|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Thomas Neagle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:45 am: | 
|
Most of the information, facts and evidence, in and around the case, point strongly to Prince Eddy being Jack the Ripper. There is a lot of evidence and facts which indicate an offcial cover-up, a cover-up of an important individual. There is the eye witness accounts of Geoege Hutchinson( a pale, jewish looking man with a small, dark, moustache turned up at the ends ), and PC Smith( a man around 28 with a small dark moustache ), and Elizabeth Long( a dark foreign looking man ), strongly indicate the pale skinned, jewish or foreign looking with a small dark moustache turned up at the ends, Prince Eddy. There is some doubt though. If Prince Eddy was not Jack the Ripper, then those who were important enough to cause a cover-up, and basically look like the three eye witness accounts of Hutchinson, Smith, and Long( though Prince Eddy looks a lot more like the three eye witness accounts ), who could have been Jack the Ripper, were, in probability of being Jack the Ripper, in order, were Randolph Churchill and J.K. Stephen. Randolph Churchill or J.K. Stephen could have been Jack the Ripper, but I don't believe so. I believe that Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper. Most of the information, facts and evidence, in and around the case, point strongly to Prince Eddy being Jack the Ripper.
Prince Eddy had no alibis. Any documents that attempt to alibi could have been forged by the powers that be. But besides that. Even if Prince Eddy was where he was said to be, he could have left, commited the murders, and then returned. A few examples:
September 30, 1888
There is a record in Queen Victoria's journal that Price Eddy dined with her for lunch on the 30th. Even if that wasn't forged( and the powers that be could have forged it ), Prince Eddy killed Catharine Eddowes at 1:30 am, and had ten and a half hours to take a train to Abergeldie, Scotland, and have lunch with Queen Victoria.
November 9, 1888
Prince Eddy murdered Mary Jane Kelly.
Jewish looking, pale skin, dark hair, dark eyelashes with a small, dark, moustache, turned up at the ends( George Hutchinson description ). It looks exactly like Prince Eddy. The suspect wore button boots, gaiters with white buttons. There is a picture of Prince Eddy wearing button boots, gaiters with white buttons. It is either in Michael Harrison's book or David Abrahamsen's book. The suspect wore a coat that highlighed astrakhan collar and cuffs. Prince Eddy was known as Collar and Cuffs. Also the man seen by Thomas Bowyer on Wednesday, November 7, was noticable by showing very white cuffs and a white collar.
The reason Prince eddy was so dressed up in the early hours of November 9( more so than when he commited the other murders ), was because November 9 was his father's, the Prince of Wales' birthday. After he killed Mary Jane Kelly at 4 am or 9 or 10 am( whichever ), he made his way, all dressed up, to his fathers' birthday party at Sandringham, not to far from London.
Long's, PC Smith's and Lawende's( according to the statement of Lawende's taken by Major Smith )suspects all wore deerstalker hats. The ritual vestment of hunters. Hunting was the favorite thing for Prince Eddy to do. There are pictures of him wearing deerstalker hats. It is important to remember that a doctor who examined the bodies at the time, said it could have been done by a surgeon or doctor, or butcher, or a hunter. The bodies had their throats cut across, with a cut down the middle of the abdomen. The women were opened up like a hunter would grollach a deer. This is what Prince Eddy did.
Hutchinson's suspect had a large seal with a red stone in the middle of it, attached to a gold chain. I saw on the internet a picture of Prince Eddy when he was around 10. He was wearing a large seal with a red stone in the middle of it, attached to a chain. After I made a few website hits( there were different pictures of Prince Eddy as a child )looking at this picture, it was taken off the internet. This is a true story.
I read somewhere on the internet that someone said Prince Eddy was left-handed. That may or may not be true . I don't know for sure. But I believe Prince Eddy was left-handed and I believe Jack the Ripper was left-handed. Dr. Llewellyn, who examined the body of Polly Nichols, believed the murderer of Polly Nichols was left-handed. I believe the fact the Jack the Ripper was left-handed was covered up because Prince Eddy, who was Jack the Ripper, was left-handed. There is a note that Robeet Anderson says that Dr. Llewellyn now has some doubts that the murderer was left-handed. Even if this note is not forged( thats an if ), this was Robert Anderson covering up of the strong statement by Dr. Llewellyn that the murderer was left-handed. This was to keep the suspicion away from the Left-handed Prince Eddy. The doctor who examined Alice Mckenzie, said the murderer of Alice Mckenzie was left-handed. Now, the percentage of left-handed people is very small. The percentage of left-handed people who would kill someone by cutting their throat and mutilate their abdomen is infinitely small. That would probably only be one left-handed person. If Alice McKenzie was killed by Jack the Ripper( I believe she was ), then the Left-handed Jack the Ripper killed Polly Nichols and Alice McKenzie( and the other women, but his left-handness was either not noted or covered up in these cases ). Prince Eddy is a suspect I believe was left-handed.
One reason I believe Prince Eddy was Left-handed was I saw a picure of Prince Eddy and his family( either in Michael Harrison's or David Abrahamsen's book ). In this picture Prince Eddy and his sisters were sitting down. All were holding their canes, his sisters with their right hands, Prince Eddy with his left.
Another reason that I believe Prince Eddy was left-handed is that there are pictures of him with his left hand holding the hilt or top of his sword. I would think that any person, if he was right-handed, would hold the hilt or top of his sword with his right hand
Prince Eddy fits the profile except he wasn't middle or lower class. There were other aristocratic mass killers or serial killers such as Gilles de Rais and Countess Bathory. The Cleveland Torso murders were supposedly done by a known doctor( with a politician as a relative ), who was never charged.
Prince Eddy was in his 20 s.
Serial killers usually start in their 20 s or 30 s.
Prince Eddy had a dominant mother and a cold, distant father( who would deigrate him, for instance he gave him his nickname Collar and Cuffs ).
Serial killers many times have a dominant mother and abusive or distant father.
Prince Eddy had handicaps. He was partially deaf and he was intellectually backwards.
Many serial killers had handicaps.
He was not a successful soldier but kept his job because he was a Prince.
Many serial killers are not successful in their work.
Prince Eddy's favorite thing was to hunt, which is the harming and killing of animals.
Many serial killers harmed and killed animals.
Prince Eddy was strong enough to semi-throttle, slice the throat and the mutilate the mostly old, drunk, weak prostiutes that he killed.
Many of the eye witness accounts look like Prince Eddy, especially Long's, PC Smith's and Hutchinson's. Hutchinson's eye witness account looks exactly like Prince Eddy.
Inspector Abbeerline told Nigel Morland, the publisher of the magazine "The Criminologist", that Jack the Ripper was "one of the highest in the land".
Dr. Thomas Stowell, with inside information from Dr. William Gull's papers as well as from Caroline Acland, the daughter of DR. William Gull and her husband, DR. Theodore Dyke Acland, who was the son of the Prince of Wales' doctor, said that Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper.
Freda Thomson, who had a relative who was a detective sergeant in the London police force in 1888, was told the account, in part that says;
"The Story was that the police knew it was the Duke. It was also said at the time that the head of the investigation had his orders not to do anything about the Duke.
These orders must have come from the very top even though he had been having a bad time from the public, as they were concerned that no one had ever been arrested.
So nothing could be done. This was a well known fact down the police ranks".
Commissioner James Monro left some papers with his eldest son Charles which said that the identity of Jack the Ripper or his theory of who Jack the Ripper was, "was a very hot potato". It was known that he would not even tell his wife the information, ie, the identity of Jack the Ripper. This information, in my opinion, could not have been about any fenion involvement in the Jack the Ripper crimes, because if it was, then in my opinion, he would have told his wife that. But since he was adament about not telling his wife, I believe he was keeping the identity of Jack the Ripper secret. I don't think he would adament about keeping fenian involvement from his wife. But I do think he would have beem adament about keeping the "very hot potato", the identity of Jack the Ripper, secret from his wife, especialy, if this "very hot potato" was that Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper.
I listed a lot of information, facts and evidence on here that strongly points to Prince Eddy being Jack the Ripper. A person might attempt to invaldate one or two of this information or facts( unsuccessfully I believe ). But there is much to much information and facts, much more than against any other suspect, to successfully refute the claim that the best case against any suspect is against Prince Eddy. Most of the information, facts and evidence( much of which I have just listed ), points strongly to Prince Eddy being Jack the Ripper.
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 855
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Ok Thomas, to work:
Most of the information, facts and evidence, in and around the case, point strongly to Prince Eddy being Jack the Ripper.
MOST?? Well, we'll no doubt see why you think that, as we progress.
There is a lot of evidence and facts which indicate an offcial cover-up, a cover-up of an important individual.
Again an assertion as yet unfounded. I can think of no such evidence.
There is the eye witness accounts of Geoege Hutchinson( a pale, jewish looking man with a small, dark, moustache turned up at the ends ), and PC Smith( a man around 28 with a small dark moustache ), and Elizabeth Long( a dark foreign looking man ), strongly indicate the pale skinned, jewish or foreign looking with a small dark moustache turned up at the ends, Prince Eddy.
I have said before, I think in reply to you, that that description could apply to half the men in Britain in 1888 - when moustaches and facial hair was in fashion. the same descriptions could apply equally to Druitt, and to drawings we have of other people involved in the case, such as Barnett.
But that apart, have you thought through what the terms "Jewish looking", or "foreign" meant in 1888 (not as we read them today. I see no particular Jewish look in PAV's face - certainly not compared to the eastern European immigrants that people like Hutchinson, and Mrs Long saw around them every day.
There is some doubt though. If Prince Eddy was not Jack the Ripper, then those who were important enough to cause a cover-up, and basically look like the three eye witness accounts of Hutchinson, Smith, and Long( though Prince Eddy looks a lot more like the three eye witness accounts ), who could have been Jack the Ripper, were, in probability of being Jack the Ripper, in order, were Randolph Churchill and J.K. Stephen. Randolph Churchill or J.K. Stephen could have been Jack the Ripper, but I don't believe so.
On what basis do you pick these three individuals off the rail? Would you have heard of JK Stephen without Harrison's book? And that authreor plucked him from the air as a suspect!! But I could pick up books about late victorian society from my shelves and show you masses of faces that have the same characteristics. Why those three?
I believe that Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper.
Ok, you believe it, but we aren't seeing much proof yet.
Most of the information, facts and evidence, in and around the case, point strongly to Prince Eddy being Jack the Ripper.
You said that before.
Prince Eddy had no alibis. Any documents that attempt to alibi could have been forged by the powers that be.
Could have been but where is the evidence they were?
QUESTION: Tell me what you think Queen Victoria's diaries look like? It has a crucial bearing on your statement. Do you know her handwriting well-enough to know if it had been altered or added to?
But besides that. Even if Prince Eddy was where he was said to be, he could have left, commited the murders, and then returned.
To London and back to balmoral. I assume you can show that he could have done so from railway timetables?
A few examples:
September 30, 1888
There is a record in Queen Victoria's journal that Price Eddy dined with her for lunch on the 30th. Even if that wasn't forged( and the powers that be could have forged it ), Prince Eddy killed Catharine Eddowes at 1:30 am, and had ten and a half hours to take a train to Abergeldie, Scotland, and have lunch with Queen Victoria.
That can be shown to be possible or not - show us by reference to the railway timetables. others have done so in relation to druitt's journies - over to you. unless you back it up, what you have said is just a baseless assertion.
November 9, 1888
Prince Eddy murdered Mary Jane Kelly.
Jewish looking, pale skin, dark hair, dark eyelashes with a small, dark, moustache, turned up at the ends( George Hutchinson description ). It looks exactly like Prince Eddy. The suspect wore button boots, gaiters with white buttons. There is a picture of Prince Eddy wearing button boots, gaiters with white buttons. It is either in Michael Harrison's book or David Abrahamsen's book. The suspect wore a coat that highlighed astrakhan collar and cuffs. Prince Eddy was known as Collar and Cuffs. Also the man seen by Thomas Bowyer on Wednesday, November 7, was noticable by showing very white cuffs and a white collar.
Eddy was very fastidious. What possible reason could he have had for wearing spats in the evening - they were strictly morning wear!! in the picture you mention the spats he is wearing go with highland dress, not town clothes, anyway.
The reason Prince eddy was so dressed up in the early hours of November 9( more so than when he commited the other murders ), was because November 9 was his father's, the Prince of Wales' birthday. After he killed Mary Jane Kelly at 4 am or 9 or 10 am( whichever ), he made his way, all dressed up, to his fathers' birthday party at Sandringham, not to far from London.
Sandringam is over 100 miles from London. Your point shows no understanding whatsoever of the conventions of Victorian dress, of changing.
But worst of all, do you suggest he dressed in the way he would arrive at a royal residence hours later, but then went out to commit a gruesome and particularly bloody murder, without any thought about getting blood on himself? It's laughable.
Long's, PC Smith's and Lawende's( according to the statement of Lawende's taken by Major Smith )suspects all wore deerstalker hats. The ritual vestment of hunters. Hunting was the favorite thing for Prince Eddy to do. There are pictures of him wearing deerstalker hats.
They were so common at the time that Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes was illustrated wearing one!! It was a common style of cap.
It is important to remember that a doctor who examined the bodies at the time, said it could have been done by a surgeon or doctor, or butcher, or a hunter. The bodies had their throats cut across, with a cut down the middle of the abdomen. The women were opened up like a hunter would grollach a deer. This is what Prince Eddy did.
That shows a strange lack of knowledge of Eddy's character. he was so indolent by nature, that i suspect there is no evidence he ever disembowelled a deer. If he did it would have been aided by more experienced ghillies.
Hutchinson's suspect had a large seal with a red stone in the middle of it, attached to a gold chain. I saw on the internet a picture of Prince Eddy when he was around 10. He was wearing a large seal with a red stone in the middle of it, attached to a chain. After I made a few website hits( there were different pictures of Prince Eddy as a child )looking at this picture, it was taken off the internet. This is a true story.
Well, Eddy has a seal with a stone - how do you know it was red? was it a painting or a colour photograph(!) - you don't say?
I read somewhere on the internet that someone said Prince Eddy was left-handed. That may or may not be true . I don't know for sure. But I believe Prince Eddy was left-handed and I believe Jack the Ripper was left-handed. Dr. Llewellyn, who examined the body of Polly Nichols, believed the murderer of Polly Nichols was left-handed. I believe the fact the Jack the Ripper was left-handed was covered up because Prince Eddy, who was Jack the Ripper, was left-handed.
Lot's of beliefs there then. based on an, "I read somewhere". That'll convince me!!
There is a note that Robeet Anderson says that Dr. Llewellyn now has some doubts that the murderer was left-handed. Even if this note is not forged( thats an if ), this was Robert Anderson covering up of the strong statement by Dr. Llewellyn that the murderer was left-handed. This was to keep the suspicion away from the Left-handed Prince Eddy. The doctor who examined Alice Mckenzie, said the murderer of Alice Mckenzie was left-handed. Now, the percentage of left-handed people is very small. The percentage of left-handed people who would kill someone by cutting their throat and mutilate their abdomen is infinitely small. That would probably only be one left-handed person. If Alice McKenzie was killed by Jack the Ripper( I believe she was ), then the Left-handed Jack the Ripper killed Polly Nichols and Alice McKenzie( and the other women, but his left-handness was either not noted or covered up in these cases ). Prince Eddy is a suspect I believe was left-handed.
Now the beliefs become "ifs" - and what a lot of them. And more libellous and unfounded suggestions of forgery. What if Llewellyn was wrong and anderson was right to point it out. There was evidently some doubt at the time.
If that was changed, why was not Hutchinson's description - which you claim was a word portrait of the Prince - not expunged from the record. It seems forgery and cover-up only happens when convenient to you, and never otherwise.
One reason I believe Prince Eddy was Left-handed was I saw a picure of Prince Eddy and his family( either in Michael Harrison's or David Abrahamsen's book ). In this picture Prince Eddy and his sisters were sitting down. All were holding their canes, his sisters with their right hands, Prince Eddy with his left.
How careless of him. I didn't know a cane had a "handedness"?
Another reason that I believe Prince Eddy was left-handed is that there are pictures of him with his left hand holding the hilt or top of his sword. I would think that any person, if he was right-handed, would hold the hilt or top of his sword with his right hand
Was the sword in its scabbard or drawn? the scabbarded sword is always worn with military uniform on the left. thus in a portrait, in uniform, the hand was often posed with it holding the hilt or resting atop the hilt of the sword. Again, I can show you dozens of examples.
Prince Eddy fits the profile except he wasn't middle or lower class.
So he doesn't fit the profile!!
There were other aristocratic mass killers or serial killers such as Gilles de Rais and Countess Bathory.
Several hundred years before. De rais was a companion of Jeanne d'Arc and was executed in the mid 1400s. Bathory was 1500's wasn't she?
The Cleveland Torso murders were supposedly done by a known doctor( with a politician as a relative ), who was never charged.
I don't see the connection?
Prince Eddy was in his 20 s. ..Serial killers usually start in their 20 s or 30 s.
Was Eddy the only man in the Uk in thatage group in the UK? The same statement could have applied to Druitt equally, for one.
Prince Eddy had a dominant mother and a cold, distant father( who would deigrate him, for instance he gave him his nickname Collar and Cuffs ).
Queen Alexandra as dominant doesn't quite fit for me. Over-loving, indulgent? And Edward famously got on with his younger son - they were later said to be more like brothers than father and son. The whole family "romped" together in a warm and intimate way and Eddy was said to feel comfortable only in the family circle - where his deafness was understood. Nicknames were universal - his father was Tum-tum.
Serial killers many times have a dominant mother and abusive or distant father.
Prince Eddy had handicaps. He was partially deaf and he was intellectually backwards.
Many serial killers had handicaps.
He was not a successful soldier but kept his job because he was a Prince.
Many serial killers are not successful in their work.
Prince Eddy's favorite thing was to hunt, which is the harming and killing of animals.
Many serial killers harmed and killed animals.
Prince Eddy was strong enough to semi-throttle, slice the throat and the mutilate the mostly old, drunk, weak prostiutes that he killed.
All of this could relate to most of the British upper class in 1888. Circumstantial at best. too general to be of use or worth commenting on.
Many of the eye witness accounts look like Prince Eddy, especially Long's, PC Smith's and Hutchinson's. Hutchinson's eye witness account looks exactly like Prince Eddy.
So you told us at length earlier.
Inspector Abbeerline told Nigel Morland, the publisher of the magazine "The Criminologist", that Jack the Ripper was "one of the highest in the land".
What does the phrase mean. In any case, Eddy as second in line was above even being one of the highest.
Dr. Thomas Stowell, with inside information from Dr. William Gull's papers as well as from Caroline Acland, the daughter of DR. William Gull and her husband, DR. Theodore Dyke Acland, who was the son of the Prince of Wales' doctor, said that Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper.
He produced no evidence of where he got his information.
Freda Thomson, who had a relative who was a detective sergeant in the London police force in 1888, was told the account, in part that says;
"The Story was that the police knew it was the Duke. It was also said at the time that the head of the investigation had his orders not to do anything about the Duke.
Hearsay. In any case, the head of the investigation could not have been told any such thing. Eddy was not a Duke in 1888.
These orders must have come from the very top even though he had been having a bad time from the public, as they were concerned that no one had ever been arrested.
What orders?
So nothing could be done. This was a well known fact down the police ranks".
And no one ever broke ranks and spilled the beans?
Commissioner James Monro left some papers with his eldest son Charles which said that the identity of Jack the Ripper or his theory of who Jack the Ripper was, "was a very hot potato". It was known that he would not even tell his wife the information, ie, the identity of Jack the Ripper. This information, in my opinion, could not have been about any fenion involvement in the Jack the Ripper crimes, because if it was, then in my opinion, he would have told his wife that. But since he was adament about not telling his wife, I believe he was keeping the identity of Jack the Ripper secret. I don't think he would adament about keeping fenian involvement from his wife. But I do think he would have beem adament about keeping the "very hot potato", the identity of Jack the Ripper, secret from his wife, especialy, if this "very hot potato" was that Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper.
You are very intimate with what Munro might have told his wife. I dare not be so bold. Baseless, and ill-argued nonsense. What was Munro expected to "drop a hint" to the Yard about, based on your interpretation?
I listed a lot of information, facts and evidence on here that strongly points to Prince Eddy being Jack the Ripper. A person might attempt to invaldate one or two of this information or facts( unsuccessfully I believe ). But there is much to much information and facts, much more than against any other suspect, to successfully refute the claim that the best case against any suspect is against Prince Eddy. Most of the information, facts and evidence( much of which I have just listed ), points strongly to Prince Eddy being Jack the Ripper.
you set out a lot of circumstantial interpretations of rumour and hearsay, selected what you will and won't accept and random, and cited no facts at all as far as I can see.
I now offer you that chance to deconstruct my posts in the relevant thread.
Phil
|
Ski
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 2:36 am: |
|
Question
If P.C. Smith saw the future king of England, do you think he might have mentioned it in his suspect discription report for Scotland Yard.
If any suspect saw him - especially Swartz and Huthinson - who saw his face, Why did not they metion it. Is it possible that people simply did not know what Prince Eddy looked like? |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 859
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Quite possible.
Photographic reproduction was in its infancy in 1888 and most periodicals and newspapers relied upon engravings.
One of the reasons for huge popularity of waxwork exhibitions, like Madame Tussaud's, was that it gave the public a change to see what "celebrities" looked like.
Unless the PC had been on duty somewhere where the royal family appeared in public, he probably would never have seen a picture, certainly not a colour image, of the Prince. the exceptions might have been in shop windows which might have carried frame photographs in the jubillee year of 1887.
But my main point is that where today the face of Prince Charles, or Jennifer Lopez is universally known, in 1888, that would not have been the case.
Phil |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 464
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Even from here in the States I can hear Queen Vic spinning in her grave at the thought of Eddy being Jewish looking.
Mags
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 335
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Was PAV JTR and did he kill MJK? Was she C5 and what was his MO as per the PC? IMHO and from my POV this wasn't typical in the LVP.
TLC,
Stan, ESQ. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 740
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Stan ESQ,
BTW, R U OK?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 336
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
AOK DON
I expected someone to come back and say that's BS.
Stan |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 872
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 2:16 am: |
|
And I thought this was a thread about JtR, PAV and the LPV!! |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
I watched a film called "The Ripper" the other day and it relation to the actual case, it was pathetic. It in the paper that it took the facts of the case into account. It obviously didn't. First of all they seemed to want to save time by mixing Polly and Annie into the one murder and I also loved it when Mary was discovered in the middle of the night by a mob of East enders who apparently just decided to all look into her window as they were passing. Most of all, the had Prince Eddy as JTR AND they actually showed us it was him through out! Dumb! Now, I like the idea of a good old conspiracy, but in this case it's unrealistic and not likely at all. There was no proof or even evidence that the Prince killed these women.
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess 
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 264
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Theres no proof or evidence to convict anyone for the Ripper murders - why do you think we are still all arguing about the case !!!
I'd go further and say that we don't even have a good suspect at the moment , just about everybody is discredited ! I'd say Druitt is our best suspect at the moment thanks to the excellent investigating of Andy Spallek ! |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 873
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 2:30 am: |
|
Simon, while I agree that there's no proof to conclusively indicate that any individual in Jack, that doesn't mean that we cannot dicount some of the wilder suspects (Barnardo, Dodgson etc).
Above all, we can CONCLUSIVELY, eradicate Prince Albert victor from our investigations, as there is not a shred of evidence to link him to the crimes. Besides which he has cast-iron alibis for the times in question. Eddy may yave had learning and deafness problems, and seemed a bit off, but his character also makes it highly unlikely that he could be a llone murderer (he was far too lethargic).
So on the same basis as you urge Sarah and others that there is not enough evidence to convict, you must surely agree to the dismissal of Eddy - no evidence?
Phil |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1348
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 5:39 am: |
|
Simon,
Theres no proof or evidence to convict anyone for the Ripper murders - why do you think we are still all arguing about the case !!!
True, but I only said that because the original poster said that all the facts and evidence pointed to Prince Eddy. I was merely saying it didn't. I wasn't trying to say that we have strong evidence for anybody else.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4019
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 6:23 am: |
|
Phil,
"while I agree that there's no proof to conclusively indicate that any individual in Jack, that doesn't mean that we cannot dicount some of the wilder suspects "
Exactly. I totally agree.
It would be ludicrous if the fact that we have no solid evidence to accuse anyone, also automatically should mean that we are forced to accept every ridiculous suspect out there. If that was the case, we could even find arguments as to why Lucky Luke or Tintin should be there. Anything would be possible.
Simon,
Prince Eddy had iron clad alibies for some of the murders. THAT is evidence - it is all there in the records. And there are no indication whatsoever saying why he should be a suspect at all. As far as I am concerned he can be safely exonerated from the list, along with some others, like Cream.
The Royal connection is a very clever but nevertheless silly construction based on fiction and lies, not facts.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 13, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
I've asked this question before with no answer so I'll try again:
Where did this man, and remember please that this is a man who cannot even shave himself, learn....
A-to use a knife with even the rudimentary skill that would have been required
B-to find his way around the Whitechapel district of 1888.
To be honest, I cant really believe that in this day and age there are STILL people who believe that Eddy could have been the killer.It just maked no sense whatsoever - none.
I agree 100% with Glenn & Phil here.I could write 1000 reasons why Queen Victoria could have been Jack the Ripper but that does NOT make any of those reaons TRUE or even remotely plausable.
You are talking about a man here who has been taught nothing other than how to behave in public and how to enjoy himself for gods sake, this man could'nt even make a cup of tea much less stalk the dark streets of Whitechapel and then slay his victims in total silence AND escape without leaving a trace.
I can readily understand the train of thought that leads to the likes of Joe Barnett or say Hutchinson but,quite frankly,some of these suspects are ludicrous & PAV, perhaps, most of all. |
Ian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 10:42 pm: |
|
I think the opening post is an interesting one. There are flaws in the "possibilities" but that will be the case with any suspect.
Phil, IF there was a cover up you will not find any evidence, thats what a cover up is. It would have been done by the highest in the land not just any old body.
Interesting!! ................................
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1349
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
Steve,
"Where did this man, and remember please that this is a man who cannot even shave himself, learn....
A-to use a knife with even the rudimentary skill that would have been required
B-to find his way around the Whitechapel district of 1888."
Short answer to both - he didn't. At least that's most plausible answer.
Ian,
As Glenn and numerous others over the years have pointed out, Prince Eddie has cast iron alibis for some of the murders. He was seen in Scotland on the day of Kate Eddowes murder. Now I find it preposterous that he could have "killed Catharine Eddowes at 1:30 am, and had ten and a half hours to take a train to Abergeldie, Scotland, and have lunch with Queen Victoria." as Thomas says above.
I don't think you'll find a decent Ripperologist who will think Prince Eddie was the Ripper. Sorry.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess
|
Ian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 9:27 pm: |
|
Sarah, I don't think Eddy was Jack The Ripper but people seem to miss the point I'm making.
IF again I say IF Jack was a royal, the powers that be would have almost certainly made absolutely certain that the person in question would have had a cast iron alibi. It would be made to look impossible that that royal could possibly have been the killer. We're talking about the royal family here not the Krays, the most powerful people in the land.
That is my opinion and whilst I can't prove that, no one can prove otherwise either.
Again I'll confirm that I really don't see the Prince as the Ripper, if I were a bookmaker I'd be giving long odds against him, I just think it's so easy to totally dismiss the idea and I think sometimes people forget the power that the royals have / had particularly over 100 years ago.
Not logical no, not very likely no but absolutely impossible? Again in my opinion, no. |
Thomas Neagle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 1:26 am: |
|
Most people know that if Prince Eddy, being second in line to the throne, was Jack the Ripper, then the powers that be would have covered it up. Would it be so that the other suspects had the powers that be, with all the power that they held and hold, behind them to construct a false alibi as they did for Prince Eddy.
No such luck for the other suspects. But no such luck for Prince Eddy either. Considering, logically and honestly, his position in life and the powers that be behind him, and since we cannot be sure if an alibi for him is truthfull or a coverup by the powers that be, then logically, regardless if he was innocent or guilty, he cannot be credited with a valid and truthfull alibi that can be believed and trusted.
The court circulars could have been faked, but even if they weren't, they were only a schedule of where Prince Eddy was supposed to be. Im sure if Prince Eddy absented himslf from some place for a day or two, there is no way the powers that be would have let that information come down to us.
There were four dates for the five cannonical murders. Three of those four dates Prince Eddy was in the environs of London, easily accessable by horse, buggy or train. For only one of the dates was he out of the country, in Abergeldie Scotland. I will get to that.
THe alibis they attempt to give Prince Eddy.
Basically they give a big chunk of time when they say he was at this place for this long and at that place for this long. Like I said, if Prince Eddy absented himself for a day or two, there is no way the powers that be would have let that information come down to us.
Their attempt at alibiing Prince Eddy:
Polly Nichols was murdered August 31st.
August 29th to September 7th.
They say Prince Eddy was staying with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge, Grossmont, Yorkshire.
Annie Chapman was murdered September 8th.
September 7th to September 10th.
They say Prince Eddy was at the Cavalry Barracks in York.
Mary Jane Kelly was murdered om November 9th.
November 2nd to November 12th.
They say Prince Eddy was at Sandringham.
Not much of alibis. Like I said, all three dates were in the environs of London, easily accessable by horse, buggy or train. And if Prince Eddy absented himself for a day ot two, there is no way the powers that be would have let that information come down to us.
Elizabeth Stride and Catharine Eddowes were murdered on September 30th.
September 27th to September 30th.
They say Prince Eddy was in Albergeldie Scotland.
This is the only murder thay say Prince Eddy was not in the environs of London. They say Queen Victoria noted in her journal that Prince Eddy dined with her for lunch on September 30th. That could have been forged by the powers that be, considering the powers that the powers that be have. Even if ir wasn't forged, Catharine Eddowes was murdered at 1:30 am September 30th. Prince Eddy had ten and a half hours to take a train to Abergeldie Scotland and have lunch with Queen Victoria. Also maybe Queen Victoria noted that she was going to have lunch, not that she had lunch with Prince Eddy. That is possible. Or that Prince Eddy got there late and had lunch at 2 pm. If so, that would have given Prince Eddy twelve and a half hours to have lunch with Queen Victoria.
Like I said any or all the court circulars or other such things could have been forged by the powers that be, considering the powers that the powers that be have. Even if they were not forged, court circulars were only schedules where Prince Eddy was going to be or supposed to be. Maybe he wasn't there. Or like I said, if he had absented himself for a day or two around each of the murders, there is no way the powers that be would let that information come down to us.
Condidering Prince Eddy's position in life and the powers that be behind him, logically and honestly, Prince Eddy cannot be credited with a valid and truthfull alibi that can be believed and trusted. |
John Savage
Chief Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 538
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Thomas,
The court circulars may or may not have been altered, that will always be a matter of conjecture.
To state that York, Sandringham and Grossmont are within the environs of London, is something of an exageration. Sandingham is about 100 miles from London, York 200 miles and Grossmont about 240 miles.
As for Abergeldie, it would be nessesary to travel first to Aberdeen, which even with todays high speed (125mph) trains still takes nearly 8 hours, and then another 40 miles by horse drawn carriage.
Rgds
John |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4232
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 5:10 am: |
|
I would accept that the court dates might have been altered for the purpose of a cover-up of the Prince's 'real' activities, if it wasn't fir the fact that there are absolutely no reasons whatsoever to suspect any actions of that kind.
There exists no evidence or indications in the known facts regarding the Ripper murders, that even suggests a Royal connection.
The Prince as a suspect is a thing based on bad and imaginary research and fictionous ambitions. There ARE NO FACTS that supports this theory. If we disregard the Prince's so called alibi for no reason, then so could be done with any other suspect.
The court dates with the Prince's activities are there and there is no reason at all to believe that they are false and certainly no reason to suggest a cover-up, simply because no other facts in the case indicates it.
How Thomas Neagle can say that 'Most of the information, facts and evidence, in and around the case, point strongly to Prince Eddy being Jack the Ripper', is a mystery to me, because there exists not a single piece of information that points in this direction - unless you desperatley want it to at any price.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 8:28 am: |
|
I have never heard such arrant,uniformed and frankly illogical nonsense as has been aired in this thread.
Will be person who claims Queen Vixctoria's diary has been forged please tell me (a) whether he has seen it and (b) in what form it was kept? The answers to that will demonstrate my point.
Secondly, when Mr Savage says:
The court circulars may or may not have been altered, that will always be a matter of conjecture.
What precisely does he mean? Does he actually know what the Court Circular is and the form it takes? is he claiming that in its publ;ishged form the Circular was first issued and then altered? or that it was altered before publication? If the latter, why not arrange more cast-iron alibis since those used appear to be being questioned?
Is the suggestion really that Victorian society perjured itself for Eddy? They certainly did not for his father?
I want answers here from thiose intellectually banckrupt posters who waste our time with a;; these suppositional and morally questionable
suggestions.
ANYONE could have done the murders on this basis (many with more reason than PAV) and the evidence been destroyed or altered, on the basis put forward in posts above.
Finally, look at this challenge:
That is my opinion and whilst I can't prove that, no one can prove otherwise either.
I think I can PROVE you are wrong, Ian, by pointing to an examining the whole context of royal history and political life between the late 188os and (say) 1914. By looking at the biographies and lives of those who lived through those years in the intimate company of those you malign in such a cowardly and unsupported way. I will demonstrate from other similar cases that you cannot be right, and I will rub your nose in it to make you think again.
Up for the challnge, Ian?
Make your case as best you can and I will answer you, point by point.
Thank heaven for Glenn's admirable post.
Phil |
John Savage
Chief Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 539
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Allow me clarify my above statement.
The idea that the court circulars may have been altered is simply an opinion of some people (not mine), it is an opinion based on no evidence that I am aware of. For this reason my statement was simply meant as a dismissal of the idea.
The main purpose of my post was to advise Thomas that he needs to brush up on his geography,I mean would you consider York or Sandringham to be within the environs of London?
Oh, and yes I am quite familiar with the Court Circular.
Rgds
John |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Sorry, John, if I misinterpreted your post. But this arguing from ignorance of almost anything that seems a hallmark of the intellectually challenged who still promote the (so-called) "conspiracy" thoery, annoys me. It was knee-jerk reaction. My sincere apologies. |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Well, I have just watched the documentary, and found it a mixed bag.
It briskly dismissed the Prince as Jack, which cannot be a bad thing, but seemed to me to do so on pretty weak grounds - essentially, the Court Circular evidence alone.
On Eddy as social reformer and a "King-in-touch-with-his-people" (unless I missed something in the first five minutes or so) this seemed to be based on one letter thanking a friend for a poem about Ireland. hardly a lot to go on!!
Salisbury may have mentioned him as a potential Viceroy of Ireland, but where is the evidence in the public record that this was ever discussed further? I don't think we were told to whom Salisbury was writing - which could be important. If the suggestion was more than a whim or a bright idea, then it would have come before Cabinet at some stage, or at least been discussed with leading figures in the Government. I am not aware that evidence of either has been found by reputable historians.
Which does not make the idea untrue. Viceroys could be used in various ways, and I doubt that even in his cups, Salisbury would ever have foreseen a future constitutional monarch acting in a political manner. It could have compromised the future king too much.
Many of the self-proclaimed professional historians seemed to work on a could and maybe basis a lot, but the truely laughable moment came when George V was castigated for not inviting the tsar to britain in 1917!! So starry-eyed had the production team become over Alicky's love for Nicholas, that they had forgotten that in that period the Tsar was seen as somewhat equivalent to Himmler or Saddam Hussein later - a tyrant and mass-murderer who probably would not have been welcome.
But at least we got a glimpse of Barlow and Watt's TV opus!! Oh that the Beeb woud bring it out on dvd!!
Phil |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 269
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
I think the programme mentioned that the correspondence was between Salisbury and the Prince of Wales , Phil.
I think the implication that Eddy was not involved in the Cleveland Street scandal was quite shakey as well , no mention was made that the American press had made this information explicit at the time and sending Eddy off to India was convinient to say the least ! Eddy may well have been madly in love with Alicky in 1889 , but who says it was that year that he used the brothel ?
Nice to see Paul Begg and Don Rumbelowe on the programme , and old Joe Sickert too.
Link : http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/e-h/eddy6.html |
John Savage
Chief Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 8:11 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
No Problems, all I was trying to do was point out the geographical mistake in Thomas's post, as readers from overseas, quite naturally, may not realise the distances involved.
I enjoyed the Prince Eddy programme, and as you say a mixed bag, with one or two interesting photographs, but one of them was a photograph by Frank Meadow Sutcliffe of ships in Whitby Harbour. What that has to do with Eddy, goodness only knows.
The most interesting point to my mind was the suggestion that Eddy and George's poor education may have been more the fault of their tutor, Canon Dalton. We shall never know, but it is a fresh angle worth considering.
Would Eddy have made a better King than george? Allow me to use that word again Phil, conjecture.
And yes, BBC please bring out a DVD of the Barlow and Watt programme. (I never realised it was in colour).
Rgds
John |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 963
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Hi all,
If I remember, the Prince of Wales had repeatedly tried to get some type of official postition from the 1870s to the end of his mother's reign, and Victoria kept putting her foot down. She did not mind her sons being used for visits to colonies or for family (read multiple royal family) occasions (Eddy attended a royal wedding in Greece in 1889 with his parents on the way to India), but she was loathed to using them in political posts. And the powers that be were equally loathed to use them. If you had to fill a position of importance like Viceroy of Ireland, you appointed a leading political figure like W.E. Foster, or Arthur Balfour. You did not appoint the Queen's grandson - especially after 1882 and the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish.
As for the education of the heirs to the throne, it has always been a hit or miss matter. The ability to reign really is based more on character than on education. To instill a sense of duty into the family member seems more important than for that family member to have a Ph.D. Put another way - at this time Portugal was ruled by Carlos III, who was a recognized expert on deep sea life. In fact, his collection of sea specimens are in a national museum in Lisbon. But he was a rather anti-democratic type, who kept pulling in more and more governmental power to himself. In 1908, Carlos and his heir were assassinated in Lisbon. That did not happen to Edward VII or Victoria (despite several attempts on the latter, and one on the former).
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
But are these boards out to confuse? I went to Whitechapel with my fella the other night, and walked past an eery alley, where a tour guide was giving her dictons to a small, silent and enraptured crowd. I quietly approached. She was explaining how Eddy had an affair with Annie Crook and how Mary Kelly went by the name of one of Walter Sickert's paintings called 'Mrs Barnett', also the name of her flat-mate, who was an Irish revolutionary. What about William Gull, chirped up a tourist, who was told how Annie Crook had so annoyed government doctors with her love affairs that a number went insane, and were possibly Freemasons, which gave rise to their using all manner of instruments to murder her poor women friends, none of whom showed signs of having been interfered with by a Doctor per se.
Furthar to this, a young man wanted to know what Joseph Sickert had to do with it. He made the whole thing up apparently, and was not a reliable source. He'd obtained his information from the sons of Netley and William Gull who were anxious for him to burn all documents relating to their Spriritualist activities. No one can prove that Eddy and Walter Sickert weren't in Whitechapel together which ostensibly explains the night of the double murders. Then the tour went off to see where 'the knife' had been discarded that night by Gull and Netley who'd escorted Katharine Eddowes' apron to Old Gouldstone street in the carriage ( nb why?), where they left it under a market stall sign written in chalk by a cockney Jewish homosexual, hence the fecal matter on the apron. ( the poor man had been subjected to Gull's sexual deviance in the little alley, which she showed everyone). Then they went to get some chips .
I left as with my fella but we were clutching our tummies laughing. Kept wondering how much she was paid, quite alot, probably. The lawyers will say more than them.
Incidentally Whitechapel looks beautiful, freezing frost and autumn leaves, and the old canopies are decorated in lantern lights everywhere. There are alot of barbeques and chestnut sellers. I kept thinking of WS and his 'Lets go to Whitechapel! Let's go to Whitechapel!' |
Thomas Neagle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:53 pm: |
|
When I said Prince Eddy was in the environs of London for three out of the four dates of the five cannonical murders, I meant he was in the vicinity, around London, not out of the country. He very easily could have taken a train to London. You say Sandringham is 100 miles, York is 200 miles, and Grossmont is 240 miles from London. I read that the speed of the London trains of the late eighteen hundreds was aproximately the same of trains now-adays. Not too great a difference ( not including mag-lev trains of course ). Taking the longest distance from London, the 240 miles that Grossmont is from London, a train traveling 100 miles an hour would get to London in about two and a half hours. Even if a train was traveling 70 miles an hour, it would take only around three hours. Even if a train only traveled 50 miles an hour, it would only take five hours to get to London. My point was that for three out of the four dates of the five cannonical murders, Prince Eddy would have had no problem getting to London.
The only problem is Abergeldie Scotland on September 30th. Abergeldie Scotland is around 400 to 600 miles from London, I don't exactly. A train traveling 100 miles an hour ( and i read that they travel at aproximaletly the same speed as today ), would get to Aberdeen in around 6 hours. Does the train go by Albergelie before getting to Aberdeen. I don't know. If so it would be less time. If it had to go to Aberdeen, then take a horse drawn carriage, it would add around 3 hours more. 9 hours to get to Abergeldie Scotland. If a train traveled 75 miles and hour, it would get to Aberdeen in 8 hours. If u add 3 hours for a horse drawn carriage, that is 11 hours to get to Abergeldie Scotland. Im using the distance of 6oo miles from London. If the distance is 500 miles or 400 miles, it would of course take less time to get to Abergeldie Scotland.
The murder of Catharine Eddowes was at 1:30 am, September 30th. If Prince Eddy dined with Queen Victoria at noon, he would have had ten and a half hours to get to Abergeldie Scotland. If he got there late, at two pm, he would have had twelve and a half hours to get there. Maybe he didn't dine for lunch with Queen Victoria, but dined for dinner with her at five pm. I dont know. If so, he would have had fifteen and a half hours to get there.
Any or all of the court circulars and such things could have been forged by the powers that be. Even if they wern't, they were only a schedule of where Prince Eddy was going to be or where he was supposed to be. Maybe he wasn't there some of the time. Maybe he wasn't there all the time. We don't know. Even if he was there at least part of the time ( within the blocks of time around each murder given as alibis ), if he had absented himself for a day or two around each of the murders, there is no way the powers that be would have let that information come down to us.
Like I said, Prince Eddy would not have had a problem taking a train to London for three out of the four dates of the five cannonical murders. The only problem is dining with Queen Victoria at Abergeldie Scotland. But as I showed, he could have traveled there in time to dine with her. In terms of the note in Queen Victoria's journal about dining with Prince Eddy, that could have been forged by the powers that be. The powers that be had and have a lot of power, and very easily could they have used a graphologist or whatever to forge Queen Victoria's handwriting concerning the note. The powers that be had and have that power.
It seems a little to convenient that there is a note in Queen Victoria's journal that she dined with Prince Eddy. If there had been a note that someone had dined with Prince Eddy after any of the other three dates of the cannonical murders, it would have not mattered, because Prince Eddy was within a few hours of London by train. The only date such a note might work or be feesable as an alibi would be in Abergeldie Scotland, a good distance from London. It seems a little to convemient. But as I showed, Prince Eddy could have traveled there in time to dine with Queen Victoria. And like I said, the powers that be, with all the power that they had and have, very easily could have used a graphologist or whatever to forge Queen Victoria's handwriting concerning the note. The powers that be had and have that power. |
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:54 am: |
|
Oh do stop this!
If prince Eddy was involved, then he wasn't going about holding a knife and weilding it at every man. Nor was he sleeping with Annie Crook. Everyone knows that now!
Let's watch the programme on Monday and see what the situation is. I think it'll be alot of opportunistic theorising by a man who's won two Eddy letters at an auction, but lets watch it anyway. Apparently people went for Eddy as a statesman because of his slightly rebellious Political leanings. He was pro Home Rule. Not the dim wit people say but I think a great many people knew that anyway. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 876
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 2:20 pm: |
|
I agree that Eddy is a very unlikely suspect. However in the interest of thoroughness, have we ever investigated the court circulars? I mean just to put the whole thing to rest. Are copies still available? For years I have heard that Eddy could not have been JTR because the circulars prove he was in Scotland, but I have yet to see one of them. |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Thomas Neagle - you just scored the most wonderful own goal about QV's journal, and the best bit is you don't even know why!!
Several posts above I posed this question;
Will be person who claims Queen Vixctoria's diary has been forged please tell me (a) whether he has seen it and (b) in what form it was kept? The answers to that will demonstrate my point.
Naturally you didn't reply Mr Neagle because i know the answer - you haven't a clue.
Your ignorance, your rather endearing attempts to justify your claims, you lack of familiarity with the most obvious physical evidence really are laughable.
Diana - Court Cirulars were and still are the PUBLISHED notification of the royal family's engagements printed in the leading newspapers the following morning. The Times, Daily Telegraph etc still carry them though the social content has now been much reduced.
They cannot have been tampered with except on the day they were written, and can still be read by anyone who cares to consult the newspaper files.
No retrospective correction could or would have been possible.
As for Queen Victoria's diaries, they are NOT in her hand, but in that of her daughter, and HAVE been expurgated. But not as Mr Neagle would have us believe.
If there is interest I'll tell the story, but perhaps Mr Neagle who claims to know so much and infer the rest with such reliability, would care to go first.
Phil |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 828
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Can we put an end to this rubbish. I have put this up on here before, but here it is again. The court circular from the Times of 1st October showing that Eddy was taking part in a drive for black game, which would have occurred very shortly after dawn, on September 30th. So forget nine hours or even six hours, he WAS NOT in London at 1.30 that morning. Period.
Jeffrey - I think you misunderstand the position of Viceroy that was being posited for Eddy. This is not the same as the political position that Balfour and Cavendish occupied, they were both Chief Secretary, which was usually (not always) a cabinet post. The Viceroy was essentially an honorary position with very little real power attached to it, basically a person to act as figurehead for the British establishment and a representative of the monarchy.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 965
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 10:55 pm: |
|
Hi Alan,
Gad sir, you are right! Chief Secretary is a political post. The Viceroy is honorary, but it was also quite prestigious. At one point, in the late 1870s, to show the Royal Family and the Disraeli government were only angry at Lord Randolph Churchill for veiled threats to the Prince of Wales, Lord Randolph's father, the Duke of Marleborough, was appointed Viceroy.
Still, I can't see them seriously offering such a post to either Bertie or Eddy.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2256
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 2:36 am: |
|
One thought guys.
It is worth re-reading Stowell's letter from 1970:
The Times (London).
9 November 1970
JACK THE RIPPER
From T.E.A. Stowell
Sir,
I have at no time associated His Royal Highness the late Duke of Clarence, with the Whitechapel murderer or suggested that the murderer was of Royal blood.
It remains my opinion that he was a scion of a noble family.
The particulars given in The Times of November 4 of the activities of His Highness in no way conflict with my views as to the identity of Jack the Ripper.
Yours faithfully,
a loyalist and a Royalist,
Thomas E.A. Stowell.
B3 Archers, Archers Road,
Southampton, Hampshire.
November 5.
A few observations:
1) What if Stowell was telling the truth and the suspect he was outlining was not Albert Victor and remains unidentified?
2) Who first identified the Stowell suspect as Eddy? This must have been within days of the article being published but I do not know where this identification is first made
3) Does anyone have access to the text of the Stowell article from the Criminologist? As far as I can see it is not on casebook
Chris |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 2:39 am: |
|
Jeffrey - history shows that positions such as Viceroy can be used in various ways. The incumbent can be either a politician or a figurehead, can be active or preside - and sometimes the politiciand CHOSE to change the way the position is filled.
I can recall the present Prince of Wales being considered as a possible Governor General of Australia in the 70s (before another holder of that office got involved in politics by sacking the then Prime Minister). Prince Charles' great-uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, actually served as Governor General. In earlier generations, Eddy's uncle the Duke of Connaught (I think) served as GG of Canada, as later did the Earl of Athlone, Queen Mary's brother.
So royal appointments to these positions are not impossible or unknown.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 2:44 am: |
|
Chris we posted at the same time.
I believe that Stowell had made clear to Colin Wilson and others BEFORE his article appeared that he was thinking of PAV. It's in one of the books but I haven't time to check before leaving for work.
Also, as I recall, the article is pretty specific in the details - reference to a phorograph etc - and this could hardly refer to anyone else.
the question is, why did Stowell retrcat so quickly? Was it a hoax/joke gone wrong (seemingly ruled out by his earlier conversations); or was he perhaps taken aback by the unexpected (to him) response?
Phil |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2257
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 3:12 am: |
|
Hi Phil
Thanks for those comments. I agree it seems unlikely to have been a hoax. If Stowell really did mean PAV it seems odd to me that even a cursory glance at Eddy's career and movements brings the whole theory crashing down. Especially the comment that after the Kelly murder "S" was confined in a mental institution near Sandringham when Eddy's movements and engagements from late 1888 on are very well documented. |
John Savage
Chief Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 541
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Back in 2003, Stephen ran a Criminologist month here on the Casebook, and there were special offers on Criminolgist magazine articles about JTR. Surely the Stowell article must have been amongst them?
Rgds
John |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1023
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 8:47 pm: |
|
The New Criminologist website (run by someone who bought the rights to the Criminologist name and the old articles -- they make new articles too, but those are pretty odd and not up to the same quality) reprinted a number of old Ripper articles in three different ebooks earlier this year. The Stowell article is in volume 1. I got all three and reviewed them back in the April 2005 issue of Ripper Notes. It's pretty obviously meant to be Prince Eddy -- Collars & Cuffs references, etc. -- at least to me anyway, and that was confirmed by Colin Wilson and others... But then as an intellectual exercise someone could go through the thing and see if someone else might fit, not that I think it's going to lead anywhere... never know though.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 966
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 8:54 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
I am aware that Connaught was Governor General of Canada (at that time it was usually a ceremonial post - I believe it was before the embroglio between Sir Julian Byng and MacKenzie King regarding the second dissolution of Canada's Parliament in 1926, which led to a serious change regarding the post of Governor General - they started having civilians in the post like Vincent Massey). However, Victoria had a willingness to allow her younger sons to have such posts. She was jealous (and angry, most of the time) with Bertie, and refused to give him anything that offered him any scope for government work. And similarly I suspect she did not want the heir presumptive to be shown off either.
In 1867-68 her second oldest son, Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, was sent to the Australian colonies on a good will tour. He proved to be quite popular, and their was talk of asking her to allow him to be Governor General of Victoria or one of the other colonies. But he was stabbed and wounded by a madman while on the tour (a fellow named O'Farrell, who would subsequently be labelled a Fenian and hanged). The Queen would not hear any further talk of Alfred as a Governor General of any of those colonies.
I've been thinking of my confusion regarding the Chief Secretaryship of Ireland and the Viceroy position there. I think I was confusing it with a really important Viceregal post - that of Viceroy to India. The Viceroys there had genuine power (try to read the two volume study on Lord Curzon's career as Viceroy in the early 20th Century by David Dilks). Curzon hoped it would be a stepping stone to high position in London's Cabinet - even the Premiership. Instead his career floundered when he ran afoul of the Commander-in-Chief in India, Lord Kitchener. Curzon tried to impose civilian controls on the military, and Kitchener opposed it - and used personal contacts with figures like Lord Esher to undermine Curzon's position.
Of course, in earlier periods of Anglo-Irish history the Viceroy's post was powerful. In the late 1790s, when held by Lord Charles Cornwallis, it was very important (during the revolt of 1798).
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1171
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 9:46 pm: |
|
Johnny:
Yes they were. They may still be available.
--------------------------------------
Bottom line...Alan Sharp is correct...
The itinerary of PAV has been shown,not only by him,but over and over and over again and that he,PAV was "out of town".
One of the tasks of being a Ripperologist is to eliminate those who are eliminated by their very presence at another place other than Whitechapel.
Thats been done...unless the transcribers of the itinerary of PAV were ALSO in on this "conspiracy".
Hey..if it were true,Ms. Lowdemouth would have let us know by now,eh,Alan?
PAV is the Yeti of Ripperology.....by a mile. |
Judith A. Stock
Detective Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:27 am: |
|
Howard, Dan, Alan, et al.......cheers to all you fine gentlemen on this snowy Wednesday ...OOPS, it's now Thursday........having just read this thread (I should have gone to bed twenty minutes ago BEFORE I found this 'un!!), a teeny, niggling question rises in my tired cranial vault: other than the supposed alterations to Court circulars, diaries, etc, etc, ad nauseum, it appears that Thomas is basing his accusation of PAV on a "description".... right? Can no one think of another fella who looked almost exactly like that in the description quoted by Thomas??? Maybe....let's see.......maybe poor, sad M J Druitt?? Just a thought for a snowy Thursday morning......'nuff! NOW I'm goin' to bed! I HATE it when the same, tired old saws are revived, even after each has been dissected, parboiled, baked, and served with jacket potatoes on the side!
Cheers to all, and you had better begin planning your trips to Baltimore in April........ we are gonna kick butt and take names this time! Now the commercial message is over, you may return to regularly scheduled programming.
Judy |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 2:04 am: |
|
I entirely agree the point about The Queen's jealosy of the POW (in particular) but she DID for, instance, allow Arthur, Duke of connaught to command the Guards Division in Egypt in 1882.
My point earlier was that, in the context of Viceroy of Ireland being a political post, salisbury MAY have been considering some different role that would not have been impossible, As I think I said, before deciding whether the proposal to appoint Eddy to the post was as significant as the makers of the documentary sought to suggest, I would want to see a great deal more of the context of Salisbury's letter. Was he playing with ideas or making a firm suggestion? Does the idea surface in the diaries, correspondence or memoirs of other leading politicians of the day? Was it ever discussed formally or informally in Cabinet? Who was the letter addressed to and what is the context in terms of Salisbury's other letters and writings at that time? Until we know the answers to those questions we know nothing.
As the issue has not arisen before, I suspect this was an initiative that was - for whatever reason still-born. It could (I would need to see the letter) be a bit of whimsy on the part of the Prime Minister (has someone missed a spot of irony?).
I think the establishment in the early 1890s did have a problem - the potential King-but-one had an apparent (no pun intended) personality problem and was proving to be ill-suited to his duties. (Don't forget that the memory of George III was closer to them than to us - they may have worried about madness.) I don't find it odd that Salisbury may have toyed with the idea of sending the Prince to Ireland in a ceremonial role to try him out.
Interestingly, if the idea ever were floated, the main opposition might have come from Eddy's father - "If I as POW cannot be given such a role, how can my son?"
But I don't think any of this is relevant to JtR, nor do I think the one reference to a sympathy with Irish affairs, link Eddy to a fenian sympathy or any such cause, as the producers of the TV programme again sought to suggest.
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Hi Alan,
Now don't get me wrong. I don't believe for one second that PAV sneaked off by train down to London to bag a couple of East End whores in the early hours of September 30.
But you posted the court circular from the Times of 1st October and wrote that it shows:
that Eddy was taking part in a drive for black game, which would have occurred very shortly after dawn, on September 30th. So forget nine hours or even six hours, he WAS NOT in London at 1.30 that morning.
The court circular gives us:
BALMORAL, SEPT 29.
The Queen drove out yesterday morning…
If that means the Queen’s drive actually took place on the morning of Sept 28, doesn’t it follow that the piece dated SEPTEMBER 30, beginning:
The Queen went out yesterday morning…
is referring to events that actually happened on September 29?
I know it's splitting hairs and it makes no difference to the overall picture, but a court circular referring to PAV looking for game in Scotland shortly after dawn on September 30 would really be the dog's doo-dahs.
Love,
Caz
X |
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
But let's not be plunks. Just because he wasn't weilding the knife, doesn't mean he had nothing to do with it atall. Good point Alan about the viceroy, my personal view is that he was not an imbecile or a monster, just no academic. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
