|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 177
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 9:09 am: |       |
Kitty--
I can't resist saying that a huge number of Americans--though unfortunately not quite huge enough-- also think that our president is an imbecile.
As for JTR if you want to discuss whatever your thoughts are, just try to present them without all the emotional embroidery.
Most people on these boards freely admit that they don't know what the answer is--that's why we're debating. That said, some ideas are just more sound than others.
Mags |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 10:09 am: | |
There's no 'emotional' embroidery on my part atall. Challenges I make, I make them calmly and expressely. I do think conceit (as expressed above) around the conspiracy question needs to be strongly challenged. The current refusal to consider it adequately is not researched based.
I have not expressed what my own case-}views are, incidentally, outside of that. It seems to me that there is no scientific reason for 'Anti conspiracy theorists'- for want of a better phrase- to take the stance they do. If an under-researched issue or primitive theory needs defending, I'm happy to go out on a limb and do it. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1427
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 1:23 pm: | |
Kitty,
what exactly is your point? you think the royal conspiracy is the answer?
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 564
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:43 pm: | |
"Kitty" wrote:
The current refusal to consider it adequately is not researched based.
...
It seems to me that there is no scientific reason for 'Anti conspiracy theorists'- for want of a better phrase- to take the stance they do.
Do you mean that you're aware of the research that debunked the conspiracy theory, and you reject it?
Chris Phillips
|
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 12:52 pm: | |
I reject both the Knight theory and the research that debunked it. There's a riddle! :-)
(Nice to see some genuine interest at last.) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Kitty,
fine. but I hasten to dare to add in which case...
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 685
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Hmmm, James and Phil have come close on this thread, but haven't quite hit the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is Mary Kelly.
Think about this. The whole of the Royal conspiracy theory rests on one "fact", that Mary Kelly worked in the shop in Cleveland Street with Annie Crook. And this one "fact" is the one thing that neither Stephen Knight nor Melvin Fairclough nor anyone else writing on the subject has ever produced one single scrap of evidence to support. Not the slightest scrap. They gloss over that bit by having someone say that someone else told someone else but they provide nothing remotely resembling evidence.
Now I am not going to criticise your research credentials Kitty, I don't know you so I can't speak on that subject. But surely any good researcher's ears would prick up at something being claimed on no evidence whatsoever?
If you want to support the Royal theory, go use your research skills and come back with that piece of evidence. Because without it, Mary knows nothing about the illicit wedding, there is no blackmail plot, and there is no reason for Gull to commit the murders, and so the entire story of Eddie and Annie can be 100% true, and it still will have nothing whatsoever to do with Jack the Ripper.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
very interesting comments, I'm happy to see the matter discussed instead of arrogantly dismissed. What other proofs do you think should have been provided ( no jokers please!) Ps love the quote. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 1:04 pm: | |
Kitty - so what is the theory you believe has substance and the evidence/research on which it is based? |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 4:29 pm: | |
I regard the anti-conspiracy theory as very soundly based on research and historical fact.
The usual motives for a "royal" conspiracy are:
a) a threat to monarchy in Britain from republicanism;
b) a desire to cover-up and indiscretion by HRH The Duke of Clarence.
On (a) the dating is wrong, historians largely agree that the republican threat, in so far as it existed at all, dated from the late 60s and early 70s of the C19th. It was largely over by the time HRH The Prince of Wales recovered from typhoid in 1871.
The 1880s is too late, it is post Victoria's proclamation as Empress of India in 1877; and also immediately follows the highly successful Golden Jubilee in 1887. I don't recall ever seeing much evidence that there was any republican outcry at the time.
Secondly the Royal Marriages Act effectively removes any requirement for a cover-up of an illicit/secret marriage since that would have been invalid in law anyway. in addition, Edward, Prince of Wales was far more indicrete with women then his eldest son - and where are the serial killings associated with cover-ups of his mis-demeanours?
if there was a reason to cover-up the doings of PAV, then i suggest that after Cleveland Street would have been the time, with all those indiscrete post office lads and errant perverted peers (irony intentional) - yet I am unaware of any allegations of a *gay* ripper killing male whores!!!
So that deals with Knight's/Fairclough's conspiracy on an evidential basis - not that they agree on the conspirators.
Are there any others?
I would not rule out, personally, a cover-up (for political reasons) of a Fenian connection, but that would not constitute a conspiracy.
So Kitty - where is YOUR evidence. The ball now rests firmly in your court.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
Kitty - I begin to wonder whether you are what is called elsewhere, "a troll". You provoke but offer nothing yourself.
The evidence has already been cited by me and others. But one last time:
a) no republicanism to mentioon at that time;
b) any marriage to a catholic (illicit or not) null and void under law.
That, incidentally, makes the MJK connection (non-existant anyway) irrelevant. there was nothing to have known.
Research has shown in addition that Annie crook was Protestant and never lived in Cleveland St area (as Knight claimed).
Most of Knight's masonic claims have also been discredited - not least his made-up interpretation of the word "JUWES".
And I'm afraid the truth is "arrogant" Kitty, where falsehoods are concerned. I can safely dismiss the conspiracy theory, and leave the refutation at a minimal level, because the fafts that say that is the case are well-known and easy to find.
As I have said before, over to you. Kindly show us you have something to offer to what you call a "discussion" - though it is a somewhat one-sided one, as you contribute nothing meaningful to it.
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 9:54 am: | |
"...Look at the sales of Steven Knight's book..."
Look at the sales of The da Vinci Code - an equal load of tosh (though well done).
Numbers of readers of a book, or the numbers of supporters of an idea have no correlation to the truth, and do not make that theory right.
They simply show how easy it is to hoodwink people.
Knight has been effectively and totally proven to have misled readers, to have concealed or deliberately falsified evidence, and to have refused to retract even when this was pointed out to him.
IMHO, those who continue to believe such arrant twadle deserve what they get!! Those who use spurious logic like numbers of people supporting something are simply asking for it!!
Amiably,
Phil |
Joe Dakota
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
I'm an American, and I don't think we're as shocked over here by accusations made against powerful or important people. I notice a sensitive reaction to accusations against Walter Sickert ("HE JUST COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT! HE WAS IN FRANCE") and the Prince ("WHERE IS ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE?") Well, there's not one shred of evidence against anybody, except Sickert, in the form of an 1888 postage stamp. Having said all that, can anyone wrap this up? I mean, we have one writer's word, Stephen Knight's, that there even was an Annie Crook, or trip to some East End brothel for the Duke, or a marriage, or a work house, or anything else. How much is undisputed? Does anyone know? Thanks in advance for any information |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 1:46 am: | |
Interestingly, I always thought that the JtR "conspiracy theory" grew directly out of the US's Watergate scandal - look at the timings.
The BBC series (Barlow and Watt) and Knight's book EXACTLY parallel the Nixon saga in the States.
I don't recall a breath of conspiracy theory in the JtR literature BEFORE that point.
Indeed, before Watergate, I doubt any serious student of the Whitechapel case in 1972 (say) would have given the slightest credence to a conspiracy, such s Knight was able to peddle in the atmosphere of 1976. Suddenly it was hip, cool and trendy and all too believeable.
I still have my first edition of Knight on my shelves with the pencil annotations made on first reading that show me ridiculing Knight's facts, then gradually beginning to say "maybe he has something" as he got into the masonic aspects, the Juwes, and the conspiracy. In the atmosphere of those days it seemed almost possible - Government conspiracy had been shown to be a fact in one nation, might it have existed earlier in another?
Now, of course, we know that Knight obfuscated his facts, deliberately falsified material and misled his readers. The facts exposed, the conspiracy 1888-style disintegrates. It has NO substance nor factual basis.
Kitty - how exactly do you "solve" a conspiracy?
And yes, having found it, I WOULD probably be on a message board quite often and AM, even though I DO have other things to do (like work and other interests). I spent three years participating in a VERY good (and similar but more active and faster moving) board about Tolkien (books and films). I made many friends and whose of us in the UK and some from the US and Europe, meet regularly.
The fact is that the net has expanded our ability to do things, to study subjects and to communicate and exchange ideas. It is NOT simply a substitute for the traditional ways of working. It is an expansion and addition to them.
Long live Casebook and its ilk, say I.
Regards,
Phil |
Joe Montana
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 12:39 am: | |
blah blah blah blah blah |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 185
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:23 am: | |
Phil-
Interesting idea about the timing of the RC theory and Watergate. I can testify that Watergate,along with the dismal horror that was Vietnam certainly made iconoclasts out of many young Americans, me among them.
I remember reading Knight's book when it first came out and not believing a word since I was very much a Druittist at the time but still being fascinated with the whole Masonic thing. My boyfriend at the time had just become a Mason and I think I must have been a real pain quizzing him mercilessly about the whole thing.
Mags |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 19
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
Here's the 'troll' under the bridge- all you who're desparate for clues!
I wouldn't say I greatly resemble a troll, but I don't mind the analogy.
For those who've just joined, the recent thread leads on from the closed thread above, where conspiracy theorists researched, and Kitty posed some hard hitting challenges to people who arrogantly dismiss the conspiracy theory without any explanation.
My question, before you can pass over the bridge, is...........what is the date the royal conspiracy theory first emerged, and what altercations were made throughout the course of history?
ah. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 188
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
Kitty-
One of the biggest altercations made throughout the course of history was World War One or "the Great War" as it was known at the time.
Mags |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 20
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
Hi Mags,
I meant what altercations have been made to the Conspiracy theory, throughout the course of history.
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 191
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
Kitty-
There seem to be plenty of altercations going on right on this thread.
Mags |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
Checkable Detail: Parish Church register |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 21
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 8:43 am: | |
that's certainly true, Mags. It's not so much the fact that people are changing history here but rather deploying altercations to the conspiracy theory as a cornerstone for their crtisism of it as a whole.
But it is the old stories that emanate from the Victorian era that give us the clues, rooted in English London history, that are so interesting. And of course it involved Freemasonry. Almost everything happenning involving the back streets of London in those days did. Very very interesting, and still a passion for many researchers here. I'm not surprised you used to ask your feemason fella about it Mags, you were on the right track. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 193
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 9:59 am: | |
Kitty- The word "altercation" means "fight, disagreement".
As far as Freemasonry being the very heartsblood of LVP life, you're full of beans.
Diana, help!!
I give up.
Mags |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2422
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 10:52 am: | |
Kitty,
To state that "everything happening in the streets of London" during the Victorian era, involves Freemasonry, is an error and to believe in fairy-tales. I fail to see what the Freemasonry should have to do with anything happening in the poor neighbourhoods of East End.
Serial killers are for the most part connected to the lower working or middle classes -- the fact that this happened in the Victorian era doesen't matter.
And no, conspiracy stories and Freemasonry is boring, it's not the least exciting in this context, and especially as this link has been proven a false one.
No one is critizising the Royal Conspiracy theories by "deploying alterations" -- that is really a cucko statement. Freemasonry has often -- like any other closed organization, with strange rituals as important elements -- been subjected to all kinds of wacko theories and accusations of crimes, just on grounds that they are secret organizations (and no -- I am not a member of those myself). If you think facts and objective research HASN'T proved the flaws in the Royal Conspiracy theory, you are either mislead or you just don't bother about literary accuracy and honesty.
Fact remains, that a large majority of the main facts that represents the foundation of the Royal Conspiracy has already been proven to be false or deliberate lies from a factual point of view. And since Joseph Sickert withdraw the whole story, where it concerned the Ripper, there is really not much left of it to consider in the Ripper case. Stephen Knight lied through his teeth and he knew it, and so did they who stuffed him with the information.
I can only urge you to read Rumbelow's excellent and factually objective strip and execution of the Royal Conspiracy theories.
You find the Freemasonry interesting, that's great -- but that hardly gives us any reason to reopen the hopeless case against the Freemasonry and the Royal connection. You support garbage because you enjoy a good story, I prefer to support facts.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 22, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 22
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:28 pm: | |
Mags, I was hoping for some more imaginative comment, but you seem sadly to be lacking in it as much as your colleagues! I suppose that's only to be expected, you are sadly under informed in America, and have simply no idea what was going on.
Altercation can be interpreted either way, 'alteration', or 'fight'. I was using the first meaning. ( I speak three languages). I make correct suggestions, and others fight them on this board! It's interesting to see what stupidities a good challenge like mine produces, and how hopeless you are at this case in the USA. It seems you need alot of professional help.
Mags, you'd have done better to listen to your husband. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2423
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
Kitty,
"It seems you need alot of professional help."
Great, Kitty.
If you didn't know it, these types of personal remarks are strictly forbidden on these Boards.
As far as "stupidities" goes, your own posts speaks for themselves.
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 23
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
A I haven't responded to the strange Comments of 'G' from Sweden yet as I cannot see they have even the remotest relevance to the case. He is ignorant of Late 19th Century London and clearly hasnt the first idea what was going on.
Of course Freemasonry wasn't responsible for everthing in the late 19th century, it's a 'turn of phrase'. But there was a great deal of Freemasonry in late ninetenth century in london, to say there wasn't is ignorance of facts.
G from Sweden, very few English people share your views on what is and what isn't tedious. I think your monotonous lone psychopath theory is distinctly tedious. So do a great many!
But to the point, you have failed to answer any of my questions, or challenges. If you were a serious student of the case you would have been able to state what proofs of a conspiracy theory you would have liked to have seen.
Learn to deal with evidence! |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 24
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:38 pm: | |
G from Sweden,
Please lean better English! I meant you needed professional research help! You obviously do. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2424
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
Kitty,
Why shall I "lean" better English, when you obviously know as well as I do how such a line as the one referred to, is going to be interpreted? Even a 5 years old child knows what it means, when one suggests that someone needs "professional help". If you want to avoid misunderstandings, don't use expressions that are commonly used in insults.
For being a "researcher" you seem quite ignorant regarding the facts surrounding the Freemasonry theory -- facts that can be easily plucked apart when checked out through research. Others have done it, you obviously haven't, so I can't say that much in favour of your so called research skills -- and certainly not of your abilities as a crime investigator.
For the record, I have a degree in 19th century history (as well as having researched police material and historical documents for 15 years)and what you say is absolute crap.
And secondly, I have never claimed that Jack the Ripper was a psychopath -- on the contrary, I believe he was the complete opposite.
This you should have acknowledged as well if you were concerned with "facts", as I'd say a skilled researcher should be. You just proved your sloppiness.
I can perfectly well understand why you won't comment on the critisism of the Freemasonry trail, because you simply have no response to it.
You just blew your own horn, and it's completely out of tune.
"Learn to deal with evidence!"
Right back at ya! No one who are serious students of this case today should even dream of consider a theory that already has been acknowledged as a fraud and based on false information. As far as evidence are concerned, not one single piece of facts in the Ripper case -- not least the crime scene evidence -- even suggests that a Royal or Freemasonry conspiracy was involved.
What challenges are you talking about?
Since when have accepting an already dismissed theory -- contradicting all the case evidence -- been a "challenge"?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 358
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
Kitty,
"Please lean (sic) better English!" It is generally considered poor form to belittle the spelling and grammar of posters to these boards, but since you chose to heave the first brickbat be advised that you live in a glass house yourself, so to speak. At least Glenn has an excuse for an occasional mistake or awkward phrase -- he is after all a Swedish speaker primarily.
You, on the other hand, profess to be a native Anglophone and yet your use of that language is quite deficient. For that matter altercation may be synonymous with alteration in one of the other two languages you claim to speak, but it certainly is not in English. And by the way, the phrase "a lot" is two words, not one.
Yours for better Anglo-American relations.
Don.
(Message edited by supe on December 22, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 2:28 pm: | |
I have heard some stuff in my time. but Kitty, what is your point?
We could say to you, in fact I do put it to you that you should learn some manners!
Glenn,
you sure speak better English than me, and you certainly speak better English than I do Swedish!
Don,
right on!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 27
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
My arguement remains the same, and you keep on proving it.
No ideas about the case, and alot of cleaky, unfounded ideas! No real critisism or qualifications between you!!
G from Sweden, you are a shambles. Don, get a grip. You must have both learned both English and case study, in a hut. 'lean' instead of 'learn' is a mere typing error, whereas you........... don't know what you're doing.
I'm sorry, but it's the case.
I don't have bad manners, I make challenges to a group who're going nowhere, it seems. |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 28
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
Jenni, what's your problem? Got nothing to do in Manchester? .............? No friends in UK??? Go party with people who've got a life. I'm off partying. What a bunch of losers!! |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 686
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Kitty
Did nobody ever tell you that manners cost nothing.
I don't have bad manners...... What a bunch of losers!!
Kinda defeated your own point there didn't you? Hmmm, well I think I will leave this thread and continue to converse instead with the likes of Glenn, Jenni, Don and various Americans whose opinions I respect and leave you to burble on on your own. Oh and one last point before I go, allow me to answer the question you posited for Glenn....
If you were a serious student of the case you would have been able to state what proofs of a conspiracy theory you would have liked to have seen.
Some.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2428
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
Kitty,
So... let me get this straight... the facts that other distinguished researchers (far more experienced and distinguished than you, and some of them have worked on the case for 30 years -- now, that's qualifications for you, compared to armchair theorists like yourself) have unfolded that totally crushes the Royal Conspiracy into microscopic pieces, is... what? Cleaky, unfounded IDEAS!!!???
Compared to... what? YOUR ideas?
Oh boy...
There are a million ideas about the case, although the one you're proposing has long since passed its expiration date.
Just because the newer and more relevant theories doesen't do it for you, doesen't mean that they don't exist.
The "challenge" you're referring to is nothing but a waste of time, plunging into theories that has been abandoned for a long time by serious scholars. What "challenge"?
You're complaining about "no ideas" and "unfounded ideas", but you yourself never responds to the criticism of the theories you embrace. You're just another one of those who are so locked up in your personal theorizing, that you can't see the wood for the trees.
Let me spell it out for you:
the reason why no one responds to your "challenge" is because several authors and researchers already have been there!!!!! Long before your time! And guess what they came up with...
Right, everyone besides yourself have no clue of what we're doing. Arrogance combined with ignorance is a fatal combination...
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 22, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
Kitty.
Please the conspiracy theory is utter nonsence, the monarchy , or masons , or people of high office were not involved in the whitechapel murders, these murders were committed by person /or persons [ mayby still unknown] that had a sordid reason to commit such acts of revulsion.
I do believe however that the cause of the murders was Mjk, and after her death the murders ceased, but conspiracy involving Blackmail ,Royal marriages, sick royal doctors, Please Please.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2429
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:25 pm: | |
"I'm off partying."
Yes, Kitty, I would say that's more up your alley.
Solving crimes and studying historical sources certainly is not. Good riddance.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 359
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Alan,
Thanks and I loved that last riposte -- "some." Indeed, maybe just one. As it is, I really don't like these slanging matches, but sometimes. . . .
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2433
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Ala,
Thanks for the kind words,
and yes -- I enjoyed that "some" remark as well. It really says it all.
I missed that post completely -- sorry.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 30
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
Back from drinks with some enjoyable people, see my mails and find there's been another losers' party on this message board. G from Sweden being the host, supreme loser!
Get some lives between you. You are ignorant on the case, can't take a challenge, don't know the files, don't know London, can't revise a theory, and can't cope with anything new. Personally I am not in the least bit interested in hearing views from blunderers who haven't been able to solve the case in 30 years. However, G from Sweden and etc., I would imagine that's right up your street!
I'm going out again, the car's outside. Carry on with the loser's party! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2438
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 3:46 am: | |
Kitty,
I must say I find you very entertaining, and I also find it extremely hard to take you seriously on practically any issue. 
You must have gotten things confused. Especially as far as evidence is concerned.
No, I am not ignorant of the case, and I do have some experience in how a police investigation works. I am afraid that you don't, it is quite easy to tell. Because although the Ripper case happened 116 years ago, it is still a crime investigation and should be treated as such, not a fairy-tale.
You still haven't answered my question. Exactly HOW can we from the crime scene evidence deduce that a masonal conspiracy was behind the crimes? What are the signs, the facts and the evidence for this? Since you claim to be a researcher, you should be able to present at least some suggestions on these points, or even better, something concrete that supports this.
Or do you mean that just because you state that the Freemasons had a large influence in Victorian London, that that in itself is enough to arouse suspicion? What about the motive?
You haven't answered any of these questions.
And I think I know why -- you are simply not interested in facts.
At least Stephen Knight, although he presented a load of lies and distorted facts, had some ideas to put forward.
"...can't revise a theory"
So, if you toss away the idiotic garbage presented by Stowell and Knight, then what are we left with in order to believe in a Royal and masonic conspiracy? Please tell me.
"...and can't cope with anything new."
I am sorry, Kitty, but The Royal connection is among the oldest theories there is in the Ripper context. You are the one who's dusty here and who are taking a giant leap backwards.
To refer to theories involving the Royals and the Freemasons as something "new" is just laughable.
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 23, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2439
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 3:49 am: | |
Kitty,
This just cracked me up...
"Personally I am not in the least bit interested in hearing views from blunderers who haven't been able to solve the case in 30 years."
I can imagine that and that is also why you will stay ignorant. Any of those "blunderers" -- Stewart Evans, Donald Rumbelow, Paul Begg etc. -- can without doubt slap you in the face twenty times over, when it comes to knowledge about the case. Some of them have themselves a long experience in the police force, some are noted historians. You don't have to agree about their pet suspects in order to acknowledge that. With that remark you just displayed your own immaturity and obviously very young age, because no skilled or experienced researcher I know would express themselves with such arrogance. Completely unprofessional.
News flash for you: the reasons for why these "blunderers" haven't solved the case, is because nobody probably can. It is not a result of bad research, but of the difficulties connected with old cases as such, where the facts are sparse or missing and no witnesses are alive in order to confirm the material or explain the circumstances first hand. A criminal case has a very short expiration date -- these are all points you already should be aware of if you had any experience whatsoever about research, crime solving or historical sources.
"I'm going out again, the car's outside. Carry on with the loser's party!"
We will, Kitty, we will. The drinks are all set.
Drive safely....
All the best
Glenn Andersson,
Crime historian, Sweden, and noted loser
(Message edited by Glenna on December 23, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1461
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 4:14 am: | |
Kitty,
3.07pm you went off partying !
6.01pm and you're back !
Less than 3 hours !!!!!
Thats not partying Sweetheart. Monty'll show you partying...mail me !
Oh wait...I see you have a car waiting. So you just popped back to join the losers cos you miss 'em sooooo much ?
Ah, Im touched. We're all touched. However I suspect you are more touched than others.
Monty
PS Oh yeah, Royal Marriage. So you're a researcher right? Mmmmm, successful???
(Message edited by monty on December 23, 2004)
Fear.
Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt.
Fear.
Fear is my ally. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 5:00 am: | |
You lot make me die, you really do. If you can't see when you are being wound up to spend extra time typing thousands of words when you could be out partying instead (or Christmas shopping, or stuffing the turkey), how are you going to notice Jack, if he comes up and bops you on the nose?
You and Kitty would have more time for festive jollies if you didn't respond.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2442
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 5:09 am: | |
Caz,
I don't know about you, but my Christmas preparations have been all set weeks ago. I do nothing now but sit back and relax. So I've got plenty of time to respond to people like Kitty. I wouldn't play the game if it wasn't entertaining; I hardly spend as much time on these Boards as you do (you know where...).
Don't expect me to sit here on Christmas Eve, though, there goes the limit!
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 36
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:49 am: | |
I went to my neighbour's party. Three hours is enough for me with that lot. :-) Plus this local buffoon keeps on asking me out. (I would sooner go out with one of your suspects, G, I would be perfectly safe).
I can't agree, G and company, but please be assured I have been doing alot of leg pulling and I do respect you as students of the case. Personally, I feel it's time to discard the old experts and their blunders, and to let loose new researchers on the case. New is good. And 'new light on old mystery' is terrific.
I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a very Happy Christmas.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
If you were a serious student of the case you would have been able to state what proofs of a conspiracy theory you would have liked to have seen.
More nonsense.
One cannot wish for evidence for something that did not occur. A conspiracy of the sort hypothesised by some would be anachronistic for C19th Britain.
As for evidence, dear Kitty (irony):
The evidence would need would be:
a) even a shred of documentary evidence of a conspiracy;
b) any evidence at all of a motive for a conspiracy;
c) any evidence of any kind that showed a conpiracy was in progress at any point (ie a single credible indication that more than one person was involved in any JtR associated crime);
d) any memoirs or papers that referred to a conpiracy after the event either as speculation or reference to taking part.
What I do have proof of now, Kitty, is that you ARE a time-waster. You demand answers but simply respond with stupid questions and unsupported assertions. Let us have proof that you are more than you appear to be dear fellow poster....
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:01 am: | |
Sorry my posts have appeared in a strange order and as one great "gloop" = that wasn't my intention.
Joe M - thank you for that stunning contribution, which goes right to the heart of things.
Phil |
Julie Lambert
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 5:18 am: | |
I think that it is best to view the Royal conspiracy idea purely in practical terms.
Would Gull and others have chosen such a dramatic way to dispose of the victims? Wouldn't it have been better to tip them in the Thames instead of leaving them horribly exposed on the East End pavements to cause such a stir?
Examine the characteristics of other, similar types of killings. They all reveal a lone killer whose motive is sexual.
The Ripper murders were not the first killings of this type but they were the first catapulted to fame by a number of factors:
1. Cheaper newspapers - the rise of the sensationalist press.
2. The murders highlighted the conditions in which London's poor lived - thus prompting debate.
3. The murders conflicted with the idea of strict Victorian morals, thus producing a reaction of mixed horror and excitement.
This is how such a rich variety of theories arise. There was intense debate at the time in all sorts of social circles about the identity of the ripper and I am sure that many of these ideas became entangled with other myths and stories circulating at the time - much like Chinese Whispers - so that Eddie and others of fame at the time emerge as suspects.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 11:17 am: | |
...But it is the old stories that emanate from the Victorian era that give us the clues, rooted in English London history, that are so interesting.
Examples please. One cannot comment if we don't know what you are talking about!! What exactly is "English London History" anyway?
And of course it involved Freemasonry.
What did?
Almost everything happenning involving the back streets of London in those days did.
What nonsense is this? What have you been reading??
I am frankly dumbfounded.
Phil |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
