| Author |
Message |
    
Sulley Mulley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 5:40 am: | 
|
I have read the basis for the royal theory revolves around Prince Alberts marrige to an East End woman which produced a child. Due to the Princes treatment of the affair Mary Kelly and possably others threatened to extort him.Thus the plot to silence them.This theory was brought to light by Joseph Sicket, son of Walter Sicket, who just happened to marry the illegitimate child.Joseph did retract his statement when author Stephan Knight implicated his father in the plot so I wont pay any attention to it.
I spoke to a biologist who said DNA is a hereditry factor carried in blood lines.If this is the case- Joseph Sickets grandfather is Prince Albert. These bloodlines are close enough to be identified.If anyone is serious about putting the Royal theory to bed, they would procure DNA from both parties ( from personal items or exhuming remains). If a match is found then Walter Sicket was on the mark.
* PS - I read Pat Cornwalls book , and no offence ,but all it did was convince me he was not the ripper, but may have known the story behind it. |
Col. Edward
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 1:53 am: |
|
In reply To Sulley Mulley (Great name)
The statment that Joseph retracts his realization (my words) in Stephan Knights book that his Father was possible invoved in the murders in some way makes them niether true nor false, and saying "so I won't pay any attention to them" is only going to make this mystery harder to understand (if thats possible). Having just read Stephans book as published in 1976, one can follow that it is only via the discovery of information passed from father to son that Walter most certainly had inside information and sordid details of the murders that only a person present or close to the murderers could posses.
And Stephan also highlights that Walter A/ No doubt knew Mary Kelly and was very possibly fond of her, assisting in her rent payments and B/ Was only a party to the murders thru the desperate need to protect himself from the powers that be (Most certainly the Freemasons lead by Commissioner Warren and his joke appointing of Sir Robert Anderson as Asst.Commissioner was in office only from the day of the first Murder to the Morning of the last.
And C/ The flickers of clues found through out his work as a masterfull painter.
I too agree that Patricia's conclusion that Walter was soley the Ripper is implausable, but as a goto man, and informant and identifier - yes.
A carridge, one driver and skilled killer inside (Netly and Sir william Gull)+ a man on the ground who new the streets inside and out (Walter) thats one hell of a 3 headed killing machine!!!!!!!!!
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 762
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Col. Edward (do we call you "sir"?)
Where is any evidence that a carriage was used in connection with any one of the JtR murders? Please cite your evidence.
Secondly what precise kind of carriage do you have in mind? A barouche, a landau, a brougham, a state coach, a town coach, a hackney carriage, a hansom. It is very important - as there may be clues in what sort of carriage was used (assuming one were) - I am being serious!!
Third, I would welcome a summary of your evidence for Mr Netley's involvement.
What basis do you have for libelling the distinguished Dr Gull?
Now back to you Sulley Mulley;
I have read the basis for the royal theory revolves around Prince Alberts marrige to an East End woman which produced a child.
You may have read it: there is no basis for it in fact. Knight has been shown to have deliberately withheld evidence that disproved many of his key facts, including the residence of the woman, and her religion.
Any marriage would have been invalid under the royal Marriages act, and the child would have been illegimate - there were plenty of royal bastards around, so no basis for blackmail or cover-up there.
...due to the Princes treatment of the affair Mary Kelly and possably others threatened to extort him.
Pure supposition. No evidence for that statement at all.
This theory was brought to light by Joseph Sicket, son of Walter Sicket, who just happened to marry the illegitimate child.
He may or may not have married Annie Crook's daughter, she is more likely to have had the child by Walter Sickert than PAV.
Joseph did retract his statement when author Stephan Knight implicated his father in the plot so I wont pay any attention to it.
Pleased to hear it.
Regarding DNA testing - this was recently done when blood given by the Duke of edinburgh was used to help identify the supposed bodies of the Russian royal family. The outcome is still questioned by some. In the case of JtR, I doubt whether you would find any member of the royal family willing to dignify the tissue of fiction and imagination that is the "royal conspiracy" theory, by assisting. And i don't blame them.
Phil |
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Phil,
Well said! Bertie was a rather dull pleasure seeking, profligate for the first 59 years of his life. His mother thought he would never amount anything, but he was a well-liked king and really did a lot to strengthen foreign relations, especially with Russia. This whole STD thing is conjecture. He had no sexual difficulties, keeping many mistresses and fathering 6 legal children.
The facts are: There is no Nessie, Beings from outer space don't walk among us (except on this site), Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone, the pyramids were built by regular men, Wales is becoming a real rugby power again, and you can't find 3 people that will agree on anything, let alone conspire to help Bertie with his impulses.
Or else... I am in on the conspiracy.
You decide,
Mike |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 774
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Mike - I think you are mixing-up your "royals".
The Edward you refer to (Bertie) was the future Edward VII. I don't think anyone has ever seriously suggested him as the Ripper.
It is his eldest son, Prince Albert Victor, later Duke of Clarence and Avondale, or "Eddy" (his family pet-name) who is usually suggested as the royal who might have been JtR. He was later associated with the Cleveland St (homosexual brothel) scandal and died in 1892. His younger brother became king George V.
Just so there is no confusion.
Phil |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 716
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Phil,
The Edward you refer to (Bertie) was the future Edward VII. I don't think anyone has ever seriously suggested him as the Ripper.
Quite true and, quite to the contrary, Peter Lovesey made Bertie the detective in several delightful mystery novels set in the LVP.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Phil,
You are so right. My mistake. I read the 'Albert' and no further. I must get my head examined. Bertie indeed!
Cheers,
Mike |
Sulley Mulley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 3:28 am: |
|
My God,
I have not made a posting on this website in 7 months. I have been living it up in France ( just like old Walter did).
Col- well put. We will probably never know for certain what happened.But I think science points towards that there were 2 men involved, and they were using a carrige. ( as Michael Cain so happily put in the 1988 film).
Phil - well here we go on the round-a-bout. I cant proove there was a carrige in 1888.I did'nt see it, as I wasnt alive in 1888. As for heresay, how do you proove if its genuine or bogus? It's the same old story with M.J Druitt. Alot of people love him as the rip, but all we have is an oppinion from Melville Macnaughton that an anonomous person told him he could be the rip.(Ha Ha).
It is funny the topic of Joseph's retracted statement has come up.Instead of being sarchastic, try and be shrewd for a moment, as it is very poignant.After years of Joseph sticking to his belief, he withdrew it when his father was implicated as the killer.This is an issue of personal pride. This made me think that Joseph belived everything he said 100%.
WELL , TO WALTER SICKERT. What an enigma. One thing Cornwell, and I think everyone knows now, is that he was one strange character with an uncanny repertoire of ripper knowledge.As you say Col - Walter knew something about the case, but it is hard to say the part he played(if any) in it.
As for the whole theory, yes, there is still too many unanswered questions to let die just yet.
MIKE THE MAULER: Whilst on the topic of conspiracys, you forgot that the TITANIC did not sink in 1912, but it was her sister ship BRITANIC. Morgan and the WhiteStar Company covered it up.
GOOD TO BE BACK - SULLEY( this is my real name). ( I actually had a second cousin named Mitsi Lou - can you believe that?) |
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
By the way, I have found a neat photo of Eddy. Is there a more vacant-eyed person than he? I wonder, did the little bulldog have an alibi?
Mike
 |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 783
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
The fact that it WAS Titanic that sunk was proved some years ago when the number on the propeller was sunk.
Carriages. I wasn't there in 1888 either. But there is enough evidence to be certain that none were seen (or heard) in connection with any of the murders. the noise of the wheels and horseshoes on cobbled road surfaces would have been very noticeable - particularly at night.
Certainly the type of carriage used in the Michael Caine series would have stood out like a sore thumb - it was state coach (note the hammer cloth for the driver) and would not even have been used much by anyone except for the most formal of functions.
The only evidence I can think of associating two men with a killing was in the case of that of stride - the one now being questioned as a JtR murder!!
Not an impressive return really Sulley - all round.
Phil |
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 118
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 6:44 pm: |
|
Mike the Mauler
Great Picture, I hadn't seen this one before. He looks like an airhead.The bulldog looks far more intelligent.
regards
Julie
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 305
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Who's the fetching lass next to Eddy? Indeed, smiling for a photo in that era was a rarity.
Stan |
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 73
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Stanley,
I hope you're not thinking of Victoria herself. 
Phil,
That "bulldog" ruled the British throne for 64 years. Joking apart, great photo. This site never ceases to amaze me with what it digs up.
Open question to anyone that knows: Is that a "wideawake" that Eddy's wearing or is it a native Scotch hat?
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Rodney Gillis
Detective Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 52
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 11:59 pm: |
|
Is that a skien dubh hiding in Eddy's sock? A sharp, thin blade . . .naw, couldn't be.
Rod |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3987
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 2:42 am: |
|
Mr Mulley,
Once an for all, there are absolutely no indications of that a carriage was used - in fact, crime scene evidence clearly suggests that the women were killed and mutilated where they were found.
Stephen (not Stephan) Knight was clearly wrong about almost everything in his idiotic book of fiction.
As for two persons committing the murders in collaboration - I wouldn't think so. As Phil said, the only murder in or outside the series that could be suggested being perpetrated by two men is the Stride killing, but this is based on a confusing and unsure witness statement and we also don't know if she was a Ripper victim in the first place. In the other cases, only one man was seen - if any of them were the Ripper at all.
Forget Stephen Knight, Mr Mulley.
Let his money-spinning hoaxes and ludicrous ideas rest in peace. They have done enough damage.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 74
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
Rodney,
If you look carefully, I do believe there is a knife in Eddy's right (to our left) sock. Well noticed. I've never heard of it referred to as a skien dubh.
I wonder if it's a 6 inch blade? Nah, couldn't be - could it?
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1834
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 7:44 am: |
|
Glenn,
The book may contain inaccuracies, it may be idiotic, but in its way it was a tour de force.
Monty
PS Welcome to the land of plenty.
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 829
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
Don't you mean a tour de farce?
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 797
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Knight's book may be an undeniable bestseller, but it is still inaccurate and knowingly misleading, and should be ignored by anyone with any sense.
(It took me in at the time - but I recovered!!)
I think the skien dubh (however spelled) is used for gralloching deer - though I may well have got it wrong.
Phil |
Rodney Gillis
Detective Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 53
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
A skien dubh is a cerimonial dagger worn in the sock. During the days of warring clans, the skien dubh was available if things got a little out of hand at a chieftans meeting.
Today, and during the days of Eddy, they were/are worn as part of the ceremonial dress fo Scots. I made the observation after viewing the photo to have a little fun with those who believe in the royal connection.
Rod
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 308
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Hi Martin,
No, the lady standing next to him. That smile makes me wonder where Eddy's left hand is.
Stan |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 723
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 10:30 pm: |
|
Gentleman,
The Gaelic is sgian dubh, "black knife." Supposedly because the handle was traditionally carved out of black bog oak, but since dubh has meanings like lamentable and disastrous beyond just black there may be something more insidious lurking in the name. A weapon of last resort, it was normally concealed but at social occasions would be displayed as a sign of courtesy. Hence the placement partly in a stocking as now worn.
As far as a weapon for Jack, the biodag or single-edged Highland dirk would have been handier.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Please, for the love of heaven, stop reading fantasy novels.
Arterial spray was found at the scene of more than one of the murders,a very good indication dont you think, that they we're killed where the body lay.
The killers prime drive was NOT murder,it was mutilation, the fact that these women had to be dead was of no consequence to this man, as is shown by the speed with which he killed.
If,as has been claimed by various authors,these women were being killed insure their silence then all that is required is that they are dead.IF you are trying to bring about a 'cover up' then just exactly how does attracting the attention of the entire world help you?
Even without 'retractions' from anyone this theory is nonesense in the extreme. Those poor women could have been easily killed without anyone so much as raising an eyebrow in the East End of 1888 - the killer we are looking for was driven by a need beyond murder.
|
Ian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
The carriage and two men theory as of most of the case can't be proved one way or the other. Again lets not be so hasty as to automatically dismiss things that we can't prove.
The "evidence" that the bodies (At least ALL of them) were found where the murders took place again can't be confirmed with any certainty. It was 1888 remember a lot of so called evidence is nothing more than assumptions or educated guesswork.
I'm sorry to be so irritating but I don't like dismissing anything that I can't dismiss with 100% certainty that there is proof to safely enable dismissal. Admittedly it's difficult to make any progress that way but thats the intrigue and addiction of the Jack The Ripper case for you.
PS! (Not deliberately trying to annoy you Phil ;-) ) |
Vade Mecum
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
No, DNA can't solve this case - period. |
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 12:41 am: |
|
Rod,
I believe it is! A sgian Dubh has about a 3-5 inch blade and black handled. Dubh means dark or black in Gaelic and sgian means knife.
Martin,
I believe that hat would have been some regimental service cap, probably a plain glengarry associated with the Black Watch, but I'm not sure. Are the girls his sisters Louise, Victoria and Maud? I think I saw another photo of them all together somewhere before, but Eddy was wearing a deerstalker with his Scottish kit.
Cheers,
Mike |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 733
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Mike,
See why you should register? You wrote much of what I did a few hours later -- but your comments didn't appear until days later. Register!
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4003
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
I totally agree with Steve (good post, Steve - Friday, September 02, 2005 - 8:37 am).
Ian,
It is totally ridiculous to even suggest or consider that the victims weren't murdered and mutilated where they were found. We have enough evidence proving that they were killed and mutilated at the spots in question. The blood and the gore/organs are the most significant ones, and in Chapman's case we even have spraying on the fence. Saying that the bodies were dumped there after death is to completely ignore crime scene facts. Not to mention that some of the victims were seen talking or interacting with people on or very close to the spots where they were found.
Let's get real here.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4004
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:39 pm: |
|
DNA can't solve this case; we quite simply have no items to test and even if we did, we would have no one to match the DNA with.
Cornwell tried to search for DNA on stamps on the so called Ripper letters, but as we know, that is totally irrelevant and redundant, since it is most likely they were all hoaxes anyway.
Maybe some item turns up connected to the Ripper crimes, that is relevant to test for DNA, but then we would still be left with the problem to find a match for it.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 839
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I think the arterial blood is a dead giveaway (no pun intended) that the ladies died where they were found. As for the notion of a traveling arbattoir carriage or closed cab, I would have thought that after the fiasco of Henry Wainwright travelling across London with his ex-mistresses remains in a cab in 1875 that kind of idea would have been totally discarded (and Wainwright actually tied up the portions of the late Harriet Lane in parcels that were carefully tied up - it didn't help because somebody took a peek into one.
So the three ladies are Eddy's sisters? I really don't know what those ladies look like. As for Eddy's silly highland costume (I take it this picture is from Balmoral) the kilt may be the same one he used in a posed studio shot of him fishing - the shot that earned him the nickname (from Henry Labouchere) of "Collars and Cuffs".
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Baron von Zipper
Police Constable
Username: Baron
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Testing, one, two... er, five.
Mike
That registration process takes a while doesn't it? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4957
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Hi Herr Baron and welcome to the Boards.
I was just wondering whether, if we could get a DNA sample from Kelly's remains, it might help us narrow down the area of Ireland whence she originated.
Robert |
Ski
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 12:17 am: |
|
Whilst on the topic of DNA.
I had noticed that on some of the ripper letters, there are smears of human blood. In one letter he claimed he "saved some of the proper red stuff".I assume the blood is that of the victims. I assume the coward that was JtR would not inflict wounds on himself. I have been told that this blood still carries its DNA blueprint. If you could attain victms DNA, then you might know if these letters are from the murderer. |
Sulley Mulley.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Hi Again,
Just to brush up a bit, I found a copy of that 1988 film with Michael Cain and watched it again. The film largely supports the Royal theory with S.W.Gull. Interestingly enough there is no mention of the Stephen Knight book as a source of information. They clearly state, in large writing at the start of the film, that they had got all of thier information from talking to SCOTLAND YARD. I see all of you reject the Knight book. However, who was then pedaling this information from Scotlan Yard. Are they to be discredited as Knight was?
Look forward to reply - Sulley |
