|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3128
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 8:40 am: |       |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 230
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 4:51 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mrs Millar
(aka, Lindsey, Lyn, Lass, TW, etc...)
I guess you forget giving me Melvin Fairclough's The Ripper and the Royals, I thought you said you'd read it?, maybe not, I confess, neither have I, but anyway, it is related in that book that the first time this nonsense came to light was, as John S. has related via Thomas Stowell, CBE from an article he wrote for The Criminologist, 1970, he retracted it just before he died.
It's hard to keep track of which royal and why, over the years the story has changed and evolved like musical chairs, though perhaps not as entertaining.
Regards, Jon
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 6:38 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon,
Dr Thomas Stowell,CBE,FRCS,was a lecturer at the London School of Economics,chief medical officer to ICI,consulting surgeon with the emergency medical service,Honorary surgeon at the Victoria Infirmary.He was educated at St Pauls and St Thomas"s Hospital,wher he was a pupil and friend of Theodore Dyke Acland[1851-1931],who was the husband 0f Caroline Gull,the daughter of Sir William Gull.Acland was the editor of Gull"s published papers.Stowell knew them both intimately.
Dr Stowell made thre extraordinary claims:
a]that it was rumoured that Sir William Gull was the Whitechapel murderer
b]that he was seen in Whitechapel when the murders were committed
c]that Sir Wiliam Gull was the physician to whose house Lees[the medium]brought the police [who had called on his services].
Dr Stowell"s revelations caused headlines around the world.
In 1973-a couple of years after the revelations the BBCTV researchers were directed to Joseph Gorman Sickert who claimed to be the son of Prince Albert Victor.etc etc
However the world wide fuss and overnight celebrity seems to have killed him because he died on November 8th just 6 days after appearing on the BBC television news 24 hours and did not deny that it was Prince Albert Victor who was his suspect.
The day after appearing on TV however he wrote to the times saying He had never said his suspect was the Duke of Clarence[PAV] all he had ever said was that the ripper was a scion of a noble family.
So whatever his secret was it died with him.He left a folder behind entitled Jack the Ripper but his son who seems to have had enough of it all destroyed the folder and refused to speak about any of it.
Apparently there is evidence that the prince wasnt even in London or near London[Balmoral Scotland and Sandrigham Norfolk]when the murders took place.
Still maybe he never did mean the Duke of Clarence or Sir William Gull.To speak about the rumours about Gull is one thing to accuse him quite another,ditto The Duke of Clarence-----
maybe he was referring to someone who Gull suspected was the ripper/knew was the ripper.I think that may be possible.And I think too that Gull may have been wrong.I took this information from Paul Beggs new book,The Facts[JtR]
Best Natalie
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1290
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 7:28 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon!
I have no idea ..or wish to know your connection here.. but I have to say your post was a tad harsh to say the least!
I'm sure that the poster had something sensible to say here.... so perleaase dont put anyone down 'eh until you've heard 'em out!
Suzi
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 232
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 2:23 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzi, who are you talking about?
Natalie, thanks for the background, I remember being a butchers apprentice when that story first broke, I don't remember alot of the details but what you write sounds familiar, it's so long ago.
Regards, Jon
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 3:28 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, ok, looking back I see Suzi is trying to encourage Val to poste more, sorry Suzi I didn't realize you were so anxious.
Don't mind me, I just think the whole Royal Conspiracy prattle is sheer nonsense. I wasn't referring to anyone specific in any way, I play the ball not the player, in other words I don't criticize people, just theories, stories, beliefs, etc.
Call me whatever you want,.....so long as it's not before 5 in the morning
Hey, just ignore me, others do.
Now, if Val could poste more on Walter Dew, this I would be interested in, I guess Val doesn't know if Insp. Dew left any notes or other stories that were not part of his published memoirs?.
Val?..
Best Regards, Jon
(Message edited by Jon on September 17, 2004)
Ken Proctor
Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 11:10 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valarie.Valarie,Valarie, come on you people, Val is probably busy having tea with the Tooth Fairy,Santa and The Easter Bunny. And i thought Don Quixote was funny chasing windmills. "McGizmo"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hey Rookie----You were good" (Field Of Dreams)
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1295
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 3:34 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rookie!!!!!! you were S U P E R B! compared with all this!!! STOP bickering chaps and take Ken's advice!!! chill out.....and PLEASE VAL!!!! if you're not in an alley in Whitechapel somewhere!!!! P O S T !! we're ok really( or at least I am!!)[ish!]
Joking apart Val! IF you have something to say ...say it ..please ..because there are a lot of people here with a lot of ideas who will be only too keen to shoot you down in flames if this is a wind up (myself included!
So if you're up for it!!.. POST IT! I'm sure we'll all be behind you
The longer you prevaricate the longer it will take people to come to terms with where you're coming from!! So VAL post perleasssssssssssse!
(at least for those of us who are holding out for you here!!!)
Cheers
Suzior hiding out until we get summat!
go get im Giz!!!
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 5:54 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds alot to me like what Valerie is relating has more to do with her mothers imagination than the memoirs of Walter Dew.
I wonder if Valerie has ever read the autographed book she say's she has. Possibly it is the same as I have an extract from, "Memoirs of Ex-Chief Inspector Walter Dew, C.I.D. of Scotland Yard"
I have a reprint of the chapter entitled, The Hunt for Jack the Ripper, Dew provides a well balanced account of the conditions in Whitechapel, the officers involved, police activities and the theories. This is where we would read of any thoughts concerning Royal conspiracies, there's nothing because no such theories existed in those days. The entire concept of Royal involvement is a modern fabrication concieved via a tenuous link through Robert James Lees, in short it's worthless, and I would think that the memory of Ex-chief Inspector Walter Dew deserves better.
Regards, Jon
Lindsey Millar
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 6:33 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi John, Jon and Suzi,
Many thanks for the info, John and Jon.. yeh, I'd say that my mother most probably heard about the Royal conspiracy on the radio, or read about it in the papers. I still wish I'd asked her exactly when and where, though.
Yes, Jon, I do remember giving you the Ripper and the Royals book all those years ago.. I hadn't so much read it, as flipped through it, and found it all a bit far fetched I have to say.
Valerie, if you're still out there, please do post some more. As Suzi says, we're eager to hear more!
Thanks again, lads,
Lindsey (The woman with as many aliases, it seems, as husbands!)
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 12:21 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some mentioned Robert Lees!
Sorry carry on
Jenni
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 668
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 2:04 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello All
The following is taken from the "Real World of Sherlock Holmes: The True Crimes Investigated by Arthur Conan Doyle;" Costello- (1991), see pgs. 68-69
"That Robert James Lees had tracked down the Ripper was,...a current rumour in 1889. The rumour (that There was a connection between the Ripper and the Royals) made its way into print in 1895 in an American newspaper...Lee's role was revealed in detail in the 1930's...
The Crimes Club found much food for thought and speculation in the topic of London's "Autumn of Terror". Several members were closely connected with the case: G.R. Sims, Sir Melville McNaughton, Lord Aberconway, Major Arthur Griffiths, Arthur Diosy, and even a relative of one of the putative suspects, THE DUKE OF KENT (Emphasis Mine) ...In the early days of the club a certain member of the peerage wished to join. He offered to read a paper on the Whitechapel Murders... J.B. Atlay drafted a letter for the Honorary Secretary to send in his own name: Dear-----, I am desired to by the committee to thank you very much for your kind offer to read a paper on the Whitechapel Murders, but you will appreciate the reason we cannot accept it when I tell you that the Whitechapel Murderer happens to be a very near and dear relative of one of our most popular members..."
The book also lists Prince Eddy as one of a number of candidates for the title of JTR as expressed by Doyle himself.(see pg.66)
I will present this only for the purpose of demonstrating that knowledgeable figures were aware that the theory that JTR MAY have had a connection to Royalty that can be dated to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
I don't think it is necessary to address the letter sent to Scotland Yard in 1889 specifically mentioning Lee's, since there is speculation that the word Lee's may not be actually what the writer penned. Regardless of the fact that the letter makes no sense if you replace the word Lee's from the context of the note.
All THe Best
Gary
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 243
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 3:15 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary.
It is most unfortunate that Melvin Harris has passed away, but least we know he revealed that the Chicago-Tribune story hinting at the Ripper being an unnamed West-End Doctor (not Royalty) was neither a theory, nor a rumor, but only an elaborate hoax.
It was only Stowell, in 1970, who suggested the west-end doctor was Gull.
Thanks for the background though.
Regards, Jon
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 669
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 3:59 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Jon
Your welcome for the background. If you choose to believe the story originated with Stowell with tenuous earlier links then so be it: You can certainly elect to disregard anything which does not jibe with your view of the facts. You may disregard the 1895 article, but you are missing the point of my post. Sources appear to exist which date the story to the late 18th or early 19th century. If you want to debate that you can contact your local spiritualist society and call forth the spirits of the 'Crime Club'.
You are certainly not going to draw me into a pointless discussion regarding the merits of the "Gullible" theory.
All The Best
Gary
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 670
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 4:06 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. If you get in touch with the 'Crime Club', have them arrange to restore any documents they may have purged from the official Ripper files.
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1158
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 5:52 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Gary,Possibly there was some mix up between Druitt and Clarence.Maybe the police were told "at the time" of a description/witness statement that matched both because they looked alike.Maybe too this accounts for the strange behaviour of Abberline when he heard Hutchinson"s description.
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 8:39 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary, you are mixing apples and oranges.
What we read of in 1888/9 is Lees harasing the police with some drivel about his psychic impressions concerning the murderer. Every Tom, Dick & Harry had some thoughts and opinions on the matter, the police called him a fool and a lunatic - end of story.
In 1895 someone concocted a story, determined to be fictional after all the key names & sources had been investigated, and published it in the Chicago-Tribune. Nothing stood up to research and no-one connected with the Royal family was even remotely identified. The only named individual which I recall was a Dr Howard, a Dr Benjamin Howard furiously denied the entire story.
But,...what you choose to believe is your business, personally I'll side with the documented findings anyday.
Don't be too concerned, this Royal Conspiracy prattle has suckered in people from all walks of life. And, what is more, some who should know better have been at pains to force a link between Stowell's phantasy and the tom-foolery of Lees and his psychic impressions.
Regards, Jon
Quote:
(Melvin Harris)...showed beyond doubt that the Royal involvement is the result of fantasies, hoaxes and deliberate lies. I also demonstrated that this Royal aspect has no roots in the last century, indeed this whole phase of distortion only begins in the 1960's}
(M. Harris, 1995)
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 5:16 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jon,I must admit I am not as familiar with the work of Melvyn Harris as I would like to be.However even the late Mr Harris may have been anxious to promote his own theory something which seems to bring on a need to rubbish other theories.
As far as I am concerned these rumours have gone on for a long time.They seem to have included a number of eminent people who knew each other eg THe Duke of Clarence, JK Stephen[his tutor and friend who also wrote some poems indicating his loathing of women and who was later confined to a lunatic asylum]Walter Sickert and Randolph Churchill and Sir William Gull.Now I agree that its unlikely that any of these was either the ripper or knew who he was.The fact remains that the rumours do seem to have persisted as Gary says since the late 19th century not just since the 1970"s.So I want to know why they have this reputation-- apart from those sensation seekers wanting to cause a stir.My guess is that some or all of them went "slumming".That they may have been seen in Whitechapel around the time of the murders and that locals may have muddled these toffs and descriptions of them up[including possibly the description of Machnaghten"s prime suspect "Druitt"].Just some thoughts about the reasons for all the gossip over such a long time.
Natalie
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:01 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Natalie.
Yes I understand what you say, I was of the same opinion too for the longest time.
What is not always easy to do is to separate the modern fictionalizing from the 19th century accounts.
We do know that Lees was going to police to offer his help, but there are no records detailing what that help was, I suppose it is not unreasonable to suppose it was of a spiritual nature because he had a reputation as a medium.
But, exactly what conversation transpired between Lees and the police was not, as far as I know documented, and thats where the story ends.
Several years later (1895) The Whitechapel Club placed a story in the Chicago-Herald (not Tribune) and makes suggestions that an eminent West-end doctor was involved in the Whitechapel crimes. The complete article is provided by Harris in his 'The Bloody Truth', as you can read for yourself, contrary to what Gary was suggesting, there is no accusation of Royal involvement in this article.
This Chicago-Herald story is where the medium Lees relates an account of following a man on a public transport vehicle to a West-end address, this should not be seen as evidence of any one particular doctors involvement, if anything it only emphasises what we already know, and that is that rumors abounded that some eminent doctor was the Ripper. This is a theory which has been proposed practically from day one, certainly following the murder of Annie Chapman.
Only in the late 1960's was the suggestion made that this eminent doctor may have been Gull, the Queens physician, and this by Stowell in his Criminologist article. This was the start of the Royal Conspiracy hypothesis, but you see it is comprised of several unrelated elements, firstly Lees offer of help to police (1888/9), secondly the fictional story, created by 'The Whitechapel Club' of Chicago (1895), who were apparently known for perpetrating hoaxes, and Stowell, who had collaborated with Nigel Morland to bring all those elements together in one all encompasing article (1969).
It became the first major Ripper hoax, the Diary being the second.
As for Melvin Harris, this dissemination of the Royal Hypothesis has nothing to do with his D'Onston theory, which I do not subscribe to anyway. So long a Harris provides a paper trail, and most hoaxes have one, then we can read for ourselves how this fantasy evolved.
By all means, don't take my word for it, pick up a copy of Harris's 'The Bloody Truth' and read for yourself, this is a discussion group, thats what we are here for, to discuss theories among other things, so when you've read what he uncovered give us your take on it.
Forget about D'Onston, he has nothing to do with this research, this is purely a step by step account of how the Royal involvement has evolved.
Best Regards, Jon
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:33 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
sorry I didn't mean to start a Lees conversation,
the Chicago artilce is online here
http://www.rjlees.co.uk
Cheers
Jenni
ps that was a good plug no?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 671
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 11:02 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jon
I thought I made it clear that I not believe the substance of the story, only that the rumour has been around a long time. I do not know of anyone who has studied the case who seriously believes the Royal Involvement theory. I believe I mentioned I was not an adherent of the Gulllible theory. You should really stop putting words in peoples mouths and read into the meaning of what they post. What you are doing with my comments borders on outright distortion and disengenouness.
As you indicate Melvyn Harris also proved to his own satisfaction that Stevenson was the Ripper and if this is an example of his deductive and reasoning powers than I will keep my copy of "The Bloody Truth" on my bookshelf.
It seems strange that you put so much credence in the work of a man you whose ultimate solution you eschew. How could he be right about so much and come up with such an unconvincing solution.
Natalie-Eddy and Druitt were two people who looked remarkably similar. Eddy was known to frequent the East End when he paid his regular visits to the club on Cleveland St. The scenario you suggest is mentioned as a possibility in the book Prince Eddy And The Homosexual Underworld; Aronson (1994) The kook devotes about half of its discussion to the Jack The Ripper Theory and concludes, quite correctly IMHO, that there was no connection between Clarence and JTR.
All The Best
Gary
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 289
Registered: 4-2004
Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 12:19 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure Pub Talk is the place for serious conversations... The idea that rumors of royal involvement in the Ripper case preceded the current commonly believed dates deserves a spot in the normal threads. That is, if you want an actual debate with supporting evidence.
If you want, Gary, you can start with explaining what you mean when you claim that the "Lees" letter doesn't make sense if the word isn't Lees but "tecs". Seems to me it makes no sense at all as Lees and makes perfect sense as tecs. That's confirmed period slang for "detectives" which makes a lot more sense to me than "all your Lees".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 246
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 12:32 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....getting back to the purpose of the thread.
Walter Dew does provide some opinions and insights into his thoughts on the person and character of Jack the Ripper. Following the discovery of the chalked 'Juwes' message he says:
"..murderers do foolish things, I know, but such an action does not fit into the mental picture I have formed of the character of Jack the Ripper"
Dew does not think the message was the work of the killer. These following quotes are from his memoirs..
"Someone, somewhere, shared Jack the Ripper's guilty secret. Of this I am tolerably certain.
The man lived somewhere. Each time there was a murder he must have returned home in the early hours of the morning. His clothing must have been bespattered with blood." p.122.
"...is it not feasible that there was something about him which placed him above suspicion?.
Let us assume for a moment he was a man of prominence and good repute locally. Against such a man, in the absence of direct evidence, it is too much to expect that local police officers would hold such a terrible suspicion.
And, assuming this to be the case, the man's amazing immunity can be the more readily explained. The same qualities which silenced the suspicions of his women victims would keep him right with the police officers who knew and respected him.
I am not putting this forward as anything more than a reasonable deduction from the facts as they are known. It is merely one of the many possibilities, though, I must say, far more likely than some of the wild theories that have been advanced." pp.132/3
" I have already referred briefly to the theory held in some quarters that the Ripper might have been a man so well known to the police, either because of his profession or his standing locally, that his immunity even from suspicion was assured.
This is a very plausible explanation - one of the most plausible of all - until one sets out to analyze it.
The big point which this suggestion overlooks is that hundreds of policemen of all ranks had been drafted to the East End from all parts of London. Local celebrities cut no ice with them, and would have been arrested just as promptly as anyone else had their actions been at all suspicious.
Constables going on duty had very definite instructions. They were told to pull up and search any man whose actions raised the slightest doubt in their minds, and, if the answer given were not satisfactory, to bring such men to the police station while enquiries about them were made." p.149
[following the murder of Mary Kelly..]
" I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Mary Kelly's room that night and was her killer. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man......the Miller's Court murder made it more obvious than ever that the murderer was being shielded. This time, as I have indicated, he must have returned to his home or his lodgings with the evidences of his handiwork still upon him" p. 155
"...one of the strongest inferences to be deduced from the crimes was that the man we were hunting was probably a sexual maniac. This angle of investigation was pursued relentlessly. Inquiries were made at asylums all over the country, including the Criminal Lunatic Asylum at Broadmoor, with the object of discovering whether a homicidal lunatic had been released as cured about the time the Ripper crimes commenced. No useful evidence was obtained." p.156
"..one big question remains to be asked, but, I am afraid, not to be answered.
Who was Jack the Ripper?
I was closely associated with most of the murders. Yet I hesitate to express a definite opinion as to who or what the man may have been.
He may have been a doctor. He may have been a medical student. He may have been a foreigner. He may have been a slaughterman, and so on.
Such speculation is little more than childish, for there is no evidence to support one view any more than another.
But this, I think, can safely be said. The man at times must have been quite mad. There can be no other explanation of those wicked mutilations. It may have been sex mania, blood lust, or some other form of insanity, but madness there certainly was. Yet it is quite possible that Jack the Ripper was quite sane at all other times.....The late Dr. Forbes Winslow, an authority on mental diseases, gave it as his view that by the morning the frenzy of insanity having passed, Jack the Ripper might not have been able to remember what he had done.
With all due respect to the late doctor, I cannot agree with him. There is a big stumbling block to the acceptance of his theory. It is that the man who committed the Whitechapel murders had with him when he met his victims the weapon - and no ordinary weapon - with which the deeds were done. This surely suggests premeditation and indicates when he set out on his evil excursions it was with deliberate intent." pp.161/2
"....I cannot, however, refrain from asking why so many people, even to this day, cling to the opinion that the murderer must have been a doctor or a medical student.
I never thought he was.
There are many people besides doctors expert in the use of a knife. Why not a butcher, or a slaughterman, or even a proprietor of an East End stall?.
Not even the rudiments of surgical skill were needed to cause the mutilations I saw."
p.162
So, readers can likley see that the Ex-Chief Inspector Walter Dew was not given over to fancifull theories but on the contrary presents reasonably sober down-to-earth opinions on his thoughts about the Whitechapel murderer.
Regards, Jon
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 672
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 2:01 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Dan
I agree with your post. This discussion does not belong here.
All The Best
Gary
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1161
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 3:06 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if its possible to move these posts to a thread on "Dr Stowell"s Allegations" or some such title?I have found some of Jon and Gary"s posts really helpful and wish they could be kept for reference.
Natalie
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1305
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 8:54 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets move this thread chaps!!!
Maybe under Gen Disc as Mr Harris and Mr Dew or something...less tacky maybe!
Cheers
Suzi
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 10:37 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Whilst the earliest source for the emergence of the Royal connection/conspiracy theory is Dr. Stowell, there are two earlier references that spring to mind, although it must be stressed that neither of these can be fully corroborated and we only have someone’s word of mouth.
Firstly there is the story of Florence Pash, who told a similar story to Joseph Sickert, that Annie Crook had married Prince Eddy etc. This apparently was told to the author’s mother, Violet Overton Fuller in 1948. (Sickert and the Ripper Crimes, by Jean Overton Fuller, Mandrake, Oxford 1990).
An even earlier reference is that of Freda Thompson of Hastings, who was told as early as 1915 that the Duke of Clarence was in some way connected to Jack The Ripper. Part of her story came from her great grandfather, Sam Lythal, a City of London detective sergeant when the murders happened. He told Freda’s father that it was known at the time that the Duke of Clarence met a working prostitute, married her and set her up in a house in Fitzroy Square off Tottenham Court Road. On the morning of Catherine Eddowes’s murder Sergeant Lythal was sent to Mitre Square at six o clock. He claimed that when he went into the square he saw three men whom he knew belonged to the Royal Household. (The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper, by Maxim Jakubowski and Nathan Brand).
Of Conspiracy, the earliest reference I know of can be found in The Jack the Ripper A-Z (page 189) “On 12 Oct 88, Warren wrote: ‘As Mr Mathews is aware I have for some time past been inclined to the idea that the [murders] having been done by a secret society is the only logical solution to the question”.
Just some food for thought
John Savage
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 247
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 1:28 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John.
What you describe is likely another case of false attribution.
In order to add credence to any tale the teller can quite often add that "it came from my uncle, and he was a Detective", etc.
This is what I believe is the case with Val and her story, her mother, or someone, has attempted to add credence to their tale by suggestion that it came from Walter Dew.
False attribution can rarely be proven to be so, and it will always add a little spice to the tale.
I think that is the likely explanation for the two references you provided.
Your caution is well advised.
regards, Jon
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1309
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 3:07 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messers Savage and Smythe
This HAS to moved to another thread ..Why don't you ask Stephen to do this (and tell us all where it is!!) before we all miss these pearls when they go up the tubes at the top of the page!!!.
WHEN ..I ever have anything of any relevance to say.. I make sure it stays on the boards because as Nats said.. its useful to refer back to should you need to!
Cheers
Suzi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"ONLY YOU CAN MAKE YOU FEEL INFERIOR"
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 8:31 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Suzi,
If I knew how to move all this to another thread, I would do so.
You see not only do I feel inferior, I am inferior (especially when it comes to computers).
Best Regards
John Savage
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1313
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 6:58 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi John!
Nor do I!!! (he!he!) Drop an email to Spry hes been very helpful to me in the past with my computer illiteracy and am sure will help out here!
Cheers
Suzi
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 673
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 2:04 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi AlL
Yes -IMHO move the thread. My computer has crashed again, but I can access the internet while working.
All The Best
Gary
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 674
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 2:40 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. So far I have traced the origins of the Lee's/Royal involvement theory in print back irrefutably to 1937.
Lee's was named as a medium with Royal patronage
who dreamed the murders. (See pg. 60) Jack The Ripper or When London Walked in Terror, Edwin T. Woodhall (1937) (unupdated)
We are know reaching back to my belief as evidenced by the Crime Club's comments, that the story was making the rounds at very least, in the early years of this century. I will Check my copy of Leonard Matter's book to see if the story can be dated to the 1920's. (the book has no index)
All The Best
Gary
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 265
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 7:02 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary.
The story related by Woodhall is the 1895 story we have already mentioned.
Woodhall says he got it from "one of the most powerful daily national newspapers in Great Britain". p. 60
"...until he reached a street in the West End of London"
"....(the address) was the residence of a very famous London physician."
It was the very same story retold in the press.
However, Woodhall reports that the body of this 'very famous' London physician was layed to rest in a London cemetery. The physician "whose death, at an early age, was mourned by London and the medical world".
Clearly, Gull did not die at an 'early age'.
The suggestion it was Gull only came via Stowell.
No connection to the Royal family, - none.
Regards, Jon
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 266
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 7:26 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S.
Matters proposes Dr Herbert Stanley, and also places him in the West End. Portman Square to be exact, in London's West End.
Just another variation on the popular 'West End doctor' hypothesis.
Regards, Jon
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 6:41 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This thread must be moved Stephen!!!!!
Sorry but cant bear to see it going up the tubes here!
Suzi
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 675
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 7:24 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jon
The story Woodhall mentions was published upon Lees death by way of an article which was published in the Daily Express on the 7th, 9th and 10th of March 1931. "The story of how Lees tracked down Jack the Ripper received wide publicity after his death and appeared in the Daily Express of 7,9 and 10 March 1931, under the headline CLAIRVOYANT WHO TRACKED DOWN JACK THE RIPPER" Jack The Ripper: Letters From Hell: (pg 145) Evans and Skinner (2001) emphasis in the original
Lees was unquestionably the person involved, regardless of any errors in the story. You will find that the mention of royal patronage existed in the story and it appears that almost all of the details given by Woodhall have been attributed to Gull.
It appears that word of mouth kept the story alive for many years prior to 1931. Although this is just speculation. According to Evans and Skinner, an extensive search of the newspapers ages the date of the story in newspaper print to 1931.
All The Best
Gary
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 285
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:34 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Gary, you write:
"You will find that the mention of royal patronage existed in the story ..."
Possibly we are getting hung up on what you think Royal Patronage actually is.
Trust me, it has nothing to do with clandestine meetings with the Royal family.
http://gouk.about.com/cs/royalartists/
http://www.british-towns.net/britain/patronage.htm
http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/list_of_uk_place_names_with_royal_patronage.html
I'm not trying to be presumptious here, but artists, colleges & even towns are granted Royal Patronage, I'm sorry but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
"...and it appears that almost all of the details given by Woodhall have been attributed to Gull."
By who?
You mean Gull was committed to an asylum as Thomas Mason?, died at a young age and was buried at Kensal Green?
Are you kidding?
Regards, Jon
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 676
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:40 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jon
As to Lees patronage."The clairvoyant enjoyed royal patronage, and was received more than once at Balmoral and Buckingham Palace by the late Queen Victoria" pg 60 What confusion do you see in the use of the word when read in context?
As to Gull"... he was a physician of the highest standing who lived in a select part of the West End." Pg. 60-61 The masonic nonsense is not relevant to the point that the physician was Gull.
I really think we are straining at gnats here. The Royal theory did not originate shortly before the revelations of 1970. It originated in print for the first time in March 1931 in a series of articles in the newspaper which were printed along with Lees' obituary. If I can locate an earlier primary source document, I will be happy to post what I find.
The story existed during the lifetime of Walter Dew and it is possible that Dew and the family could have heard it and passed it on. However, I am disinclined to the idea that Dew took the story to be the truth.
All The Best
Gary
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 3:49 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
The story of Lees involvement with the queen was in ciculation in spiritualist circles for a long time. Thus far I have not been able to locate it in any historical fact.
Jenni
http://www.rjlees.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 3:01 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary.
Once again, being granted Royal Patronage does not mean you are privvey to Royal secrets, it does not mean you act on behalf of the Royal family, and it does not mean you are called upon to help in clandestine operations.
Receiving Royal Patronage has nothing to do with collaborating with, or on behalf of, the Royal family. Hundreds of persons were received by Queen Victoria, with or without Royal Patronage.
What it does mean, among other things is, that you are acknowledged by the crown to excell in your field of choice, be it technology or the arts. Numerous Kings, Queens & Presidents call upon clairvoyants, remember the Nancy Reagan fiasco?.
We are not talking about a connection between Lees and the crown, we are talking about a connection between Jack the Ripper and the crown.
Major difference.
And as for the West End physician, I assumed you knew, but anyway, the West End was the resort of prominent physicians & doctors alike. Saying you found a doctor in the West End is rather like saying you found a prostitute in Whitechapel.
Harley St. Westminster (West End), to name one location, was the abode of medical men, I have already mentioned Portland Sq., (actually, I think Portland Place was intended), but that is also in the West End, (actually 3 places by that name in London).
What makes you so sure Gull was intended among all the hundreds of doctors & Physicians who inhabited the West End?.
The story talk of a physician who died young, Gull was old. The story relates that he was buried at Kensal Green in London, Gull was buried at Thorpe-le-Soken in Essex.
Besides, from what I understand, and I can be corrected on this if it is inaccurate, but Gull's death certificate mentions "Cerebral Haemorrhage Hemiplegia, 1st attack Oct. 10, 1887" - thats when he retired from service.
So he wasn't even 'on-the-job' by the time of the Ripper murders, the second attack killed him, "Jan 27, 1890".
I can't understand why you cannot see how futile this line of enquiry is. We have hundreds of people with Royal Patronage and hundreds of doctors in the West End.
A West End doctor was the focus of contemporary rumor, but there was never a name mentioned, remember the story of PC Spicer finding a doctor & prostitute in Heneage Court?, another West End doctor if I am not mistaken.
Best Regards, Jon
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1378
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 5:34 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon
Looks like were all still here tho!!!!!!
Jen
Yes there are mentions of a spritualist connection with Victoria but oddly these things have sort of disappeared into the royal ether as with so many other things!
suzi
Add Your Message Here
Post: -Color- Black Red Green Blue Yellow Purple Orange Cyan Gray White -Font- Arial Courier Symbol Times Verdana -Size- Smallest (-2) Small (-1) Normal Large (+1) Largest (+2)
Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:
Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook CD-Rom, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The CD-Rom works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook CD- Rom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support this site | Link to us | Privacy Policy | Copyright © Stephen P. Ryder & Johnno, 1996-2003 Thomas Schachner
This has to be the longest message I've ever posted. Hope it's OK with Stephen.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 696
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
Thanks Robert for all the time and trouble to transcribe this information.
Just a note that my response to Jon's last post can be found on Pub Talk-Dew.
All The Best
Gary
(Message edited by Garyw on October 20, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3269
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 3:51 am: | |
Gary, I didn't transcribe it - just copied and pasted. Blimey, that would have been a lot to transcribe. 
Robert |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
