The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[Rosella]

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.

[London Fog]

Thats not what I'm arguing..

I'm saying there are two points of view..

Those reach by the Coppers in charge at the time (And no-one has ever figured that until now)

and those argued since..

Two points of view

Yours Jeff

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?

[MayBea]

But since royalty and politics have ostensibly nothing to do with a serial murderer of prostitutes in a very poor part of London, why would we make these our first research port of call if we're looking for an actual solution to the crimes?

I have a couple of reasons, Ben:

1. That's all we have as far as extensive historical records, aside from genealogy and census reports (with MJK, I'd put the latter two as first port of call because we have something to work with in finding her origins).

2. The royals include all royalty - lords, earls, barons, dukes etc. - the chance that the Ripper is connected to royals some way is good, especially if he's not local. (The Earl of Crawford is thought to have sent a tip to Anderson about Druitt, and Crawford's writing was mistaken for Roslyn D'Onston's.) http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-emily.html The same goes for MJK.

3. The rumors that lasted over a century. The live on for a reason.

4. In this case, we have an 'unidentified' prostitute who worked in the west and east ends, and who may be the key. Politicians and royals (today's royals being actors) have plenty to do with prostitutes.

It's not only a primary port of call but it's where I'd lay down my nets.

[London Fog]

Walter Sickert was, (like many of us here,) interested in unsolved and famous murders. That doesn't mean that he had inside knowledge of them or had anything to do with them. It was said that he also painted scenes that could be connected with the Camden or Rising Sun murder (for which Robert Wood was put on trial.) Does that mean that Sickert was involved in the 1907 murder of Phyllis Dimmock? Of course not!

No one said it means that. But if you're going to say it CAN'T mean that, I'm going to ask for proof.

[London Fog]

That's funny, why then were the police stopping and questioning well dressed men if such were illogical.

"Jewes" is also a surname, it could also be a misspelling of Jewess or Jews, just as so much else was mis-spelt, there is also a minor matter of did the killer even write the graffiti ?

Still, in people's minds, the murderer had to have been a fiend, and he had to have looked the part. That was logical, because no other image fit such heinous crimes.

As for your second paragraph. Are you assuming "Jewes" was a surname, or are you simply saying it's a possibility? You use phrases like, "could also be a misspelling of Jewess or Jews..." You seem to be deviating from your own requirements.

[Jeff Leahy]

I don't think many people will agree that there is only one person's view/opinion that is valid.

Thats not what I'm arguing..

I'm saying there are two points of view..

Those reach by the Coppers in charge at the time (And no-one has ever figured that until now)

and those argued since..

Two points of view

Yours Jeff

[Rosella]

Walter Sickert was, (like many of us here,) interested in unsolved and famous murders. That doesn't mean that he had inside knowledge of them or had anything to do with them. It was said that he also painted scenes that could be connected with the Camden or Rising Sun murder (for which Robert Wood was put on trial.) Does that mean that Sickert was involved in the 1907 murder of Phyllis Dimmock? Of course not!

[GUT]

Maybe you haven't studied the actual theory.

As for the logic in someone putting messages in paintings. Why would that be illogical? If you think about it, painters paint with a theme, do they not? If I'm not mistaken, Sickert had a painting called "Jack the Ripper's bedroom." Would you call that logical?

Mother's birthday. I'll bet if you ask a detective, they'd tell you they would consider such a thing. That doesn't mean it's right, but it is logical.

All that aside, we have a ritualistic lay out of victim's bodies. We have the word "Jewes" written on a wall. Both of these things are Masonic related. This is logic. It may, or may not, be right, but it is logic.

Keep this in mind. At the time of the murders, it wasn't logical that such a perpetrator could be anything but a shabby, evil-looking fiend, with horns growing from his head. Many thought he would be a Jew, or some other nationality, because it just wasn't logical that a clean cut, upstanding citizen could do such a thing. That was logic. That logic has since been proved wrong, many times over. What we consider logical is not always right.

That's funny, why then were the police stopping and questioning well dressed men if such were illogical.

"Jewes" is also a surname, it could also be a misspelling of Jewess or Jews, just as so much else was mis-spelt, there is also a minor matter of did the killer even write the graffiti ?

[London Fog]

They are indeed theories..

However some theories were created by those who were there and were in charge of the case..

The 'other' theories were created…. Well 'other than'..

So there are just 'two' points of view…

Anderson/Swanson = Other than

Yours Jeff

I don't think many people will agree that there is only one person's view/opinion that is valid.

[London Fog]

Because if something has no logic too it and no evidence to support it, or it relies on fanciful BS like faces in painting or it was his mother's birthday or other such rubbish, and such it is simply and unabashedly "STUPID".

Maybe you haven't studied the actual theory.

As for the logic in someone putting messages in paintings. Why would that be illogical? If you think about it, painters paint with a theme, do they not? If I'm not mistaken, Sickert had a painting called "Jack the Ripper's bedroom." Would you call that logical?

Mother's birthday. I'll bet if you ask a detective, they'd tell you they would consider such a thing. That doesn't mean it's right, but it is logical.

All that aside, we have a ritualistic lay out of victim's bodies. We have the word "Jewes" written on a wall. Both of these things are Masonic related. This is logic. It may, or may not, be right, but it is logic.

Keep this in mind. At the time of the murders, it wasn't logical that such a perpetrator could be anything but a shabby, evil-looking fiend, with horns growing from his head. Many thought he would be a Jew, or some other nationality, because it just wasn't logical that a clean cut, upstanding citizen could do such a thing. That was logic. That logic has since been proved wrong, many times over. What we consider logical is not always right.

[Simon Wood]

Hi London Fog,

"So far, I haven't seen anyone offer proof to the contrary. All I see is the word, "rubbish," and misconstruing of facts."

Check out Bloodhound Magazine, March 1987, available here and there on-line.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

No, this is "all theories are just that - theories."

Actually, I enjoy studying all the theories. I find as much, if not more reason to consider the Stephen Knight theory a possibility. So far, I haven't seen anyone offer proof to the contrary. All I see is the word, "rubbish," and misconstruing of facts.

They are indeed theories..

However some theories were created by those who were there and were in charge of the case..

The 'other' theories were created…. Well 'other than'..

So there are just 'two' points of view…

Anderson/Swanson = Other than

Yours Jeff

[GUT]

This goes along with what I've been trying to say. Why call all theories stupid, especially if you have no proof?

Because if something has no logic too it and no evidence to support it, or it relies on fanciful BS like faces in painting or it was his mother's birthday or other such rubbish, and such it is simply and unabashedly "STUPID".

[London Fog]

"all theories are equally stupid in the face of a total unknown"

That's a good way to put it, Errata.

It only makes sense to deny a theory if you have your own theory that you're 100% sure of. Then of course all other theories are wrong or 'stupid'.

Even then, if the other theory is in the same vein, I wouldn't denigrate it if the other suspect theory has the same theory of the nature of the crime and perpetrator. In the end, that should be the most important thing here.

Thank you.

[London Fog]

Got it in one, but now my head hurts.

This goes along with what I've been trying to say. Why call all theories stupid, especially if you have no proof?