|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 6:34 am: |       |
Did a marriage between Prince Albert Victor and Annie Elizabeth Crook actually happen.At least one author believes so,but his claims have met with little support.
It would indeed be seemingly impossible to prove such a happening,but is Walter and Joseph Sickert the only persons to have claimed that such an event did take place.It may appear so,but what of the relations of Annie Elizabeth.
She is said to be of Scottish descent,but previous to her coming to London,she lived with her family in the West Midlands of England.What of parents,brothers and sisters,and those more distant members that make up a family?.
Would they have been provided with information from Annie herself.Would a daughter not have confided such a momentous occasion to very close family.Mother and father,brothers or sisters,and they in turn passed on to other family members?.
Are there persons alive today who speak of this royal connection.Well yes,there are,and I know these people.No they do not shout it aloud,they do not even claim to be able to prove a marriage took place,but there is a profound belief among the few remaining elderly family members,that the connection to royalty,was through Annie Elizabeth. |
WENDY MARIANNE
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BELIEVE THAT A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM SERIAL MURDERS. MY POINT IS THAT THEY WOULD BE JUST AS CAPABLE OF IT, AS ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE...AND WHY WOULD THE PRINCE BE A SUSPECT IN THE FIRST PLACE...UNLESS SOMEONE HAD GOOD REASON TO SUSPECT HE WASNT ALL HE APPEARED TO BE....AND AS FOR HIM BEING ABSENT FROM THE MURDER AREAS AT CERTAIN TIMES....ER...HELLO...OF ALL PEOPLE, EDDY WOULD BE ABLE TO SEND A DECOY OR SOMEONE ELSE TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN DUTIES, IF HE WANTED TO...HE WAS IN A POSITION TO DO SO...IF IT MEANT HIM BEING ABLE TO CARRY ON KILLING IN WHITECHAPEL AND THEREABOUTS.}}} |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 4:12 pm: | |
Whatho Wendy,
A lot of people have been accused of being the Ripper and using your logic, there must have been a good reason for them being named. Well perhaps they were all the Ripper and travelled from murder site to murder site in a horse drawn omnibus.
Of course not! Famous names are picked at near random to make a senational story. When one reads the books, as I have, about the Royal angles, one soon realises they are utter bunkum. Prince Eddy was no more the Ripper than Lewis Carroll or Dr Barnardo.
Cheers, Mark |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 347
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 6:40 pm: | |
I am doing some work on the Crooks at the moment - I have found the birth index listing for Alice Margaret in the Apr-Jul quarter of 1885 (see below) but am still tracing Annie Elizabeth.
Anything else I find I will of course post
Chris
 |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 7:53 pm: | |
Harry Mann
You say that there are people alive today who speak of the Royal connection to JTR.
I, and I am sure many others would be very interested to hear their story.
More details please?
Regards,
John Savage |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 5:58 am: | |
John,
If you would leave your email address on the boards,I will certainly pass you what information I have.
Perhaps Chris Scott will ultimately find the connection to the persons I know of.That would be interesting.
I believe it is only bad research,or lack of interest in the subject matter,that has failed to uncover Annie Elizabeth's family descendents.
Harry Mann.
|
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 6:11 pm: | |
Harry,
Please mail me at johnsavage@hull24.com
Regards,
John Savage |
jeroen paalman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 3:36 am: | |
can you also e-mail me harry my adres is:
jacktheripper83@hotmail.com |
jeroen paalman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 3:37 am: | |
can you also e-mail me harry my adres is:
jacktheripper83@hotmail.com |
dan higgins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 10:42 am: | |
henry mann could you please email me at ajh6carters@aol.com to tell me more about the royal famlily descendents of the crook line. |
Merrideth Sykes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 6:28 pm: | |
Is it true that Prince Albert contracted Syphillis from a prostitute? If so I can see his family trying to cover it up and someone taking it upon themselves to kill the prostitutes or any for that matter to rectify the situation. |
louise massie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 8:16 pm: | |
I think that the theory about eddie and the masons is the most likely, every1 knows that the masons have members of all walks of life from Royalty, to police, lawyers, doctors, to seamen, offshore workers, garage employees. And is so highly secretive, no1 ever actually speaks out about it. Sir william probably did carry out the attacks, not really sure what to believe about eddie's part in it, but something is very amiss and the whole the was covered up to protect our royal family. |
lid5150
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 6:37 pm: | |
Prince Eddy had Syphillis. Thus, he could not have fathered Alice. She would have been born blind from the disease. However that does not disclose the fact that he was quite possibly sleeping with Annie Crook, as was Sickert, who was possibly the father of Alice. The Prince was known to be homosexual, and thus could have been involved with Sickert at one time as they were frequently together in Sickerts studios. The studio was located above the shop where Annie Crook and Mary Kelly worked. Mary Kelly quite possibly wet nursed Alice as she has been stated to be her nanny. When Mary Kelly's body was found she had both breasts and her face removed(hide lactation and identification). Only the Prince and Sickert would know to remove the such evidence thus saving her and the child. Annie Crook was sacrificed to save the child. Mary Kelly left the child Alice with nuns and went back to Ireland. Thus Jane Doe found in her stead. Furthermore,many have stated that Mary Kelly bore a similarity to Prince Eddys mother, which may have befriended the Prince to Mary. Whatever the reason, none of the victims had been mutilated to such a degree of unidentifiability as Mary Kelly. Posing the question, Was the victim Mary Kelly? I agree that Sir Gull and Lord Salisbury, along with 1 possibly 2 initiates performing the murders. The perps had to be men of means. They were educated, had money and were FREEMASONS. Thus the only people with the funds for coaches and finery were the ROYAL FAMILY and the FREEMASONS. some1 has got to give me some feedback on this, any opinion, for or against would be way cool. |
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
The thing about Jack the Ripper is that he killed his victims in such a brutal way that he took london by suprise and didn't give the police time to recover. I believe that he could very well have been Sir William Gull primarily because he had one of the biggest motives to kill them. ritual and to cover up the many discressions that dear Prince Edward had. Also, the head of police Sir Charles Warren could have had alot to do with covering up for Gull. Oh, and to lid 5150, it is possible that he fathered the child but contracted syphillis later and possible the day after Annie Crook was pregnant. You said so yourself that he was... premiscuous. I don't know, but it is possible. Please if you would like, respond. My belief is that it was the Freemasons and that Gull was the Ripper. |
JadedGypsy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 6:26 pm: | |
As far as Prince Edward having wed "beneath his station" and in secret, well, who knows?? He very well could have, why not? He was Royalty, he could do whatever he wanted to, at least for awhile, until the rest of the royal family found out about it. Nobody ELSE would have refused him, would they?? As far as him being capable of murder..or the REST of the royal family, and their loyal toadies, well, why not?? They could do just about whatever they wanted to, couldn't they? After all, murder isn't exactly limited to the "lower classes", as well as mental illness isn't limited to "lower classes". With all the inbreeding of the royals, why WOULDN'T Prince Edward be crazy enough to turn into a serial killer, with or without Syphillis?? Besides, even if Prince Edward didn't commit the murders himself, it doesn't mean he wasn't involved, why would he have to get HIS hands dirty, with so many people around to do his and his family's bidding? I don't know who did it, anymore than anyone else does, but I think that if the prince was involved, he had plenty of help.}}}} |
sprinklesonacake
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 11:25 pm: | |
sounds to me like you folks have all been influenced by the 2001 Johnny Depp movie "from Hell!" after reviewing all the research available to me, i believe that the Sir William Gull and the freemasons theory is the most plausible, and that "From Hell" is right- Mary Kelly was not the fifth victim of the Ripper, that mutilated body was a Jane Doe. |
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 8:15 pm: | |
Harry Mann please email me with your info that you mentioned: shelleywiltshire@blueyonder.co.uk.
Also if the Prince of Wales was known to be Homosexual, what was he doing with women? Homosexuals won't go near a woman sexually. Many Homosexual's covered up their homosexuality, ie, by marrying someone to prove to the outside world they were heterosexual , but what would a Prince who was only to Marry nobility (or at least a title of Lady) at the approval of the Royals, be marrying a commoner in secret for? |
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 8:33 pm: | |
bye the way, homosexuality was a criminal offence in the period. Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for the offence, if memory serves a collegue of 'Littlechild' actually arrested him in a male brothel. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 550
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
As to the Crook marriage, the theory seems to be that the scandalous nature of such an alleged marriage was due to Anne's being Catholic. It should be remembered that the Queen did at one time reluctantly give her consent to Eddy marrying a Catholic (Helene, a countess from France) conditional on her becoming Anglican. The marriage did not occur as the Pope talked her out of converting.
Andy S.
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 553
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
I should add that because Eddy was not Heir Apparent, but rather Heir Presumptive to the Throne, the Queen's permission was technically not needed (in those days). It was, however, sought and reluctantly granted.
Andy S.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 196
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 1:48 am: | |
Good point Andrew.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought research has shown that the Crook family wasn't even Catholic.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 3:26 am: | |
Hi Andy
Just to pick up a couple of points:
1) Eddie was not Heir Presumptive at the time of the murders or up to the time of his death. Although there is an order of succession which shows the ranking in line to the throne, there is only ever one heir to the throne at any one time, and that heir is either apparent (if no subsequent birth can displace him from that position) or presumptive (if a later birth could displace her from the succession.) At the time of the murders and Eddie's death the only heir was his father, Edward, Prince of Wales who was heir apparent.
2) The Royal Marriages Act (1772) makes no distinction between an heir apparent or heir presumptive with regard to the Monarch's permission being needed. The Act said that all royal marriages in future must have the king's specific consent. It gave the monarch the power to veto all royal marriages until the person concerned was 25 years old and had given a year's notice to the Privy Council. This piece of legislation is still on the Statute Books. The passage from the Act reads as follows:
That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, signified under the great seal, and declared in council, (which consent, to preserve the memory thereof is hereby directed to be set out in the licence and register of marriage, and to be entered in the books of the privy council); and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
Hope this helps
Chris
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:58 am: | |
Hi Dan,
I don't think the religion of the Crook family has ever been proven one way or another. I did some research some time ago into Annie's parents, William and Sarah, and found that he was born at Eton, bucks. and baptised October 24th 1830. I do not have my notes available at the moment, but I think he also married whilst at Eton. However from the record of baptism it should be possible to ascertain his religion.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
Hi all,
Dan, John, some time ago on the old boards, someone claimed to have located Annie Crook's marriage certificate. Her religion was shown as Church of England.
I'll dig around on the Casebook CD over the next couple of days, see if I can find that post.
Best to all,
Jim |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Hi Jim,
It would be very iteresting to know if Annie did marry during her life, I hope you will be able to find the info, and look forward to your post.
Best Regards
John Savage |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 555
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
Chris,
I thank you for clearing up these issues for me. I defer to your superior knowledge of things Royal! I had second thoughts about my post because I was not too sure of my terminology. Maybe heir presumptive is not the right term then (and your explanation makes perfect sense). But I'm sure Eddy was referred to as the "heir ... (something)". What would be the appropriate term for the heir apparent's eldest son, other than "second-in-line to the Throne?" Of course, this is something we don't deal with directly in America. All we need to remember is: President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and who knows where the succession goes from there!? Actually, I am an admirer of the British Royal Family in spite of some of their obvious shortcomings.
But anyway, my original point stands, i.e. the Queen did grant permission for Eddy to marry a Catholic conditional upon her becoming Anglican.
Andy S. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 556
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
Actually, after Speaker of the House I think the succession goes to the president pro tempore of the Senate and then to the members of the Cabinet in their order of appointment. If so, this means that until his retirement two years ago, Strom Thurmond at age 100 was third in succession to the Presidency of the United States. No heirs, presumptive or apparent, here!
Andy S. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1305
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Hi Andy
I suspect that a vague term such as "heir to the throne" was used about Eddie which, although technically and constitutionally inaccurate, does make sense in an everyday sort of way in the sense of "the man who one day will be king".
the same applies today. Charles is heir apparent - William has no official title referring to his position in the order of succession. But I have certainly seen him referred to in the press as "heir to the throne".
The point about Hélene certainly makes sense - the Marriages Act disbars any Catholic heir to the throne or any heir marrying a Catholic. This still applies. One member of the present Royal Family married a Catholic and in order to do so had to renounce his rights in the order of succession.
All the best
Chris
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 557
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:34 pm: | |
Just to indicate where it was that I found Eddy referred to as "Heir Presumptive," the following statement appears on p. 223 of Harrison's Clarence, "Eddy was not the Heir to the Throne. He was no more than the Heir Presumptive to his father, who was the Heir Apparent. There was nothing in the Act of Settlement which would have forbidden Eddy to marry Helene even though she had stayed a Roman Catholic, though, before Eddy's eventual coronation, she would have needed to be confirmed in the Anglican faith." (emphasis mine). Harrison goes on to say that the marriage would have had to have to consent of both Houses of Parliament. Interestingly, no mention of the Royal Marriages Act (which is why I assumed it came later, though I stand corrected). Perhaps Harrison didn't get his facts straight.
Thanks again for the clarification, Chris.
Andy S. |
netleyfairytale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 10:34 pm: | |
Wild conspiracy theories about the Royal family and Sir William Gull. Sounds interesting and certainly makes things juicy, but not based in any fact whatsoever. I suppose we all like to believe in fairy tales. I thought From Hell was a fantastic fictional movie. Could Hollywood make just an interesting story about Chapman or Sickert? I don't think so. Get the point? I thought you Brits were smarter than us crazy Americans who listen to Oliver Stone conspiracy theories. Maybe Sir William Gull really killed JFK. |
Kitty
Police Constable
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:57 pm: | |
Excuse me, fairytale, but you don't know your stuff. Americans, no disrespect, have marvellously little idea about how to approach this case, as Patrica Cornwell has proved. It is a culture based study, somewhat- that is, the background political issues are. Americans have ugly serial killers plaguing the place for no reason once a week, but we don't all have to subscribe to it. Go push your regular serial killer theories on some other island.
Sorry, but it needed saying.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 312
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 7:13 pm: | |
Oh for crying out loud, you can't say Americans don't know how to approach the case just because Cornwell is an idiot. UK authors put out bad overly dramatic unsupported nonsense posing as nonfiction Ripper books too -- Stephen Knight being the most obvious example, although there are plenty.
And, actually, every populated country has serial killers running around murdering people for no reason other than the fun of it. If you think JAck was different then you need to prove that, not just assume it's so because your serial killer is so much superior to boring old U.S. serial killers, or whatever the heck you're trying to say.
I've never understood people taking potshots at peoples' countries of origin. It's got nothing to do with anything.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 756
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 7:36 pm: | |
And to underline what a piece of idiotic drivel the above is, I have yet to meet a british Ripperologist who believes the absolutely asinine conspiracy theory. So it looks like only completely credulous types have the necessary wiring to understand the (forgive the pun) fairy tale "background political issues" involved with case.
The Vitriolic Victimizer
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 272
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 9:00 pm: | |
Dan is quite right to say that no country has a monopoly on serial killers, nor are such killers likely a modern phenomenon even if the term itself is a neologism.
In that regard, and with Glenn temporarily off the boards on an art history project, I can safely embarrass him by again mentioning his delightful book about crime in Sweden. In the first few chapters he details several murders early in the 20th Century that were very probably by the same hand -- a serial killer in quiet, pastoral Sweden.
As far as the popularity of conspiracy theories involving American Presidents or heirs presumptive to the British throne, I would suggest people everywhere seem to enjoy the idea of hi-jinx in high places regardless of the likelihood of the tales. Surely, Prince Eddy (for all his apparent dullness of intellect) or Walter Sickert led much more exciting lives than Joe Barnett or Aaron Kosminski -- and while the former pair may not be good suspects, they sure do make for good copy.
Don. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 219
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 9:49 pm: | |
Hello all,
As an American born and raised, and in defense of Kitty, it should be pointed out that Americans notoriously put out bad JTR books, with rare exception. But then, so do women. Does that mean that only British men should write JTR books? Of course not. When mine eventually comes out, it will, in fact, be quite good, not to mention logical and responsible. There's exceptions to every rule. However, it would seem that to some rules, those exceptions are a little fewer and further between.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 4:05 am: | |
Hi,
I'm not an American (God I know that's come as a shock to you all!) but lets be honest this board is full of them! Now with a few notable exceptions you all talk a lot of sense, often far more sense than me!
And it's got nothing to do with where people come from that make them buy the books we place at the bottom end of the list of books to read but in fact other things. Like how much looking into something you would do after reading such a book.
PC's book was a best seller over here, doesn't that tell us all something?
And if we have a think about American's who've recently published books, we learn they are quite capable of publishing good stuff.
The majority of stuff put out is British. Often it is very, very, very, very, very good.
In fact it's usually books that end with, it's all over thanks to my book(sic) that are the worse regardless of the nationality of the writer.
Jenni
ps so far I do not know of one person who regularly appears on these boards who believes PC has cracked it!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3118
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 7:08 am: | |
As an Englishman, I'm very impressed with how much the Americans know about our history - and a bit ashamed of how little I know about theirs.
I'm also impressed by the way Americans have produced searchable versions of the 1871, 81 and 91 censuses. You could wait for bloody ever for our lot to do it.
It makes me forgive you lot for producing Barbara Streisand.
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
Somethings still wrong with Jeff's computer but he asked me to post this for him,
Hi all,
I think we can safely say that every nationality has it's serious, intelligent students on different subjects and those who let their pre-conceptions color how other groups handle the same material.
I have been a student of criminal history for nearly three and a half decades or so. That is most of my life. I have found some excellent scholarship by British, American, and French criminal historians, and some abomable ones in each. It is a flaw in the individual involved. It does not necessarily destroy that person's total reputation. Edmund Pearson, called the "Dean" of American true crime writers, was an excellent essayist, and one of the few (in his time) to try to document the material he was describing. But he was heavily opinionated (to the point, perhaps, of lunacy) on the subject
of the death penalty and on the subject of the Lizzie Borden case. I believe he fully expected that
Ms Borden, who died in 1927, would one day write him a full confession of guilt. As anyone who has
looked over all the literature of that case (and it is a large amount of books) can tell you, Lizzie is still under a heavy cloud of suspicion, but so is the maid Bridget O'Sullivan and several other figures, some of whom Pearson never even heard of.
I don't think Americans are more clear headed than their British, Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand cousins on tackling the evidence due to their national characteristics. I think that we have
done great work but so have the others. So have the French, Swedish (hi Glenn), and other European people involved in the study of Ripperology or of Criminal History, as well as their Asiatic,
African, and Latin American fellow students.
I have researched the story of Eddy in some corners. He did have a possible relationship with a Mrs.
Mary Gordon Haddon in 1889-1892 (they apparently met in India). Her son Clarence Gordon Haddon wrote a book about it (admittedly a poorly documented book, and one with a whiny tone).
I was lucky enough to find a copy of it twenty years ago.
The point is, maybe Eddy had earlier affairs. However, the way the Gordon Haddon affair was handled (if true) was not with the mad violence of the so-called Clarence-Cook nuptials. There was no series of five horrible murders of prostitutes that resulted!
Anyway, there is still room to look into the life of Annie Cook and to straighten out what is the story.
Maybe one day we will know.
Best wishes,
Jeff Bloomfield
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 3:04 pm: | |
Hello everyone,
I return late to the discussion having thrown the issue up. I maintain that those who denounce the Crook theory deploy modern American case studies and safe-bet cyniscism to support their views, whilst their own views are non research based. Steven Knight was a journalist, Cornwell is a lab assistant, neither standpoint can offer definitive assistance. Neither author has monopoly on the case study. I would like to see some creative objectivity. This is simply not a case like another. Americans are always trying to make out it is. Invariably. Try something unusual, it might do you some good.
It takes skill to decipher a conspiracy. Your Justice system is often considered sanctimonious and and violent, and your president is considered an imbecile throughout the world. Conspiracies happen! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2356
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Kitty,
Excuse me, but you are speaking absolute rubbish.
This case is very much like many others -- it's just that the historical context is different. Americans are certainly not the only ones who are "plagued" by serial killers, and I would say that the views on the case derived from those experiences are valid everywhere, not just in the US. Americans has no monopoly on serial killers, and nor have they monopoly on the approach to study them.
I really don't see your point -- what has the Americans got to do with it? The whole stupid fairy-tale involving Gull, the masonry and Prince Eddy has been put forward by British authors -- then the fact that this rubbish has become very popular in the US due to Hollywood manipulation and marketing (despite of the fact that they've had access to excellent English researchers to set them straight), is another matter.
The idea was not originally put forward by Stephen Knight, but it was expanded and made popular by him, and although there probably still are some question marks to straighten out regarding the facts, larger portions of the theory is a hoax and have been acknowledged as such, even by Joseph Sickert himself who initially gave evidence of the story and later also admitted it was a scam. Stephen Knight didn't care; he deliberately lied, held back and manipulated true information and twisted the truth beyond recognition. For the sake of a good story.
It is actually objective old fashioned research that has crushed this theory into pieces, and so far one of the better results have been presented by the distinguished author and researcher Donald Rumbelow, who slaughtered Stephen Knight's nonsense simply by checking out some of the facts.
Although I am not American, I think your reasoning is out of order. I am not sure what you mean by "Try something unusual, it might do you some good." If that refers to following goose chases around Victorian London, looking for political conspiracies, I am afraid you'll find very few people willing to pick up on your request. And not without reasons.
It's true that the Ripper murders were performed in a different political and historical context than modern serial killer murders.
But besides that serial killers don't differ that much from century to century. There are always problems with applying modern methods to old cases, but Jack the Ripper was in fact a serial killer -- period -- and that is what we should consider when we're studying the case. It is NOT a political case, although politics and social circumstances has its natural implications on the case like everything else.
Unless there are valid factual reasons to suspect a conspiracy theory, indulging in hopeless whopping fibs and fantastic Royal scenarios is not the way to approach the Whitechapel murders. Apart from the context it happened in, this case is quite similar to some modern serial murders -- it doesen't matter if your Swedish, American, British etc. -- we've all had our share of similar crimes.
Conspiracies happen, yes -- but very seldom in a serial killer context. And just simply by studying the most important facts surrounding the Royal Conspiracy, one can easily establish that it's all based on sand.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 02, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 408
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
Kitty,
It takes skill to decipher conspiracies, but it only takes a bit of paranoia and a flair for the dramatic to imagine one. That's why there are far more people tricking themselves into believing in them than there are people actually finding any.
Crook wasn't Catholic. Knight was an anti-Mason bigot who manufactured evidence to try to implicate them. There's no rational evidence to support any royal conspiracy.
Instead of making more irrelevant anti-American comments as if they supported your side (British Ripperologists know that Knight's book is complete nonsense too) you might try sticking to the topic.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 146
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
Kitty...The late Mr.Knight certainly made a lot of headlines for Ripperology and most likely some of the authors in the field [ Paul Begg,for one..] were inspired by his book.
Breaking American ripperologists' balls by adding the non sequitor of our "having an imbecilic President and a violent system of justice " really doesn't make much sense,now does it?
By the way,many Americans believe in conspiracies and some may even believe in the conspiracy you endorse on this thread.
How Brown
a.k.a The Kitty Kisser
Glenn....Time for strong drink !
(Message edited by howard on December 02, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2357
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:28 pm: | |
Howard, indeed... indeed... a large one.
This one took its toll. 
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 02, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
James V. Bianco
Police Constable
Username: Jamesvbianco
Post Number: 6
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
It is my opinion, having read Melvyn Fairclough, and been skimming these boards for a while now...(some might say this is hardly enough..But I assure you, one can learn a GREAT deal from reading these threads..when you know which to pass by) with that while Annie Crook existed and gave birth to Alice who married Gorman. None of them were anything other than working class people with no ties to either Clarence or Walter Sickert. It was all an invention of Joseph Gorman. It actually amazes me that these stories of Gorman have even been given credibilty.
He just tries way to hard to convince us, right down to the Easel gift, and Abberline's diaries.
He was a pathetic man , god rest his soul. Without him this whole Gull conspiracy falls to dust. Remove Annie Crook and then rework it, you will see what I mean.
Jim |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 8:04 am: | |
Leaving aside Knight's discredited book; the heavily tainted and changed testimony of Joe Sickert; and Stowell's uncorroborated musings, and what support do we have for an illicit royal marriage?
I'll tell you: NOTHING.
There is no marriage certificate, no proof that "Eddy" and Annie Crook ever met (let alone that she was Catholic) and no marriage would have been legal under the Royal Marriages act as already pointed out. THAT Act dated back to the 1780s and would have been well known.
Neither do any of the rationale's for a "royal conspiracy add up."
Not only would any marriage have been illegal - so no cause for blackmail - but there was no real threat to the monarchy from republicanism in the 1880s. 1887 had seen Victoria's highly successful Golden Jubilee. there HAD been a real threat in the early 1870s but that was long past.
If "Eddy's" (PAV) scandals needed to be hushed up in this way, why had not Gull, or the masons sought to do something similar in regard to PAV's father (Edward, Prince of Wales). His misdoings (if such they were) were widely known, he appeared in court over a divorce case, and his reputation was far worse than Eddy's.
We must tread sensibly and wisely here.
I ask those who still support the Gull/royal conspiracy theory to set out the FACTS (rather than the convictions and emotion) supporting their case here, or elsewhere. I guarantee that EVERY POINT (and I mean that) can be refuted easily and without rancor. there is absolutely no substance to this mirage of a theory and to waste time on it is a distraction.
Over to you,
Phil |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 13
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 7:41 pm: | |
Everyone seems teribly worked up to an anti conspiracy theory frenzy. Personally my remarks were toungue in cheek and the response only goes to prove my point.
I can see alot of sententious comments emanating from people who would die rather than admit they just don't know what the answer to the case is, or how to solve a conspiracy between them.
Americans tend to latch on to this case for lack of anything involving real interest to them in the criminal Justice system in America, which seems to throw up nothing but sanctimonious texan dimwits, psychopathic lunacies, and other ugliness written up by bad authors who make copyright for films involving bad sex.
Admit it! Would you be on this very message board ten times more than me if you had anything interesting to do?! |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
Norder, don't........ 'speak for Britain', please. Are you intending to run in the next election? |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 433
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 9:20 pm: | |
Kitty,
I don't speak for Britain, and I never claimed to, so why are you trying to put words into my mouth. But I can say that I know enough about British Ripperologists as a whole to know that you aren't speaking for them either. The vast majority of them think the royal conspiracy is absurd, and most of them don't believe in any sort of Ripper conspiracy.
You keep attacking Americans as if that will somehow advance your case. It doesn't. It just makes you look more desperate to avoid actually discussing the topic, probably because you know you have nothing logical to back up your side.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1420
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 6:10 am: | |
Kitty,
there's no need to bad mouth our American friends.
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 8:12 am: | |
Thanks for the humour Jen. Good luck to you n'all. I think your behaviour is very bad, Dan. You can't take a challenge or a joke. The pragmatics are simply that you cannot investigate the files from your position in America, you can't really know what's going on except on third hand advice, and like you colleagues on this board (above) you seem to talk alot for the sake of commerce and publicity. Having expressed an opinion you are embarassed to retract it.
I am a trained researcher and do not need the term 'Ripperologist' applied to my status, although if I were a lab assistant, journalist or car salesman I suppose I might.
Look at the sales of Steven Knight's book, and, incidentally, the beautiful and gentle behaviour of conspiracy theorists, (see top of thread.) But why are you wasting time reading this here? Surely you have magzines to sell?
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
