|Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 2:02 pm: || |
On Prince Albert,I understand on one of the murders,he was in Scotland,so how could he be a suspect?
Richard Brian Nunweek
Post Number: 384
|Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 4:01 pm: || |
The suggestion, that the killer named as Jack the ripper' was any way connected to the royal family is absolute rubbish, Pure specualtion that was derived as to cause media attention only.
Post Number: 220
|Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:17 am: || |
As far as I have ben able to tell the only "proof" that we have of the Prince being in Scotland at the time is Court circulars as reported in the press. I would like further verification.
I know that there is no evidence to suggest any Royal involvement. My only plea is that if there is hard evidence that exornerates him, lets prodcue it so that the matter can be dismissed once and for all.
I do not believe the Prince was JTR. However, there is a striking physical rememblance between him and Montague Druitt. This is the only reason in my mind to take a second look at the Prince as a "back burner" suspect -- albeit a remote one.
Post Number: 10
|Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 6:38 pm: || |
For those out there who are so quick to eliminate suspects based on prior revelations and specualtions simply because they do not agree with these theories should find their time better served into providing the evidence of a suspects innocence rather than dismissing them as a suspect on their own biases.
I must agree with you that i do not believe PAV was 'JTR" yet who am I to make a strong declarative statement that any theory connected to the Royal family should be viewed as rubbish. This kind of criticism of another's theory is exactly what Richard and others are trying to avoid in this case, mere speculation without any hard evidence. A sort of brilliant irony displayed along these message boards regarding this very issue.
Prove innocence before claiming innocence. Isn't that what you wish of those claiming guilt?
Andy and Sue Parlour
Post Number: 57
|Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 1:03 pm: || |
Andy & Stan,
Both of you make sensible valid points. No, Eddy I believe not JTR. But that does not say there was not a cover up. The conspiracy theories are as good or bad as any other theory. We should all keep an OPEN mind on any single idea, and most of all respect others.
Erin N. Haley
|Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 4:42 pm: || |
Andy P. has a point.....we should keep an open mind about a single idea. The Prince may not have been JTR, however, that doesn't neccessarily exclude the Royal Family. There might have been more goin' on than what was being told. Think about it. And yes it is good to keep the Prince on the suspect list for now, you never know when somethin' new might turn up on the case.
|Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 6:23 pm: || |
I like to call this the "Lyndon LaRouche Theory" and if you know anything about this man you are laughing right now. Lyndon LaRouche is a conspiracy nut-job who runs for US PRESIDENT under any party and loses of course. He's been behind bars and his group is sort of a cult. However this guy believes the British Royals are behind everthing from drug sales to the Great Depression and anything else he can think of. Thus why I call the "Royal Conspiracy Ripper Theory" the "Lyndon LaRouche Theory" because his British Conspiracy Theories are just as bad.
There are many things on the net about Lyndon LaRouche. Here are a few I'll post below...
Check out these websites -
|Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 10:40 am: || |
There was a conspiracy at the time but not what most people seem to think.
It was a 'anti-Fenian conspiracy'.
Read 'Fenian Fire' by Christy Campbell, it will open your eyes to what those 'at the top' were really concerned about.
You'll be surprised.
Post Number: 864
|Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 2:01 pm: || |
Yes, domstang, therein doth lay a great deal of what we do not know, the friction and fraction between protestant and catholic - fenian, papist or otherwise - has dramatic influence on the Late Victorian Period, especially in the command structure of the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police Force. However the term 'conspiracy' is but high farce, it were but the bloody politics of entrenchment and the great fear of change that fuelled such thing.
To have a catholic minister as the virtual head of security of what was a staunch protestant country did not sit easy with many of the movers and shakers in high society, and therein perhaps hides a whore's four pence.
|Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 3:02 pm: || |
I'm a bit of a Freudan myself. I believe whoever Jack the Ripper was has some sort of sexual problem or hang up. He raped these hookers with a knife. His knife replaced his penis in the act of his lust. The blood from his victims was sexual to him and the more he got, the more he liked it. The cutting around the victims mouth, the chest and ripping up the sexual parts of these women says it all. The fact that these women sold themselfs for money does too. Jack the Ripper didn't go out of his way to kill any nuns did he? Nope! It had nothing to do with a secret marriage and missing baby of any royal. It had nothing to do with a rumor of that same royal being gay. Being that the "Royal Conspiracy" people can't seem to make up their minds if Prince Albert was into women or men or maybe both. It matters not for Albert was not Jack the Ripper and likely as clueless as everyone else in the Royal family.
Robert Charles Linford
Post Number: 3064
|Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 6:40 am: || |
Strange, the constant coincidences in the JTR case. The following passage from a "Times" Clarence obit seems to mention Martin Fido's Protestant Boys' Club and Shoeblacks' Refuge :
Robert Charles Linford
Post Number: 3065
|Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 6:46 am: || |
Here's Austin's deathless verse :