What basis is there for a conspiracy theory?

[Sam Flynn]

so how many victims of terrorism that I mentioned were likely flush with cash? Or were they poor too? .

...but the Canonical Five, and those like them, didn't have a pot to pi$$ in. There's a world of difference.

How many of the train bombing victims in London were well to do?

They were the random victims of a bomb. Terrorists seldom "target" specific individuals.

[Michael W Richards]

Im sure Ill hear ...well, they were occasional prostitutes so they all were likely selling themselves on that fateful night...which is a bs argument and without any supporting evidence, or well, they were all poor women...so how many victims of terrorism that I mentioned were likely flush with cash? Or were they poor too? How many of the train bombing victims in London were well to do? In fact, killing anyone in East London at that time was killing someone poor.

[Michael W Richards]

and how many of them targeted a specific victimology of female prostitutes? right-none.

And how many were in fact prostituting at the time...2 that we know of. Of just the Canonical Group.

[Michael W Richards]

How many of those were poverty stricken women? How many of them were eviscerated in an elaborate manner in open, public streets?

Ah yes Sam quite so. And how many of only the Canonicals were eviscerated in open public streets again? 3. Of a Group of Five presumed kills by one man. One was indoors and had a room in her own name, and one had a single throat cut, not more severe than Mrs Browns Ill wager..done on the same night .2 had eaten that night.

[JeffHamm]

I like your analogy of conspiracy theories vs paranormal religious theories of unexplained phenomena, Jeff. But would you also accept an explanation with the unknown subject being simply "connected" to something "higher in the realms", rather than fully conspiring? It's who-you-know sort of thing for me.

Well, simply suggesting the murderer is someone who also has connections is different from including the argument that those connections were able to pull strings and prevent the murderer from being held responsible. Once the strings get pulled, it's a conspiracy of sorts, though of the cover up type. And that too has a bit of magical thinking, in that those with power would risk their own positions to cover up such a sensational set of murders. Yes, cover ups occur, but they occur at all socio-economic levels (the police arguing that they identified JtR but the witness would not swear to it because JtR was a fellow Jew, for example, is the same basic cover up, just now directed at lower socio-economic groups rather than higher). It's the fear of the unknown "other group", and the mistrust of the "other", that allows one to imagine all sorts of goings on because that lack of familiarity, and sense that the others operate in secret ways, that allows the imagination to seek out and find an explanation without the need to have eivdence for it - because they operate in secret ways. In a way, it's the fact the explanation has no evidence that paradoxically confirms the validity of the ignorant explanation and acts as a false sense of confirmation. It also adds a bit of comfort because by placing all the bad stuff in the secret other group, it helps one feel more secure in their familiar surroundings. That too, of course, is a false sense of security.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Harry asked about any historical evidence that seemingly unrelated people have been killed in specific ways to try and achieve political objectives...how about virtually every execution and terrorist action in the past century?

and how many of them targeted a specific victimology of female prostitutes? right-none.

[Sam Flynn]

Harry asked about any historical evidence that seemingly unrelated people have been killed in specific ways to try and achieve political objectives...how about virtually every execution and terrorist action in the past century?

How many of those were poverty stricken women? How many of them were eviscerated in an elaborate manner in open, public streets?

[Michael W Richards]

Harry asked about any historical evidence that seemingly unrelated people have been killed in specific ways to try and achieve political objectives...how about virtually every execution and terrorist action in the past century?

[Abby Normal]

I know there are members out there who subscribe to Stephen Knight's Royal conspiracy theory or some variation thereof which essentially involves an ulterior motive for the murders.

What I'd like to know is if there is any historical example of a group of (seemingly unrelated) victims being killed in a very specific way for political purposes? And if not, what is it about the Ripper murders that attract these kinds of conspiracy theories?

hi harry
there are none, because its piffle. there are however, many many examples of serial killers who target prostitutes for there own sick reasons.

[Michael W Richards]

There is a decidedly negative reaction to those who are looking into answers that don't include this Canonical Group, despite the fact that as has been pointed out, the alternative theory is unproven and antique. I think as Simon points out there is evidence that the police at the very least supported this idea, if not created it, and when you remember that all of the senior men assigned to this case were, for lack of a better word... Spy Masters, you may have the basis for a something other than a spontaneous, mad killers spree.

Mary Kelly might well be the key to all this, who she really was and why she was left almost unrecognizable are 2 interesting questions for that murder. Many of the questions concerning other victims can be answered quite easily and logically, but that goes back to the anti-Canonical resistance.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pcdunn,

"I'm a little baffled by Ripperologists who, having pinpointed a good suspect for one particular victim among the series, absolutely insist that their person MUST have done all of the other victims."

Sir Melville Macnaghten—“Now the Whitechapel murderer had 5 victims — & 5 victims only . . ."

There you have JtR—the original conspiracy—in a nutshell.

Regards,

Simon

[Trapperologist]

I like your analogy of conspiracy theories vs paranormal religious theories of unexplained phenomena, Jeff. But would you also accept an explanation with the unknown subject being simply "connected" to something "higher in the realms", rather than fully conspiring? It's who-you-know sort of thing for me.

[JeffHamm]

I know there are members out there who subscribe to Stephen Knight's Royal conspiracy theory or some variation thereof which essentially involves an ulterior motive for the murders.

What I'd like to know is if there is any historical example of a group of (seemingly unrelated) victims being killed in a very specific way for political purposes? And if not, what is it about the Ripper murders that attract these kinds of conspiracy theories?

I suspect there have been "serial killer pairs" and perhaps "cults" that have committed serial murders with some sort of political ideology in mind (the Manson Family had, superficially, a sort of political motive though when viewed a bit more deeply just boiled down to Charles Manson's s ego and nihilism). I can't think of a single instance, though, where a gov't plot was behind what otherwise looked to be a lone serial killer's activities. Generally I would think gov't plots to remove troublesome people are performed in less overt ways, and people just disappear.

With JtR, we see the coming together of a horrific series of murders and the wide spread popularity of the press and overall high levels of literacy (those of the East End, while poor and destitute, did read the papers - Barnet read to Kelly, though that doesn't mean she couldn't read herself of course, and we have letters written by Polly Nichols, and other victims I think - literacy was fairly high). Given the shocking nature of the murders, the brazenness of them, and the fact they went unsolved, leads many to believe they must have been covered up. Otherwise it is just inconceivable to them that they wouldn't get solved.

But really, forensics were in their infancy, even police investigation of crimes was a relatively new thing (the first policeforces were not allowed to investigate crimes, only patrol with the goal of preventing crimes or apprehending someone in the process of committing one - investigation meant gathering information from private citizens who were not guilty of anything and that was seen as a gross violation of privacy). Solving the JtR crimes really did require something tangible be left by the killer at the crime scene that then led the police to that individual. In this case, nothing was found that did that (although they did track a number of items found, pawn tickets, parts of envelopes, items of clothes in Kelly's room, and so forth). They conducted a massive house to house search, they investigated hundreds, possibly thousands, of butchers, and slaughterman, looked into mad medical students, and others released from care, and checked out the commings and goings of cattle boats, etc. But with little experience or information on serial killing to work with, it is quite possible that JtR was seemingly normal, well presented, and was at some point questioned during the search and simply raised no alarm bells.

The crimes going unsolved is not really a mystery, but I think people find that hard to accept and so look for a reason, other than the shear magnitude of the task, to explain why it wasn't solved. And envisioning the secret workings of a group of people who are viewed with suspicion (the aristocracy are a club to which we do not belong, therefore they must be up to something - also ties in with the masons, another group with secret activities, etc) allows for the imagination that "they" must be teh ones denying justice, they are the ones responsible. And, because "they" are powerfull, and clearly can "hide" the evidence from us, that explains the complete resistance to evidence based arguments. The lack of evidence is proof of the conspiracy, after all.

I think conspiracy theories, that involve evil and powerful villans that have some sort of ability to control "our" world, are very similar to religious beliefs of powerful beings who judge and preside over us yet work in mysterious and unknown ways - we must have faith in their actions, just like conspiracy theories require faith that the god-like gov't can indeed publicly butcher and mutilate five (or more or less) unknown and destitute women in the East End and prevent any trace of their connection from being found. Basically, I think it has something to do with basic human nature, and how we fear random and unknown things and much prefer to have an explanation to understand why things happened. A conspiracy, no matter how outlandish it looks when viewing the evidence, is still a comforting explanation - things might be beyond my control because the gods make their choices, but it still is an understandable explanation, while "unknown suspect randomly choosing victims for unknown reasons" is just the boogy man, and that defies a sense of being an explanation, which is just too unsatisfying.

- Jeff

[Trapperologist]

I know there are members out there who subscribe to Stephen Knight's Royal conspiracy theory or some variation thereof which essentially involves an ulterior motive for the murders.

What I'd like to know is if there is any historical example of a group of (seemingly unrelated) victims being killed in a very specific way for political purposes? And if not, what is it about the Ripper murders that attract these kinds of conspiracy theories?

There's always the case of the Beast of Gevaudan. The French solved that one IMO.

At first, they thought it was a wolf or some other wild animal but then the geo-profile of the murders showed one area where the killings were in direct parallel lines. A wild animal wouldn't do that. I think the pattern of the murders in Whitechapel show it wasn't a "mad dog" although a human doesn't need masters to do pattern serial murder so that's no evidence of conspiracy.

[MysterySinger]

Hello, Harry D.,

I'm a little baffled by Ripperologists who, having pinpointed a good suspect for one particular victim among the series, absolutely insist that their person MUST have done all of the other victims. Is it a desire to garner more glory for locating the famed Jack the Ripper? More of the human desire to tie up all the loose ends of these mysteries in one solution? Why?

Maybe the opposite applies as well - how many excellent suspects may have been dismissed because they could only be linked to one murder and not others?