The Theory That Will Live On Forever

[Jeff Leahy]

There's plenty of evidence that these murder sites or "dumping sites" were chosen specifically (location near a door, gate or entrance, location with historic, religious, or Masonic significance, etc...). Obviously it's easier to take a dead woman or unconscious woman to the site than a living woman. The alternative is a very persuasive gentleman, above suspicion, which I have no problem with.

A dumping site requires transport

If anyone is interested I'm giving a lecture on the Hammersmith Nude Murders in London, all the bodies were dumped…probably murdered in a vechile and transported to the place they were found..

There is a lot of witness evidence to support this

However there is no witness evidence to support this at the JtR murder scenes..the CSI suggests they were murdered were discovered.

Yet you now seem to be suggesting they were unconscious when taken to the scene and then murdered…is that correct?

Your jeff

[MayBea]

Yet you now seem to be suggesting they were unconscious when taken to the scene and then murdered…is that correct?

No, Jeff. I'm suggesting the sites were chosen and the women brought there on purpose and I believe he didn't have to do anything except persuade them. I'm sure Annie Chapman wondered why a yard was more appropriate than a doorway or a side alley. Unless of course, it was daylight.

But I'm giving London Fog the benefit of the doubt although I don't know if he really believes the carriage theory of is just using it to prove another point. I find it interesting nonetheless.

[Jeff Leahy]

No, Jeff. I'm suggesting the sites were chosen and the women brought there on purpose and I believe he didn't have to do anything except persuade them. I'm sure Annie Chapman wondered why a yard was more appropriate than a doorway or a side alley. Unless of course, it was daylight.

But I'm giving London Fog the benefit of the doubt although I don't know if he really believes the carriage theory of is just using it to prove another point. I find it interesting nonetheless.

Ok, sometimes people argue the same thing on the boards but most posters have different opinions.

The example I gave above of the Hammersmith Nude murders shows that killers do dump and display bodies. Although only really Mary Flemming fits as a classic pose. But of course all the witness and CSI supports the bodies having been placed where found and murdered else where.

The blood splatter on the fence clearly demonstrates Annie Chapmans heart was pumping when she entered the yard.

Are you saying that rather than the women taking the killer into the yard that Jack the Ripper specifically selected the locations for purpose or meaning?

Pursonally I've always believed until recently that the sites were just randomly selected by the victims but have recently come across information that suggests that the killer may also have been familiar with them.

The site at Hanbury street sold Pet Food.

Yours Jeff

[MayBea]

Are you saying that rather than the women taking the killer into the yard that Jack the Ripper specifically selected the locations for purpose or meaning?...

The site at Hanbury street sold Pet Food.

This could start a whole new branch of Pet Food theories! Or just "pet theories"!

I see possible significance that Annie Chapman was killed in the backyard of 26 Hanbury and the Salvation Army had a home at 212 Hanbury. All the other sites have some immediate, suggestive association except for Miller's Court. I know of none for Millers Court so I think perhaps the significance of that murder was the identity of Mary Jane Kelly.

[MayBea]

Correction: On 8 September 1888, the body of Annie Chapman was found in the backyard of No.29 Hanbury Street.

P.S. Anyone with a Ripper theory would obviously be wise to link it to the popular Royal Conspiracy theory to help it gain traction. If you can't beat 'em....

[Mayerling]

.

P.S. Anyone with a Ripper theory would obviously be wise to link it to the popular Royal Conspiracy theory to help it gain traction. If you can't beat 'em....

Okay, let's see what I can come up with.

It was really not the Duke of Clarence, but his uncle, the supposedly dead Duke of Albany (supposedly dead in 1884) who was in an insane asylum - a very difficult case as the asylum personnel had to keep him from cutting himself or injuring himself due to his hemophelia by getting his weapons away from him without getting cut or stabbed themselves. He managed on five occasions in 1888 (at least five) to evade his guards and doctors, and get (totally unscathed) to London, where he would steal a hansom cab to go to Whitechapel. He attracted his woe-be-gone victims by offering them free cab rides. They'd get into the cabs, he find out of the way, unobservable places, enter the cabs, slaughter them, and drive them to other out of the way spots. Then he'd abandon the cab in some village or other outside London, and hightail it back to the asylum, insisting they give him the papers the next day so he could see the effect of his outings. On the last occasion he was stopped by a man in an Astrokhan hat who explained he knew what he was up to, and demanded he take him to Miller's Court. Annoyed he did. The man gave him a two sovereign tip (due to his exalted station) and went to Mary Kelly's rooms. The Duke left the area in the cab, left the cab near Hyde Park, took a train home, and never ventured out of the Asylum again, as he felt the fun was out of his escapades.

Does that settle everything?

Jeff

[MayBea]

What? No baby?

[MayBea]

My theory has a baby that can be attached to a significant Mary Jane Kelly candidate associated, so far post 1919, to Peerage and, potentially, to notable Freemasons - Mary Jane Wilson ne. Kelly.

She is significant because she disappears at the right time (no death record found) and because:

a)The City Missionary said he rescued one of MJK's friends.

b)The same City Missionary rescued one of MJW's niece's.

He rescued 200 such people, some or most through marriage, and one of them happened to be MJW's niece living on Thrawl Street whom he rescued by getting her married in 1887 (Pateman's name added to marriage certificate as witness-curate).

[packers stem]

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. Above I attach the front and back of Hanbury street and a map showing that the yard was closed in on all sides.

I'm just trying to get my head around how else Annie Chapman could have ended up in the yard unless she went of her own violation?

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff
We may have been suspecting the fence was more of an obstacle than it actually was.
The times report of the 12th of September mentions the blood found in and around the rear of 25.They state that the police believed the murderer escaped by going 'over or through' the fence! Now you can hardly go through a fence unless there's a gap or a gateway....

[curious4]

Any morganic marriage would not have legal status. Any marriage without the consent of Parliament would be null and void. Therefore there would be no need for secrecy or basis for blackmail.
A baby born of such a union would have no claim to the throne.

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

Any morganic marriage would not have legal status. Any marriage without the consent of Parliament would be null and void. Therefore there would be no need for secrecy or basis for blackmail.
A baby born of such a union would have no claim to the throne.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4
Still amazes me that people expect things to have been above board.If you have a view that there's a cover up of sorts there would be no official documents available, no marriage certificate with HRH Prince Albert Victor written on it,no putting anything before parliament.Any potential blackmailers from the lower classes would not be aware of any of this anyway and may still have attempted it.Yes,no threat to the throne legally... But things were not good for them politically at the time and the size of the scandal would have been a difficulty they could do without.
Sometimes you've got to view things a bit differently in terms of official ways. If the royal family are not on the census at the time does that mean we can state with certainty that they were not living in the UK?

[curious4]

Hi C4
Still amazes me that people expect things to have been above board.If you have a view that there's a cover up of sorts there would be no official documents available, no marriage certificate with HRH Prince Albert Victor written on it,no putting anything before parliament.Any potential blackmailers from the lower classes would not be aware of any of this anyway and may still have attempted it.Yes,no threat to the throne legally... But things were not good for them politically at the time and the size of the scandal would have been a difficulty they could do without.
Sometimes you've got to view things a bit differently in terms of official ways. If the royal family are not on the census at the time does that mean we can state with certainty that they were not living in the UK?

Hallo Packers

You do seem to have a problem understanding what I write (?) The royal family, despite Queen Vic and Albert's efforts still managed to have their scandals and survive. The Prince of Wales had to appear in court. Shocking! No attempt at a cover-up there. No-one minded particularly about his string of mistresses. It wouldn't have mattered much if the Duke of Clarence had gone through a sham marriage and had a child, since it wouldn't have affected the succession. No need for a cover-up, people were used to royal scandals and (I think) rather enjoyed them. Rather as is the case today. Queen Vic was no less secure on her throne for being called Mrs Brown. The only thing which would have been unacceptable would be a threat to the succession.

C4

[packers stem]

Hallo Packers

You do seem to have a problem understanding what I write (?) The royal family, despite Queen Vic and Albert's efforts still managed to have their scandals and survive. The Prince of Wales had to appear in court. Shocking! No attempt at a cover-up there. No-one minded particularly about his string of mistresses. It wouldn't have mattered much if the Duke of Clarence had gone through a sham marriage and had a child, since it wouldn't have affected the succession. No need for a cover-up, people were used to royal scandals and (I think) rather enjoyed them. Rather as is the case today. Queen Vic was no less secure on her throne for being called Mrs Brown. The only thing which would have been unacceptable would be a threat to the succession.

C4

Hi C4
They were used to royal scandals of a much reduced importance...pav didn't appear in court as part of the Cleveland street scandal I don't think..
I'm not saying I agree with the pav /annie Crook scenario and it's probably more likely that Bertie 'slumming it' had contact with Kelly, maybe she pretended to be pregnant.
But as I now am absolutely sure of Sickert's involvement after what I've spotted over the last few weeks, I have to take hobo's story with a bit less salt than I used to. There is a Sickert sketch of 'ennui', putting the gull aside it has a matchbox on the table.On all paintings and sketches bar one it faces the same way.On the other for some reason it has turned 90 degrees,has glory scrubbed out from England's glory and appears to have a face on the side similar to Eddowes with a v under the eye and a knife sticking out of the top of the head.Bizarre.... Not to mention the three letters around the matchbox V B R??
If a person or group of people took it upon themselves to clean up the mess the legalities of succession would be irrelevant

[packers stem]

Here's a close up of the matchbox

[Barrister]

Where was Eddy? I am convinced the Prince was innocent of the JtR crimes, but I wonder if anyone has collected proof of Eddy's whereabouts on the dates of specific killings. I read a thread that said he was in Scotland during two of the murders, but no details were provided. If anyone knows where this has been resolved, please point me to the source. Many thanks.