McNaughten, Monroe, Abberline, Cox , Sagar…Etc Etc

THEY ALL MATCH

It;s gonna upset a lot of people…

But I think it can be proved

Yours Jef

Good luck Jeff I look forward to reading your results.

[Jeff Leahy]

Just to be clear..

I'm arguing ALL the police accounts at the time…

Anderson, Swanson, Reid, Drew, McNaughten, Monroe, Abberline, Cox , Sagar…Etc Etc

THEY ALL MATCH

It;s gonna upset a lot of people…

But I think it can be proved

Yours Jef

[Jeff Leahy]

If Mr Anderson or anybody else for that matter had any real proof of our killers identity WE WOULD KNOW it would have been general knowledge across police forces and the proper reasons why would have been documented.It is obvious that certain policeman formed their conclusion on information received at the time or shortly after the murders ceased the sources and accuracy of this information will probley never be known .

UM…Not necessarily…they could have 'all' been correct…your just looking at the puzzle incorrectly?

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

If Mr Anderson or anybody else for that matter had any real proof of our killers identity WE WOULD KNOW it would have been general knowledge across police forces and the proper reasons why would have been documented.It is obvious that certain policeman formed their conclusion on information received at the time or shortly after the murders ceased the sources and accuracy of this information will probley never be known .

[Jeff Leahy]

How many innocent people have been executed because the system "knew" they had the right man? Men are not perfect, we don't know everything, and sometimes we don't know things we're "sure" of.

But what if Anderson was correct, and he did know who the killer was. If it had been an ordinary ole suspect, do you think he would have kept the identity secret? If he knew who it was, and if he kept it quiet, then there had to be a reason. Why do you think that would have been done?

Thats a reasonable question. Of course Anderson could have been wrong..its a point long argued by Paul Begg..

But the fact still remains that there are two points of view..

Either it was SOLVED as the Man in-charge claims…

or it was NOT…as every other theory ill's towards

But there are only the two theories 'Solved' or 'Not Solved' at the time.

Yours Jeff

[Rosella]

Anderson would hardly have gone around publicly 'naming and shaming' any suspect before that person was charged or even went on trial, even if it was 'an ordinary ole suspect'. What are your views, London Fog? That Anderson and Swanson didnt really believe Koz was the Ripper and instead were protecting a royal? Prince Eddy, for example?