|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 196
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 1:04 pm: |       |
I am just wondering whether we know for certain the Prince's whereabouts during the murders. I am aware that Court circulars list him as being far away during some of them. But are these always accurate or are they sometimes falsified? Do we have other evidence of his whereabouts besides the circulars and newspaper accounts drawn from them?
Andy S. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 3:23 pm: | |
Hi Andy,
surely you are not contemplating The prince being involved, that is at least in my opinion pure madness, even Maybreck is a better suspect in possible involvement then him.
Where all this myth of Royalty, and well to do doctors originated from . is beyond me.
The killer was amongst the working classes, I would assume that as 99 per cent fact.
regards Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 199
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 3:32 pm: | |
Richard,
I just want to consider all the possibilities, no matter how remote. Actually, it is the extreme likeness between the Prince and Druitt than intrigues me some.
Andy S.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 2:55 pm: | |
richard
a certain article, a book in the 70s and several tv dramas and films
ps a few docs an artists 'son' several more books (and god i sound like i believe its true!!!)
jennifer |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 3:46 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
Obviously I am aware where they originated from, to sell a good story it was considered to introduce a famous name, to attract controversal reactions,I am not a fan of such methods, to see a film for exsample of hansom cabs rushing around the streets of whitechapel, with a well dressed toff inside, to me is pure bunkum, and to suggest that he was a doctor, with a pack of surgical knives, on his person, is ludricous.
Richard, |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 9:49 am: | |
hi,
nice to see we seem to agree richard!
jennifer |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 10:46 am: | |
Richard, you would think that as we all know who you think the ripper was. I don't know if the ripper was from the working classes, in fact I always believed he was from the working to upper classes. This, to me, is the best reason why the ripper was never caught. Back then it was believed that wealthy men were decent men and if they were accused to murder it was a pure insult. |
Walter Richard Sickert
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 9:14 pm: | |
Well, I've read some interesting comments here about the Royal conspiracy and whatnot, I in fact don't think it could have been Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward, reasons being? Well, just go ahead and keep on reading....Jack the Ripper had to have had some sort of anatomical backround, a vast amount at that, right? well, he had to have spent an extensive amount of time working out differnt anatomies of the body...what leads to what, how do you remove this without damaging or puntcuring another organ...I'm just saying, this kind of stuff cannot be learned within a span of 30 minutes...well, our good friend Prince Albert was unable to focus his attention on anything more than a few minutes, which resulted in falure of all subjects and having to go to a tutor. He did attend college in order to develop intelectually, however, he failed that too. It is also very impossible that he committed these murders seeing as to how he was in Scotland when two of them took place. Not to mention the risk that would have befallen him had he got caught. Furthermore, he was most likely too busy attending various engagements and "prince-like" matters, like, 24/7, so, I honestly doubt he had the time to go and pick up a few THOUSAND medical journals in his spare time, which I doubt he had a lot of...why yes, yes it is possible that he could've hired someone to do it for him, but I mean how easy could it have been to find someone who knows there way around organs like Jack the Ripper... |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 44
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
Found this thread late. I don't buy the stories about Albert Victor being the Ripper.
Richard, Our boy could indeed be of the working class. I specifically wonder if maybe he was not a military hospital steward. Normally hospital orderlies don't perform surgery but in the military then as now the Hospital steward has much more responsibility than his or her civilian counterpart. Now mind, I would suspect that said steward would not have been in the army or navy at the time of the murders. Although if in the Royal Navy, it would be interesting to see if any home fleet vessels were to sea when Jack the Ripper was silent. Walter is correct when he states the anatomical knowledge the Ripper seemed to possess is not learned in the course of 30 minutes. And lets face it God rest him but Prince Eddie was not an intellectual. Yes, Andy trip records etc could have been falsified but not likely given the visibility of the Royal family which if anything would have been even more pronounced in 1888 than it is today. Queen Victoria's subjects seemed to genuinely adore Her Majesty. Add to that the fact that Eddie was too busy avoiding his father, half-heartedly trying to get a university education and prforming his royal functions I don't believe he had the time. If anyone in the royal family wanted someone dead, they would not have to hire it done in the normal way we think of. They could have had the military make them disappear without all the bother of an corpse to offend tender sensibilities. The good prince is just not a viable suspect in my humble opinion. Kindest regards, Neil |
Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 23
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 3:16 pm: | |
To all, especially Richard
I am curious to understand why suspects are dismissed so easily. Of course a Royal committing the murders sells newspapers and books, but why does that have to mean that a Royal could not have done it? I personally do not believe 'JTR' was Prince Albert Victor, but who the hell am I to emphatically state that PAV's involvement in the murders, possibly as the murderer is ludicris and ridiculous?
I believe that until a large number of the armchair researchers develop a theory they should relax on which suspects are ridiculous. If all these suspects are so ridiculous then solve the damn case and end this whole thing. Apart from that open your minds and allow for possibilities. Perhaps that may open the case up for advancements.
STAN |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 224
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
Richard you may be right but the High commissioner of police at the time thought he was from the upper middle class.Its easy to rubbish theories but a close confident of the Gull family
who was apparently a doctor himself [Stowell] gave rise to the rumour by stating he knew from Gull that the prince was JtR-he died before he could be cross questioned but many at the time spoke of the murderers identity being a "hot potato"
Natalie |
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
Of course Prince Ablert wasn't Jack the Ripper! I mean think about it! He was mentally slow to begin with and his education level wasn't exactly high. Also, he had syphillis and went crazy. How could he have dissected a bunch of women with the intellegence level of a 5th grader? He couldn't. My bet is that Jack the Ripper was Sir William Gull and there was a cover-up to keep him safe by the Freemasons and the royal family. It was all a conspiracy! |
Archie Bunker
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 12:42 am: | |
I've been reading all the posts on the Prince threads and I must say that this is an interesting corner of the website. You mean people actually believe this Prince Eddie/William Gull foolishness? Same ones who believe there was a second gunman in the grassy knoll, I'll bet. |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 414
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
Hmmmm,
Prince Eddy as the Ripper. Not a chance. Besides his mentally slowness, the syphillis and the fact that he preferred men, I doubt that he could in any way have been responsible for these murders. Period.
Mikey |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1189
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 6:47 am: | |
Mikey
.....er, also the fact he wasnt around at the time of some of the murders may count against him dont ya tink ?
Monty
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar... |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 7:04 am: | |
Monty,
well in that case there are a few more people to exclude (like er W?S). Lets exclude them all.
ps i am calm!!!!!!!!
Jennifer |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 59
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 9:07 am: | |
Archie,
Read "On the Trail of the Assassins" by Jim Garrison and then tell me you believe there wasn't a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
As Arthur Conan Doyle stated: "When you eliminate the impossible and the improbable, what remains is the truth." I believe the Prince is eliminated but truth might still be stranger than fiction.
Scotty. |
Stephen Leece
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
Scott you have also misquoted Conan Doyle. The correct quote is:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Regards SD
|
Stephen Leece
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
If we trace the 'popular' theories surrounding the Ripper back to their origins, by this I mean the Gull and Prince stories (the prince being either Albert Edward or the future George V) they all indicate that a rumour was circulating in the early years of the 20th century that the Ripper was either a royal doctor or a prince. Prince Albert Edward Victor was a 'suspect' long before Stowell's article (Colin Wilson believes he may have accidentally put him in the frame in 1960). Florence Pash's testimony describes the Royal conspiracy long before Joseph Sickert and the Z Cars JtR theory was produced. Leonard Matters' book describes clear elements of the Gull theory. Prince Albert Vs biographer, Michael Harrison recalls a rumour he heard around 1912 that the Ripper was Royalty (not necessarily Prince Albert V though). Ludicrous though all these theories appear to be in their extant form and their original versions they must have some element of truth in them for them to hold asuch veracity amongst ordinary East-Enders. I would suggest that perhaps John Netley and the like were involved in the Cleveland Street scandal and these events have simply been confused with the Ripper for one reason or another.
By the way Scott computer analysis and reconstruction was done just under a year ago of the Kennedy assassination (Zapruder film, still photography, witness statements etc.) and it rules out a second gunman. Oswald acted alone. The Warren Commission was correct. Garrison was wrong and has a lot to answer for. As does Oliver Stone. Surprised not many people are aware of this. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 72
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Hi Stephen,
Not that this is the place for it, but anyway. There are several glaring elements in the JFK assassination which definitively point to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been the lone gunman. In fact it is clearly likely that Lee Harvey Oswald did not even fire a weapon that day at all. A few salient points, firstly the magic bullet theory put forth to explain so many wounds from only three bullets plainly does not work. None of us surely need anything more than common sense to see that. Secondly the Zapruder film clearly displays two things, the rifle allegedly used by Oswald could not be reloaded quickly enough to fire the second and third shots so closely together, and JFK is clearly thrown backwards from the impact of the bullet which is not possible if the gunman is behind him.
I am willing to state that I am unaware of the study you cite and would love to know where I can read of it's findings. Have you read Jim Garrison's book? I am unsure if you are from the USA Stephen and I am generalising when I say this, but I have often found that Americans are less willing than the rest of the world to believe that the US government might have covered up such an event. I am also sceptical about most things I read in print or see on television. If I blindly believed every piece of research someone ever did on a given subject I'd be on to my 50th proven JtR in the last month. I am not saying you are blindly following the study you cite, I would merely like more than you're recommendation for it's provenance.
Scotty. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 73
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
Hi again Stephen,
The fact that a rumour was circulating of Royal involvement at the time of the murders actually means very little. Here in Perth we currently have an ongoing Police investigation into a serial killer known as the Claremont Serial Killer after the suburb from which his victims disappeared. On the back of a belief by the public that it needed to be explained how the victims were removed from a busy nightspot without being seen, the Police DNA tested every Taxi driver in the city. Despite having two bodies and, one would assume, having recovered some of what they suspected to be the killer's DNA on those bodies (otherwise what would be the point) these tests drew a blank. That was a few years ago now and the story that it was probably a Taxi driver still makes the news and does the gossip rounds, even though in all likelyhood every every single one of them was excluded.
A long story there I know but I tell it simply to point out that such theories can be contemporary to the crimes and still hold no basis in fact.
Scotty. |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 145
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 2:22 pm: | |
Hi Stephen,
There may be some truth to the idea that some facets of the Cleveland Street scandal might have gotten confused with the Jack the Ripper line of myths.
On the other hand, the concept that there must be "some element of truth" in wild, nonsensical legends just because they are popular is something that doesn't hold true upon scrutiny. Stories are often spread based upon nothing more than psychology ("don't trust them royals") and entertainment value.
I think schools must be teaching the simplistic notion that every story must have some truth behind it. I keep getting kids showing up at my mythology message boards trying to tell me that there really must have been someone named Hercules who was strong or something or else there wouldn't have been so many popular myths about him. It's like people missed out completely on the religious and cultural meanings and just want to find some scientific or historical basis that's kind of close to the mark, nevermind looking at how tales evolve and change through time. It's just another failing ofour educational system that leads to poor critical thinking abilities in adults.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 146
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 2:31 pm: | |
Oh,and please excuse my off topic rant at the bottom of my previous post. That part's wasn't aimed at anyone in this thread. It's just something that bugs me to no end.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 779
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Hi, Dan
Your rant is excused.  I think the topic of what people choose to believe and what is "true" is actually an important theme for Ripperology. For example, members of the public have chosen to believe the Royal conspiracy theory, perhaps no doubt with a little help from Hollywood and writers such as Stephen Knight. But there are also other rampant ideas such as the idea that the Ripper was a Jew or a doctor, or a man visiting the neighborhood of the murders and lodging locally (i.e., the Batty Street Lodger and similar myths). As we have been discussing in the pages of Ripperologist in the last couple of editorials, after the end of 1888, the police and possibly members of the public as well seem to have believed that a doctor committed suicide after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly and that he could have been the murderer (the Macnaghten memorandum of 1894 naming Druitt incorrectly as a "young doctor"; Bachert's assertion that the murderer had drowned, which was also stated by Abberline in the March 1903 interview with him in the Pall Mall Gazette as a widespread belief). As you indicate, Dan, such ideas may not have any basis in fact, but they are still purveyed as the truth by those who are persuaded that is what happened, when it might not have happened that way at all. So such beliefs will probably continue to have a powerful voice in the field, unless someone sometime will be able to conclusively prove them to be rubbish.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Stephen Leece
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
Yes apologies my last post was very badly phrased I think Dan you've tidied it up into what I meant to say- Joe Sickert's version of events (and probably every theory involving Royals) appears to me to be a garbled confused account of the Cleveland Street scandal with Jolly Jack as the special guest star. I should have left it at that which is similar to your stance Scot on the Claremont killings. (By the way Dan your rant at the end I entirely agree with.)
Scott- yes I understand what you are saying re Garrison- I read his book when Stone's film came out and it was fashionable to believe the theory. I'm actually based in the UK and the study I'm referring to was carried out around a year ago and broadcast here around November time to tie in with the 40th anniversary of the assassination. If anyone can help me out here it had a computer recontruction of the assassination from every angle and Zapruder film was analysed frame by frame and the whole thing demolished every conspiracy theory going. Kennedy is not really my scene but I'm sure someone here will know what I'm on about and give you the details.
Regards SD |
Archie Bunker
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 2:34 am: | |
Sorry, just needed to say that Garrison's work is long discredited. As far as being American goes, I'm sad to say that the majority of Americans believe in fact that there was a government cover-up in the assassination.
The whole "magic bullet" foolishness was proposed by the conspiracy crowd, never mentioned by the Warren Commission. And the argument about the direction that Kennedy's head snaps has also been examined with new technology. His head indeed starts forward and then explodes back as the bullet exits through the front.
As far as there being a mixup between the male brothel scandal and JtR, it sounds very plausible. I had heard from some source (which I can't remember - it may have been a rumour) that the Royals were the talk of Ripper conspiracies since the turn of the century. |
Terence Kearney
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 9:44 am: | |
Hello
It's been some time now since I visited here but my two suspects have always been on my mind and after three years research and putting facts etc together there can only be two men who fit the bill. James Kelly he's our man alternatively George Chapman is coming in second mostly because of his surgeon 's skill from Poland etc and he's address in London at Georges Yard from 1887/88(Martha Tabern victim) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 906
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 2:50 am: | |
Hi,
With reference to Terence's post, one point to consider is why did the couple not conduct business just inside the entrance of george yard, rather than climb to the first floor landing, which was extremely cramped, was it their purpose to have sex there, or did the killer suggest that he lived there, and they were on the way up , when the killer struck.
I am not stating that 23 year old Chapman was her killer, just curious why they climbed to the first landing.
Regards Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 526
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
To those who have seen fit to ridicule the notion of Prince Eddy as a suspect, consider:
1. It is possible for one to question HRH's candidacy for the killer without accepting any "Eddie-Gull" theory.
2. My point in bringing up the question in the first place was to question whether we actually know HRH to have been away from London at the time or whether we are relying on (possibly inaccurate) press accounts. If there are official documents confirming this, he can be virtually eliminated. That's all I'm asking for.
Do I believe HRH to be JtR? No. Is it impossible? To this point no one has shown me that it is.
Andy S.
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
Hi Andrew,
We have the Court Circulars to rely on, these were published in The Times ( a paper of record).
I am sure that if Eddy had ever been charged in a court of law these would have been enough evidence to aquit.
I am not sure if the originals of these Court Circulars still exsist, but I think we can trust The Times, which is now searchable on line, so you could check these and perhaps cross reference with other reports of his whereabouts.
The idea that the Court Circulars were altered in some way, is to get into the realms of the conspiracy theories, were of course anything is possible.............. (bring on the dancing freemasons!)
Best Regards
John Savage |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 78
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 10:32 pm: | |
Hi all,
Excuse my ignorance but what exactly does a court circular report?
What I am asking is this. Does a court circular report actual events and attendances at them, or rather intended events and attendances?
Thanks in advance.
Scotty. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 527
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 12:03 am: | |
John,
OK, I give up! 
Never treat a secondary source, especially a newspaper, as definitive!
Andy S. |
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
The "magic bullet theory" was proposed by Arlen Spector, counsel for the Warren Commission. It is explained in detail in the Warren Report. A few months ago, Senator Spector was involved in a close election in the Pennsylvania Republican party primary. At a question and answer session with the press, Spector stated that he is no longer certain CE399 (magic bullet) caused all seven wounds to Kennedy and Connally. Without a magic bullet, you have more than three shots and more than one gunman.
Sorry for the off subject post.
(Message edited by kbraun on June 22, 2004) |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 531
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
Let me clarify my above post. There doesn't even have to be anything sinister involved in the secondary source being wrong. It could go something like this:
Buckingham Palace releases a statement to the press that the Royal Family will be departing for Scotland tomorrow. Something happens to change the plans at the last minute so that Prince Eddy doesn't accompany them. Would the Palace necessarily notify the press of the last-minute rather insignificant change in plans? Perhaps not. Not likely, I admit. But all the more reason to find the original source.
Andy S. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Andy S.,
I have been reading over this thread and I see where you are coming from. It sounds like you need to contact the Royal archives to find out if there are any records still around. I think I have a snail mail address for them somewhere. If you want it give me an email and I will go look.
Jennifer |
Terence Kearney
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 7:57 am: | |
Hi
It's an interesting question, but I feel it might have been he's suggestion (JTR) to conceal his real intentions, but I don't think it would really matter to some extent. This would not be a real motive but one of caution maybe. Martha herself could have suggested it as well so we could go around in circles which is what many people are doing in this Ripper case for the past 115 years... intentionally or otherwise. Also the area was full of fences and tenement houses so there's another point. Today forenic's would have found some clue, item of clothing etc in this reguard. Conspiriscy idea don't hold up in this JTK. Most modren day Serial killings including sexual ones are not ever tied up in these theories anyway. Cover up maybe reguarding James Kelly, yes. I would have to say maybe in the public interest. I'm convinced Broadmoor knows the answers. Chapmans MO could have changed when he poisned three of his so called wives. There's even some doubt to this also. He was a complete rouge and did talk his way out of situations etc reguarding his religion(sometimes RC sometimes a Jew) at least two of his marriages or so called ones in fact were not marriages anyway. He fits the description of some of the eyewitness accounts... a peaked cap and a black bag and wore a long dark coat. Huchitson states he met a man who looked very stern. If you look at Chapman's photos he looks very stern in most cases. He looks about 30 and has a pale complextion with the long mustache. Post 1888 Inspector Abberline knew this and so did Inspector Godley. These two men were the top ripper guys at that time, they can't be ruled out by any means. Chapman did move to New Jersy as well and so here is the clue Carrie Brown unfortunately looking at the photos carefully they don't seem to be the same as the rippers. If she was muliated like Mary Kelly then we would known for certain. This seems to to be the early stages of muliation. I could be wrong, but if it was the same hand then he would have removed her privates or cut her more like Mary Kelly if it was indeed the same hand. This idea is important because James Kelly and Chapman did visit America or at least Chapman did and Kelly went on the continent. This would answer why the killing stopped after Mary Kelly but this would leave Coles and Mckenzie and torso in boubt but we are still talking about periods of 1888 to 1891 up to and including 1903 when Chapman was hanged. I think the killings never stoped up to and including from 1888 to 1927 both suspects were at work. Kelly until he signed himself in again at Broadmoor and Chapman up to his death in 1903. Many people have forgotten that a serial killer lies dorment for a long period of time. Some are never caught like the ripper, but we a are comming closer to who he was. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Court Circulars appear in newspapers of record, principally The Times, recording the events of the PREVIOUS day or weekend, and are issues from wherever the "Court" (ie the Royal Household) is located at that time - usually Windsor, Buckingham Palace, Sandringham House, Balmoral, Holyrood House etc. These remain the principal royal residences as in 1888.
The circulars are short and factual. I believe that in the past they included lists of royal guests (there was some eyebrow raisng when Edward VIII included Mrs Simpson in the circulars in 1936) and they were studied and commented on by the social elite for whom in 1888 (less so now) these things MATTERED. Today only official events are recorded as the Sovereign's role as "head of society" has rather lapsed in the current reign.
If the HRH The Duke of Clarence had not been present when specified it would almost certainly have drawn attention. To have included him if he was not there almost assumes that his father The Prince of Wales and HM The Queen herself were involved in some sort of cover-up.
Personally, I believe that the Court Circulars are as cast iron an alibi for "Eddy" as anyone could hope to have.
Moving on to the debate about "why" royals have been considered as potential suspects, I suppose this might actually have been a result of the scandals surrounding Edward, Prince of Wales in the late C19th, and Cleveland St. It may have been known that a royal prince had been involved in "something" and speculation began.
But I think Dr Stowell was the one who put Prince Eddy in the frame. He provided nothing but hearsay and un-substantiated claims and died before he could be questioned. I think he was either the victim of a prank, or deluded - or a deliberate misleader (as Stephen Knight turned out to be). As numerous conspiracy/Holy Blood holy Grail type books demonstrate, a wily mind can construct a case for almost anything, simply by being selective (not falsifying) facts. This to my mind is what Stowell did.
Before the early 70s when limited public access began to be allowed to the official files, there was a widely held view that the papers included a name. Hence the excitement about the Macnaughton memorandum which seemed to prove this and reveal some of the thinking. If the police had a name, the thinking went, then there was a reason for that name having been withheld. One explanation was that the killer had been a public figure, a known name, or at least someone "respectable" such as a doctor of lawyer. The earliest major book on JtR by Leonard Matters assumes a doctor.
The Royal/medical/Masonic view was given new life following Watergate, when S Knight produced a conspiracy theory for the 70s.
Only in the light of the release of the files and in our more egalitarian age, has interest shifted to working class suspects. Maybrick is a throwback to an earlier approach. In other words,
each generation casts JtR in the guise its preoccupations require. The working class approach is compatible with the larger amount of sociological research now being done. Until a few years ago the "poor" were unnamed an invisible to researchers who relied on published sources and newspaper files for their sources.
Phil
|
T Kearney
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 9:48 am: | |
Again it's been a while since I have droped in here. I agree with your working class theory. It is a known fact that serial killers in the past have been high up in society take an extreme example. Elizeabth Bathory for example who killed up to 60 women so we can go on and on about this society thing. The fact of the matter is serial killers come from many different backgrounds like the Sutcliff Yorkshire Ripper of the late 70s, Dr Chapman who could have killed up to 250 women over a long period even over his lifetime) So we can't say honestly that the ripper (1888) was a working class killer. What we are forgetting here is that the Ripper only killed six women I don't agree. From 1887 to what I believe was his first victim, Martha Tabern to what may have been his last victim Coles 1889 we can establish a pattern Motive I feel was body parts maybe for sale. If we check history Burk and Hare 1847 were involved in this business and they targeted prostitutes also because they were easy pry 10 pound for a body part was a lot of money. This theory is possible a lot weaker than the Prince theory but it sells more books. The Mary Kelly murder bugs me a lot could a a midwife have really been the killer? It's unlikely, so we are really going around in circles from here on in. To conclude I would not put much faith in the working class idea but it's a strong one non the less. These prostitues were living in the East End of London which was the location for most of the known Ripper murders they were targeted by a person living in the area, and most of us people are working class people... we have to work to make a living. The victims were killed on weekends and so we have a clue. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:05 am: | |
Hi Phil,
You wrote:
'Maybrick is a throwback to an earlier approach. In other words, each generation casts JtR in the guise its preoccupations require.'
Could you explain what you mean by 'approach' - and whose approach? The writing in the diary has yet to be dated, and its author ascertained. So how do you know which 'generation' produced whoever it was you believe took this 'approach' to the ripper case?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
he means becasue Maybrick is middle class, at least i think that's what he means - I'd hate to put words into this mouth!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2417
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Mr/Ms/Mrs T Kearney (take your pick),
"It is a known fact that serial killers in the past have been high up in society take an extreme example."
No, it's not. Yes, we can find some historical cases, but these are very few. In fact, most serial killers derive from the working or middle classes.
"So we can't say honestly that the ripper (1888) was a working class killer."
Nothing is possible to say for sure, but -- yes, I think we can conclude that Jack the Ripper came from the working class, maybe even from the same poor category of class as his victims.
The murders were performed in the area of Whitechapel (with the exception of Eddowes who were killed in the City of London district), and several indications suggests that he knew the area quite well and most certainly were a resident there. A large majority of the inhabitants of Whitechapel, Spitalfield and eastern parts of City of London were working class or poor.
And I agree with Phil; to focus on suspects who represents other categories (like those more wealthy classes that were popular to explore in early days of Ripperology), is indeed a set-back to the investigation.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 187
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 9:21 am: | |
One thing that bothers me a lot in this whole Royal Conspiracy lunacy is the need to sensationalize the murders more than they already were. Doesn't the crime itself(and I'm talking about the series here no matter how many you think that is) stand out on its own merit? Why does it have to be overlaid with an extra patina of "glamor"
It seems as if it isn't enough for some people that these murders happened, as serial killings do, in a social context and as the expression of some disturbed man's frustrations and sick fantasies. No, they have to be even MORE important! They have to reach to the higest levels of Society and be the stuff of intricate conspiracies that call on the resources of the mightiest government of the day.
I understand what makes people invent mythologies to explain things they don't understand and I realize how people in 1888 might have had to think about these crimes in order to get a grip on their own emotions but now in 2004 we've unfortunalely had a lot of experience with serial killers. We recognize them for who they are and we know at least a little about what makes them and how they behave.Why is it so dissatisfying that the killer was some little nobody?
If this case had been the only case of multiple mutilation murders in history, then maybe people would be forgiven for trying to overlay it with such symbolism, but given that it was one in what is probably a never ending group, there's no reason for that.
The Whitechapel Murders are horrific enough in themselves--we don't need to gild the lily.
Mags |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 402
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
The checkable detail is the court circular. Can anyone come up with another? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 12:04 pm: | |
Hi Jenni,
Yeah, I knew that, but that's not what I was getting at in my questions to Phil.
Hi Glenn,
To focus on any particular group of suspects, according to age, class, race or sexual orientation, would be more than a 'set-back' to the investigation if by doing so we risked excluding the ripper himself.
I might be tempted to exclude any suspects so poor or malnourished that mere survival would of necessity have preoccupied all their waking thoughts to the exclusion of any murderous ones they might otherwise have indulged in.
Likewise, I would probably find it all too easy to exclude homosexual or Jewish suspects, on the grounds that the victims were female and non-Jewish. Judging by the serial killers I've read about, a larger proportion of them come from classes above the lowest of the low, than kill outside of their own sexual orientation or race.
But I do realise that by doing this I could still throw the baby out with the bathwater, and commit the unpardonable sin of pooh-poohing some contemporary characters who remain many people's favoured suspects even today.
Hi Maria,
I do think the ripper was very probably 'some little nobody', which might explain why he was never identified - he may not have come to anyone's attention at the time.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
The murders were performed in the area of Whitechapel (with the exception of Eddowes who were killed in the City of London district), and several indications suggests that he knew the area quite well ...
Factually absolutely correct. But just in case anyone who does not know London, or have a knowledge of victorian East End, I would add this.
the difference in character between Mitre Square and (say) Berner St, or Hanbury st, would have been slight to the eye. The square would have been less squalid, but the same wharehouses surrounded it as they did Buck's Row. Had you been led through the area in 1888, I wonder how much you would have noticed.
Perhaps that the area was becoming more commercial and less "residential" (if Miller's court constituted a residence), but to me the killer stalked a pretty homogenous area. The differences were subtle. Apart from police jusrisdiction, I make no mental distinction between the sites - to me they are all East End, if not strictly Whitechapel.
Incidentally - I have an open mind on the killer and am not wedded to working class suspects alone - I remain a little bit of a "Druittist". But I do think the fixation with doctors and toffs rather old hat.
Just a gloss on your excellent post, Glenn, I agree in every way.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:44 am: | |
The checkable detail is the court circular. Can anyone come up with another?
There must be masses - I don't know whether PAV's private correspondence survives in the Royal archives (much of Edward VII's - his father) was destroyed after his death. But there might be surviving letters written and dated from the places PAV was in 1888.
Memoirs or biographies of members of the Royal Family, and Queen Victoria's journals (although heavily edited by her daughter) might provide information. Memoirs of courtiers too, especially if they were house-guests.
Local papers for Balmoral, Sandringham etc might carry news items reporting arrivals or departures of notabilities. People travelled by train and carriage in 1888 so should have been visible.
But to me the strongest evidence for the whereabouts of PAV is the company he kept - The Queen herself, HRH the Prince of Wales etc. I think one can assume they knew and recognised their son/grandson - and that Druitt could not have done a "Prisoner of Zenda" and stood in for him!!!
Equally even cursory reading of books about Edward VII/Queen Alexandra and their family show how close knit they were. I find it inconceivable that PAV was not in their company if said to have been.
The alternative is a conspiracy of unimaginable and unbelievable proportions.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 7:20 am: | |
'Maybrick is a throwback to an earlier approach. In other words, each generation casts JtR in the guise its preoccupations require.'
Could you explain what you mean by 'approach' - and whose approach? The writing in the diary has yet to be dated, and its author ascertained. So how do you know which 'generation' produced whoever it was you believe took this 'approach' to the ripper case?
It seems to me that each generation has had a "theme" to its prime suspects as JtR. Post Matters (1930s) it was doctors and those with medical knowledge - Jewish slaughterman (Odell); midwife (Stewart). In the 60s we had the royal connection, expanded in the 70s (Watergate influenced?) to conspiracy theories (Knight). Also c 60s was Cullen's research into Druitt (based on MM memorandum) Only in the 80s (centennary year, Fido et al) did we see a focus on working class JtR's such as Kosminski, Ostrog etc).
For most of the time, the theme has been of a "toff" (professional if you prefer) as the Ripper, rather than a man of the Whitechapel streets. To me, the proposal of maybrick as murderer is a throwback to the cape, top-hat, black bag syndrome - as indeed many of the PR pictures for the Diary emphasised.
If the Diary is an old forgery, then this might indicate an origin between Matters and 1988ish. But I do not propose that seriously.
Does that explain my remarks, Caz?
As ever,
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
The murders were performed in the area of Whitechapel (with the exception of Eddowes who were killed in the City of London district), and several indications suggests that he knew the area quite well ...
Factually absolutely correct. But just in case anyone who does not know London, or have a knowledge of victorian East End, I would add this.
the difference in character between Mitre Square and (say) Berner St, or Hanbury st, would have been slight to the eye. The square would have been less squalid, but the same wharehouses surrounded it as they did Buck's Row. Had you been led through the area in 1888, I wonder how much you would have noticed.
Perhaps that the area was becoming more commercial and less "residential" (if Miller's court constituted a residence), but to me the killer stalked a pretty homogenous area. The differences were subtle. Apart from police jusrisdiction, I make no mental distinction between the sites - to me they are all East End, if not strictly Whitechapel.
Incidentally - I have an open mind on the killer and am not wedded to working class suspects alone - I remain a little bit of a "Druittist". But I do think the fixation with doctors and toffs rather old hat.
Just a gloss on your excellent post, Glenn, I agree in every way.
Phil |
T Kearney
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
I think you miss the point Glen, I am the one here all the time that have being of the opinion that George Chapman or James Kelly was the actual Ripper. Kelly certainly came for the middle class sector. He was well educated by todays standards and so was Chapman who if we are to believe was a polish Jew who poisioned three of his so called wives from 1889 to 1903. He would be classed as a working classs suspect, being a barber and before that a surgeon in Poland (1886/7). He lived in Whitechapel the first victim Martha Tabern was killed in and around the immediate area where he lived, Inquests have clained that some of the victims were cut by skilled hands i.e a surgon There is not many suspects that fit this except Chapman what other credable suspect is there? I feel the penny had finally dropped. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
