|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:59 am: | 
|
I know one thing i haven't got anything to do in manchester. i have never had anyhting to do there as i have never been. i am sure its great there though!
Like I said learn some manners. Maybe I could just insult you for being childish and moronic but then again i won't be!
You don't have bad manners? You just insulted the entire nation of Sweden!
Anyway balh blah blah this thread is stupid!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2451
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:07 am: |
|
And a Happy Christmas back to you, Kitty.
I believe we have started off on the wrong foot here.
"Plus this local buffoon keeps on asking me out. (I would sooner go out with one of your suspects, G, I would be perfectly safe)."
Blimey! 
We probably never should get too hung up on the "old" experts anyway, unless they choose to update some of their findings -- which I know some of them do. But without their digging and analyses I'd say we would be left even further astray than we already are. I just think I value experience a bit higher than you do, that's all. That being said, experience can get you stuck in your way of thinking as well, of course.
But I feel it's quite hard to come up with something new, unless we are discarding the evidence in the case, and I am not prepared to do that. Theorising from imagination or circumstances beyond what the facts say, is done quite often, and in general the results leads to a complete disaster. We have several examples of that -- and I am not just referring to Stephen Knight or Stowell.
Since I can't see any evident signs of a conspiracy when I study the murders from a police investigation or socio-historical perspective, I need a bit more meat on the bone until such theories could find their way back in the case. Revision needs to be supported by relevant facts, regardless of which theory one prefer. That's the tricky part.
All the best
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2452
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:12 am: |
|
Jenni,
"You just insulted the entire nation of Sweden!"
Don't worry, I can take that. After all, it's Christmas... But thanks for the support.
Maybe I should stop signing my posts with G (and get back to my full name) -- when people are calling me G, it makes me feel like a hiphop character, and I am way too old for that. And I can't even dance!
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1471
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:31 am: |
|
Glenn,
like i said this thread is stupid!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2456
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:36 am: |
|
Yes it is, Jenni, and unfortunately it's not the only one.
But stupid threads do for some strange reasons very often carry some kind of special attraction.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:45 am: |
|
They do Glenn, they do.
I do have a secret affection for them, quite quite true and evident!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
jan vilikovsky
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 10:08 am: |
|
Hey, folks,
Nothing wrong with a good altercation or two, or even a slanging match, but donīt you feel that "Kitty" is just a spoofer (and a male one, and macho at that)? Obviously, (s)heīs not the first one, nor the last.
Enjoy.
Oh yes, Merry Xmas and a happy New Year.
And may we never learn who he was -- THAT would be a dampener on the altercations!
Jan |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 40
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 6:26 pm: |
|
I gather I've been dumbfounding folks. :-) well, what is the use of a researcher who can't dumbfound? I'm glad to be of service! I'm also glad to be near London, where I'm working .
Phil, I quite agree with your demands for evidence. Such demands should have been made long ago.
Don't worry I'm no spoofer, have a pretty face apparently, and use the name Kitty, as it's often attributed to me. I am not male! :-)
I caution you all to keep your eyes open to all manner of intriguing masonic cover up tricks. It is out of goodwill.
I also like Sweden, and visit there regularly. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 1:35 am: |
|
Good post Julie. I agree strongly.
Kitty more hot air from you, without a constructive word.
What's your hang-up with freemasonry anyway? You appear even more dotty on that score than others? Intolerant are you?
Phil |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 53
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Phil, you must resolve your antagonisms and sort yourself out. It's not my problem you don't have any answers. |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 59
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Mags, and others affiliated, I have done nothing except challenge americans who are stuck in a rambling rut with their theories. It's quite justified, as although this is a good board, a few cantankerous individuals such as Mags and friends, have been stuck in a rut, going nowhere with their ideas. It's a very common complaint about this board elsewhere on other areas of the internet. Lots of people find the same problem. Just a cleaky few who stick rigidly to their views and fire from the hip in an aggressive manner at any new researchers.
Because you're getting nowhere fast, and are incredibly abusive to other researchers' theories, you have got to take this seriously. I'm not going to blend in with underresearched views and what is sometimes pretty low quality work because some aggressive, unqualified participant holds a gun to my head about it!
From what I gather, my challenges have been quite mild compared to many other bright peoples' whom you've also lost in the past.
To be honest with you all, I see alot of antisocial people with little in their lives, making aggressive statements to anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's hardly worth Steven Ryder and others doing any serious work. This board is dominated by an undereducated, uninformed cleak, and only afew sit pretty while good researchers bow out and the public lose out. It's a shame for interested people. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2544
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:36 pm: |
|
Kitty,
Once again... what challenge?
A good start would be to actually describe the challenge instead of insulting people for not picking it up. Or doesen't it contain anything concrete?
All the best
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 61
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:42 pm: |
|
Challenge:
Produce evidence that makes it clear there should be no conspiracy theory!!!
I'm not insulting anyone. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2546
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:54 pm: |
|
Yes, but in which way compared to what has already been done?
You say yourself that your ideas differ completely from other evidence previously produced, and since we don't know what those are, how are we supposed to pick up the so called challenge (note that I am NOT badgering you to reveal anything here, but we do need a hint in order to pick up the rope you offer)?
Because indulging in what so far already has been produced regarding the conspiracy and the masons are hardly productive or challenging.
"I'm not insulting anyone."
"uneducated, unqualified, antisocial..."
Shall I continue?
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 28, 2004)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1340
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Kitty,
Some of the evidence may be the combination of the following:
Gull himself had had a stroke and was over 70 at the time of the murders
Prince Albert Victor was accounted for in court circulars published at the time.
Walter Sickert was mostly in France around the time of the murders.
There was no mention at the time of any involvement of Mary Kelly ever having been a nanny by anyone who came forward to the inquest or the press at the time.
There is no evidence in anything that ever came out at the inquests on any of the victims that any of them knew each other-for example it isnt recorded that Mary Kelly knew any of the victims though it was recorded that she spoke of her fear of JtR to her girl friends and to Joe Barnett.
There are birth certificates and marriage certificates telling us about Annie Crook.
There is nothing in any of the recorded information on her or her family of any marriage to PAV or anyone else in that circle.There is lots of information about time spent in various workhouses by the Crook women and about how they ended their lives and none of it relates to the alleged conspiracy theories.
Joseph "Sickert" retracted everything-said it was a hoax and therefore by implication that he had lied.
.....and there is still more
Best Natalie
|
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 63
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:45 pm: |
|
Natalie, you might like to examine these points in detail and express furthar views on the new thread created about this subject. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 2:34 am: |
|
Produce evidence that makes it clear there should be no conspiracy theory!!!
I have set out the refutation fully in response to a much earlier post of yours, Kitty. One of the first - you ignored it.
Sums you up, dearie. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Kitty - 
It's not my problem you don't have any answers.
I'm So relieved - you clearly have so many problems of your own already, Kitty. |
Morticia
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 12:34 am: |
|
I thought it was customary for the prosecuting side to prove a certain thing happened, and then manage a successful rebuttal of the defendant party's statements. Basic criminal law process in most western countries, even in the 19th century. |
Avril
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Phil
There was a cover up because of fear of a public outcry. Class resentment had already caused numerous riots in London at the time, there were real concerns Eddy's marriage be it leagal or not would make the situation worse. It is perfectly within Prince Charles' rights to marry Camilla, but he won't through fear of public outcry. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
As I understand the law, HRH Prince Charles could NOT marry Camilla (or anyone else) without the Sovereign's prior permission and have a legal marriage. The Royal Marriages Act would make the marriage invalid. If he did so, he would debar himself from the line of succession, which would pass to William.
Why precisely would the public have made an outcry about the marriage of Eddy to a protestant commoner? Indeed, surely (by your own logic) marriage to a commoner would assuage NOT stir up "class resentment".
You cite "real concerns" so I assume you have evidence (documentary would be good) of (a) who had these concerns and (b) their nature. I believe that they are unknown to royal history researchers.
Queen Victoria was apparently quite prepared to countenance PAV's marriage to a French catholic (provided she changed her religion) and i would have thought that much more politically contentious in its day.
Where is there, moreover, any suggestion that the riots you mention (I assume you mean the Trafalgar Square affair known as "Bloody Sunday") had republican or anti-monarchical connotations?
QV had had her Golden Jubillee in 1887 and was riding a tide of popularity (her UNpopularity was a feature of the 1870s and largely disappeared after the POW's typhoid scare).
But following your logic (which I do not accept) - you say there was a "cover up" - where is the slightest evidence that this took place and who was involved?
Secondly, where is the evidence that PAV ever wanted to/was in a position to marry a commoner (Alice Crook, for instance?) or that there was anything to "cover up"?
Thirdly, if there was such a desire to cover-up the commoner marriage, why was there not a similar concern to cover-up the Cleveland St scandal, in which PAV was also alleged to be involved?
Additionally, why was there concern of such a degree about PAV in 1888 - and on who's part? - but NOT about his father the POW's escapades at various points between 1861 and 1901? Some of these were potentially MUCH more serious.
On a separate point - Morticia - in this case which side do you see as "prosecution" and which as "defence"?
Cordially,
Phil |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
The Royal Marriages Act (1772) reads, in the relevant section as follows:
That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, signified under the great seal, and declared in council, (which consent, to preserve the memory thereof is hereby directed to be set out in the licence and register of marriage, and to be entered in the books of the privy council); and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That in case any such descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, being above the age of twenty-five years, shall persist in his or her resolution to contract a marriage disapproved of or dissented from, by the King, his heirs, or successors; that then such descendant, upon giving notice to the King's privy council, which notice is hereby directed to be entered in the books thereof, may, at any time from the expiration of twelve calendar months after such notice given to the privy council as aforesaid, contract such marriage; and his or her marriage with the person before proposed, and rejected, may be duly solemnized, without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors; and such marriage shall be good, as if this act had never been made, unless both houses of parliament shall, before the expiration of the said twelve months, expressly declare their disapprobation of such intended marriage.
In the case of Albert Victor he was born in 1864, so was 24 at the time of the murders. The Royal Marriages Act therefore would apply as he was under 25 at the time of the alleged marriage. A further safeguard was the Act of Settlement of 1701 which limited succession ot the Throne to the legitimate, Protestant heirs of Sophie, Electress of Hanover, the mother of King George I.
There is no real comparison between Charles and Albert Victor. Albert V was under 25 when the alleged marriage would have taken place and so was fully covered by the necessity for the monarch's consent. The full provisions of the Act still apply, so if Charles wanted to marry Camilla, and the monarch's conesnt was not forthcoming, he would need to inform the Privy Council and in that situation the only action that could stop the marriage would be a vote against it in both Houses of Parliament.
Chris |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Thanks for that very full explanation of the Act, Chris. |
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 3:51 am: |
|
Phillip or anyone else,
Can you help me please? I read that a man named Joseph Sickert , who was the son of Walter Sickert, told the public that his father Walter new the whole story of Prince Albert and how it led to the extortion scandal with the whores.Walter new it all and imparted the secret to his son before he passed away.In the 1970's Joseph let the cat out of the bag when he told the press.
In a remarkable twist, the illigitimate child married Walter and they had Joseph for a son.Is this Joseph then, actual living proof that the alledged marrige took place. Is the infomation I read, some of it on this site, erroneous.
Thanks and Happy Easter everyone. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Hi Dale,
The story you are refering to is told in full in "Jack the Ripper, The Final Solution" by Stephen Knight.
However there is no evidence to corroborate the story which was told by Joseph Sickert, whose real name seems to have been Joseph Gorman. After publication of the book Joseph recanted the tale in an article in The Sunday Times in, I think, 1977. A few years later he collaberated with Melvyn Fairclough in a book Called "The Ripper and The Royals" which told basically the same tale. Joseph alas died a couple of years ago, so perhaps we will never get to the bottom of this, perhaps the best thing is to read Knight's book and make up your own mind.
Rgds
John Savage |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 212
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 2:10 am: |
|
There was never any evidence that Joe Gorman, for all his claims, was Sickert's son. That Sickert may have had some involvement with the family is possible, and there was (as i discserned it) a likeness to the artist, but that's all.
There is NO evidence that PAV ever married anyone. The whole "scandal" hypothesised (and more) by Knight is baseless, as Annie crook was a protestant, NOT a catholic. But as it was without consent of the Sovereign (Queen Victoria) any marriage would have been illegal in law.
Other errors made by Knight (he deliberately misrepresented evidence and declined to rectify the situation when informed of such) relate to Sickert's studio and Annie's lodgings. If you DO read Knight, please bear in mind tha fact that the book and the author (sadly now dead) are largely discredited for the reasons given and more, and have a look at a corrective such as the latest edition of Don Rumbelow's book, which discusses the "royal" conspiracy theory in detail.
Phil
In my view there is NOTHING in this scenario worth pursuing any longer.
But Sickert was a womaniser and he DID have a fixation about the Ripper |
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
Hi Phillip,
I go along with what you say , you are an inspector and I am not, but something has me puzzled here.If this man Joseph is not Walter's son, than are you saying he has blatantly lied about the whole issue.What did he stand to gain by doing this? Was there financial gain, did he want public exposure or was he insane?
I could imagine people making some claims at the local pub on a saturday night which are far fetched.I spoke to a woman once in a pub who tried to convince me she was Princess Di's cousin.But what Joseph has done is different. By going onto the BBC and having books published, he has gone into mass media.This is different from the local pub. If you go into mass media you know you will be scrutinised.
This leads me to believe at least he must have thought he was telling the truth. If he wasn't, then there two possibilities here:1. he was after cash, or 2. He had serious mental problems.
Could anyone help me out here?
Happy Easter, Dale |
Jeff Jones
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 10:09 pm: |
|
"From Hell" with Johnny Depp was panned by most of the viewers who posted messages on the board. (They seemed to be English and didn't like his accent, certain minute details of London, etc.) But, does anyone have a better theory involving multiple killers (the Stride incident), a word like "Juwes" written in chalk (which a Jew would probably not misspell), and a supposedly psychopathic killer who risked being caught just to spend time mutilating his victims? |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 438
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
A better theory than PAV you mean, Jeff?
Try the Kosminski theory; the Druitt theory; or the Tumblety theory for three. there are many others.
But the reasons for rejecting the conspiracy theory (royal or otherwise) - and I assume that's what you have in mind, are not to do with other "better" theories, but because the conspiracy theory itself is shot full of evidential and factual holes:
"Juwes" is much more likely to be a mis-spelling than a term to represent the three masonic murderers (Jubelo etc). No one has ever found the term Juwes connected to English free-masonry of the period.
PAV himself had a VERY good alibi for the nights of the murders - he was either with the Queen in Scotland or at Sandringham in Norfolk (as I recall).
Gull had had strokes and was unfit.
The blackmail motive is not sustainable, as a marriage by PAV to a catholic would have contravened the Royal Marriages Act and been illegal and invalid, any child would have been illegitimate and barred from the succession.
In any case, Annie Elizabeth Crook was a protestant NOT a catholic.
She never lived where Knight, the main recent proponent of the theory placed her. The woman he thought might have been her was not. He knew it - had the evidence pointed out to him, but failed to reveal that his theory was flawed at its root!!
Republicanism in the UK was a phenomenon of the 1870s (immediately after Victoria's widowhood began and when she was in seclusion) not of 1888 when she was popular following the highly successful Golden Jubilee in 1887.
Need I say more? I am sure others more erudite than I will correct me where I am wrong and fill in any gaps.
Oh and another theory to check out - the Fenians.
Hope this has helped.
Phil
P.S. "From Hell is not a bad film and I liked Depp's performance. But it is based on badly dated material, is wrong factually where it claims authenticity, disparages and libels good people, and wastes its budget. If you have ever seen "Murder by Decree" (c1979) you'll find that it is plagiaristic too.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page