Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 13 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 29 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 30 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 1 hour and 18 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by moste 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - by Herlock Sholmes 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (38 posts)
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - (13 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (1 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > "The Royal Conspiracy"

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #111  
Old 02-25-2015, 04:01 PM
London Fog London Fog is offline
*
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Polly

Probably on her back, but as Cross and Paul at least re-arranged her clothes and may have moved her legs we can't be 100% sure.

Annie

On her back feet flat on the ground knees apart left arm across breast.

Liz

On her side facing the wall, left arm outstretched.

Kate

On her back left leg out straight right leg bent hands by her side facing up.

MJK

Actually similar to Annie


Yep all laid out ritualistically.
If you would read my posts, you would see I didn't say they ALL were laid out that way. The best thing you said was, "we can't ne 100% sure." Too bad you can't take to heart your own words.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-25-2015, 04:10 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,331
Default

Show me were I've ever said I'm 100% sure. What I keep saying is SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

By what you call reasoning I can claim that it was a 6 year old child who lost his mummy and everytime he found a woman who wasn't his mummy he spat the dummy and killed her. Would anyone buy that without some sort of evidence, hope not and that's what I keep asking for some evidence and you give us laying out, which MIGHT apply to two victims, you give us JUWES [if that was even how it was spelt as one police recorded it as JEWES] and can't prove it was a Masonic term, and you give us Walter thought he was JtR without a shred of proof that he actually did so or what his mental state was at the time.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-25-2015, 04:11 PM
Jeff Leahy Jeff Leahy is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East end-kent
Posts: 3,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by London Fog View Post
How does believing in the possibility of a certain theory go against common sense? When you consider the Masonic angle, common sense tells you it's possible.
No Common sense tells you it's unlikely, like all conspiracy theories..

However replace the word 'Conspiracy' with the words 'major "=ock up" and you might have something…

But the whole mason thing doesn't hold much water even though it must be accepted many of the top players were Masons…that was simply the nature of victorian social society..

You can't avoid the fact the victorian social world and class has an effect on what happened

Yours Jeff

Last edited by Jeff Leahy : 02-25-2015 at 04:13 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02-25-2015, 05:08 PM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
No Common sense tells you it's unlikely, like all conspiracy theories..

However
You can't avoid the fact the victorian social world and class has an effect on what happened

Yours Jeff
Actually Jeff, that really is a good, probably pertinent reflection on the case!

Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 02-25-2015, 05:37 PM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,329
Default

Really Jeff?

I thought you yourself were now proposing a conspiracy theory; in which Dr Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson conspired to conceal from their Scotland Yard colleagues that the Ripper had been positively identified by a witness?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-25-2015, 06:03 PM
Rosella Rosella is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,542
Default

There is no biological link between Joseph Sickert and the Duke of Clarence. Apart from Joseph being a known fantasist, his mother was conceived at a time when Prince Eddy was in Germany. Ergo, his mother cannot have been the Duke's daughter. And yes, the vast majority of pregnancies are of nine months duration.

A great portion of the Knight/Gorman tale was that Annie Crook, Prince Eddy's sweetheart was a Roman Catholic. She wasn't. Her daughter was christened as an Anglican. Whether Alice converted to Roman Catholicism later in life is neither here nor there, as it has nothing to do with Knight's story of Prince Eddy and Alice Crook.

Do you have proof that Alice was the daughter of the Duke of Clarence? Show it then!

Joseph was born the middle child of a marriage in which there is no evidence of infidelity at all.
There is no known provable link that Alice Gorman even knew the painter Walter Sickert.

If you have evidence that she did, then show it!

I have given you facts and evidence about Joseph, the Gormans and Prince Eddy's whereabouts. Instead of being so rude, why not produce something that shows that Joseph Gorman wasn't a liar and a fantasist.

Every theory has to have some link to reality, some factual base, or it is nothing but gossamer.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02-25-2015, 06:54 PM
MayBea MayBea is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 695
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by London Fog View Post
How does believing in the possibility of a certain theory go against common sense? When you consider the Masonic angle, common sense tells you it's possible. This doesn't go back to the 1970's, it was done in 1888.
It doesn't go against common sense, but it might go against someone's logic or 'scientific' reasoning which might be based on some sort of 'legality' or elitist thinking (e.g. burden of proof stuff where proof means a document or DNA-type evidence). That's just a good way to get rid of someone.

Knight's theory goes back to the 1970s. There have been other updated incarnations that are much better, which I think definitely link, at least Mary Jane Kelly, to the basic Knight theory, if not the whole Ripper story.

Last edited by MayBea : 02-25-2015 at 06:57 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-25-2015, 08:18 PM
Rosella Rosella is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,542
Default

I gave dates etc. which London Fog chose to ignore and rubbish. He didn't offer any contrasting evidence of his own. I don't happen to consider logic as elitist or a way to get 'rid' of London Fog or anyone else.

Conspiracy theories, whether involving Freemasons or not. are always popular, aren't they? If there are no perceptible links supporting any of it it's put down to the elite concerned getting rid of everything.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02-25-2015, 09:44 PM
London Fog London Fog is offline
*
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Show me were I've ever said I'm 100% sure. What I keep saying is SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

By what you call reasoning I can claim that it was a 6 year old child who lost his mummy and everytime he found a woman who wasn't his mummy he spat the dummy and killed her. Would anyone buy that without some sort of evidence, hope not and that's what I keep asking for some evidence and you give us laying out, which MIGHT apply to two victims, you give us JUWES [if that was even how it was spelt as one police recorded it as JEWES] and can't prove it was a Masonic term, and you give us Walter thought he was JtR without a shred of proof that he actually did so or what his mental state was at the time.
Well, for someone who's not sure, you don't have any problem telling me how wrong I am. You should be sure before saying such things. I, on the other hand, am stating I am not sure. I consider a certain theory to have strong possibilities. You are still saying show you the evidence? Are you actually reading these posts? Look, if you did believe in a 6 year old child theory, why would that threaten me?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 02-25-2015, 09:46 PM
London Fog London Fog is offline
*
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
No Common sense tells you it's unlikely, like all conspiracy theories..

However replace the word 'Conspiracy' with the words 'major "=ock up" and you might have something…

But the whole mason thing doesn't hold much water even though it must be accepted many of the top players were Masons…that was simply the nature of victorian social society..

You can't avoid the fact the victorian social world and class has an effect on what happened

Yours Jeff
Is there, or has there ever been such a thing as a conspiracy about anything? If so, then you have to admit the possibility. Common sense. I personally see a deeper possibility than that, but if you don't, that's okay.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.