Archive through March 7, 1999

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through March 7, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Gull, Sir William Withey: Archive through March 7, 1999

Author: Morten Wahl Liljenboel Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:19 pm
My theory is that Jack the Ripper was Sir William Gull. This may not come as a surprise to you, because Stephen King had this point in his book The Final Solution. I want your comments! The case being that it was a cover-up. In 1887 Prince Albert Victor married an illeteral girl from Ireland, katholic named Kelly. She married the prince at a place in Whitechapel. The chapel seems to have dissappered. It has come to my knowlegde that a certain woman named "Polly Nichols" witnessed the ceremony. Because of that, she was forced to fled into the East End of London, namely known as the Spitalelspields. There she met with some prostitutes. She herself was not a prostitute! They formed a gang and tried to black mail the Court of Saint James. It was somehow reached by The Queen Victoria. She, then called upon her Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, to have the matter settled. This was NOT an invitation to murder, but it proves to the best of my knowlegde the begining of the cover-up of this and the 19th century best known secret. My theory is this: Jack the Ripper were not one but two persons. Here are their names: Sir William Gull, head phiysician to the Queen. The other person was a cab driver by the name of John Nettley. The reason of all the Withechapel murders is the fact that the prince Albert Victor was caught with beeing in a male-brothel in 1889. The man in charge of all the investigations was Frederick Abberline. The reason and explanation of the murders was that former mentioned Nichols had wittnesed the marriage of the prince and the illeterate Irish girl. She was a catholic and she was Irish. This would have caused severe problems to the Court, so she was disposed of. She spent the rest of her life in asylums and workhouses. It's my belief that went through "brain surgery" which meant that she never could tell! Up until now I have tried desperattely to seek out this mystery. So far I have failed. But: I have a few clues for you. 1) Try to go to Cleaveland Street in London and you'll see that the supposed whereabouts of the former mentioned location is still protected by the MI-5. It all took place in number 19. I went there this October 1996 and discovered that the plot is still going on. There is NO number 19. In the book by Stephen Knight there is a photograph of that adress. When I came there I felt that I was beeing watched by someone, I just felt it in my spine. It was chilling. I left my card: And here it comes Jack & Jill went out to kill for things they could not alter. Jack fell down and left a baby daughter.
Author: Peter Birchwood Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:20 pm
Regarding the above, I must point out a few errors. Although the late Stephen Knight (not KIng!) did do some worthwhile research, it is I believe commonly agreed that his conspiracy theories are nonsense. The source, Joseph Gorman "Sickert" has been proven to be at best, a romancer. There is no trace of any marriage of PAV to Mary Kelly.The marriage supposedly was to Annie Crook. It was Kelly who supposedly was the witness, not Nicholls. If the marriage had ever existed, it would have been illegal, being against the Royal Marriage Act. The supposed church, St. Saviors does exist. The records do not show any mysterious erasures or tearings-out! There is therefore no proof that Polly Nicholls was a witness unless of course the happy couple made a wedding announcement in a journal as yet unidentified. Joseph Barnett confirms that Mary Kelly was a prostitute. It certainly seems true that PAV's sexuality was debatable and he may well have visited the Cleveland St. brothel. Abberline was in charge of that case: Donald Swanson was in direct control of the Ripper case. Both Polly Nicholls and Mary Kelly were of course Ripper victims. It was Joseph Gorman's story that his grandmother, Annie Crook was PAV's bride and was subsequently locked away in asylums. This is not true. As to Cleveland Street, the building itself was knocked down after the affair. There is of course a Security Service office in the area. Whether it is at No. 19, I do not know. I have no reason to doubt that a No. 19 does exist there although the number may not be visible. As to being watched by someone, with the number of CCTV cameras in Central London I am sure that someone was watching him every inch of his pilgrimage!
Author: Sir Wilfred Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:20 pm
In spite of the (somewhat) debilitating stroke that Doctor Gull had, I believe it is possible that he was a member of the Ripper party, performing the mutilations in a hansom cab.
Author: Paul D Scott Monday, 11 January 1999 - 10:09 am
Stephen Knight's book was a highly fascinating read, but it can be best described as highly enjoyable fiction!
Author: richie u.s.a. Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 01:25 am
i also believe that gull was the actual 'ripper'. but there's no way he acted alone. i prefer the term 'the ripper gang'. what amuses me is how all the other so- called experts attack the idea of a conspiracy. they want proof. hard proof. as if their books had hard proof. WELL IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP!!! never mind waiting for something to just pop up. ask yourself what's missing-LIKE ALL THE BLOOD THAT SPILLS OUT WHEN A HUMAN BODY GETS RIPPED TO SHREDS. the first murder really didn't shock too many people from the east end, since murder was a common occurance. but after the second and third murders, don't you think people in the area would be a bit more edgy? AND IN AN AREA AS CONGESTED AS WHITECHAPEL, WITH FOUR OF THESE MURDERS COMMITED WITHIN A SQUARE MILE RADIUS, DON'T YOU THINK SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE HEARD OR SAW SOMETHING? THESE MURDERS TOOK TIME. AND NOT ONE PERSON HAD ANYTHING TO REPORT. AT LEAST NOBODY WE KNOW OF. nobody seems to write about the victims. background info, scant history. well what about the fact that most of these victims knew each other? and mary kelly...to me she is the missing piece, the enigma. why? BECAUSE SHE WAS SEEN ON THE STREET THE MORNING AFTER SHE WAS SUPPOSEDLY MURDERED. SHE WAS AWARE THAT ALL THESE WOMEN WERE BEING KILLED, AND IF IT WAS HER WHO HATCHED THE IDEA TO BLACKMAIL THE GOVERNMENT, SHE WOULD HAVE PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER. unlike the other victims, kelly was no wasted, rag-assed fortysomething looking for the next crumb. kelly was by most accounts in her twenties, and fairly good-lookong. and smart. oh yeah, for all you tight assed brit authors who blast the idea of a conspiracy...if you take a map of white chapel and mark the spots of the first four murders, you come up with a near perfect rectangle.WAS IT AN ACCIDENT THAT POLLY NICHOLS, WHO USED THE ALIAS OF MARY KELLY, THE FOURTH VICTIM? DID IT EVER OCCUR TO ANYONE THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR MARY KELLY FOR A REASON? I'LL BET IT WASN'T TO TELL HER THAT SHE WON THE IRISH SWEEPSTAKES. AFTER THE FOURTH VICTIM, THE RIPPER GANG THOUGHT THEY FINALLY GOT THEIR TARGET. BUT THEY MISSED. DOES ANYONE REALLY THINK THAT THESE VICTIMS JUST FELL IN SUCH A WAY TO MAKE A CONFIGURATION SUCH AS A RECTANGLE? OR MAYBE ALL YOU EXPERTS THINK THAT SOME LONE KILLER DRAGGED THE BODIES A BLOCK OR TWO TO MAKE A NICE DESIGN. GIVE IT UP!! gull netley, sickert, anderson, salisbury... use any combination you like. this was a set- up. why has the family of walter sickert held back certain paintings from the public? how did john netley, an experienced coach driver, end up getting killed by falling over his coach and getting run over? how come abberline never wrote anything like a memior in his declining years? pressure? what did he take to the grave? most of all, what of mary kelly? can anybody really say that the existing photo of her body is absolute proof of identity? it's a shame nobody ever wrote a book about mary. sadly i feel it will never happen. brits don't like scandel, and that's the kind of truth this story needs. iv"e always felt that if you could solve what really happened to kelly and why, you would solve the mystery of the ripper gang. oh, i"m sorry--jack the ripper.
Author: Caroline Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 03:42 am
Hi Richie, Brits absolutely thrive on scandal. We love nothing better than a good old gossip. It's only really satisfying, though, if the scandal is true. In my experience, most, if not all, conspiracy theories are just that, theories, and end up being disproved, or in bonny Scotland, unproved. Love, (as always) Caz
Author: richie u.s.a. Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 11:55 pm
well caz, my love--disprove it.
Author: Caroline Thursday, 04 March 1999 - 03:46 am
Sorry, richie, my sweet, I should have said 'not proven' in Scotland, shouldn't I? I think I'll do it my way, if it's all the same to you. By proving who did do it, all else will automatically be disproved, saving an awful lot of work, trawling through millions of other suspects. I'm no raving royalist, but they are human beings, after all, thrust into pigeon holes from birth, privilege or no, and if Victoria's family are given the all-clear, along with several of our Jewish friends, and a weird assortment of humanity, I'll be quite happy with that. Love, Caz
Author: richie u.s.a. Thursday, 04 March 1999 - 09:02 pm
ok, caz, let's talk about queen victoria and her 'pigeon-holed' family. her son was involved in one sex scandal after another. and only a few of those have ever been made public. as for her grandson, he got mixed up in the cleveland street scandal. in 1888 there was no such thing as papparazzi, scandal sheets, c-span or cnn. and after a hard day's work of being seen in public where every living thing including the trees had to bow in their presence, they liked to party down-IN THEIR OWN "PRIVILAGED', bullet proof way. as for the 'juwes', just look at the goulston street graffitti-then ask yourself why charles warren, the commisioner of police, got out of bed in the middle of the night and ran down to that spot just to make sure that writing got erased. all he had to do was cordon off the area for a couple of hours until enough light allowed for a photograph to be taken. interesting behavior for the commisioner, don't you think? i mean, he's supposed to be trying to stop the killings, not destroy evidence. the all-clear can be given to jewish people. they had enough problems back then. AND HOW DID SCOTLAND GET INTO THIS CONVERSATION? you may not be a raving royalist, but it seems to me that at least a couple of royalists were having their own rave-ups. maybe they even had their own mosh pit-and five women ended up right in the middle of it, never to be seen again.
Author: Jim DiPalma Thursday, 04 March 1999 - 09:13 pm
Hi Caroline, all, Richie, you are essentially asking Caroline to prove a negative, ie, that there was no royal conspiracy, and that is logically impossible. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the party making the positive claim to provide substantiating evidence, and it is on that point that most of the tenets of the Royal conspiracy theory come up short. BTW, I'm neither a Brit nor an author, and I can't see why the dimensions of my ass are relevant. Is it OK if I bash the conspiracy theory anyway? I'll start with the alleged marriage and keep it brief, since Peter Birchwood has already done a thorough job. I'll simply add that Annie Crook was not even a Catholic. According to Beadle's "Anatomy of a Myth", the records of Marylebone Workhouse show she and her family were Church of England. The source of the Knight version of the story, Joseph Sickert, has changed his story several times. The version he gave the BBC in 1973 and what appeared in Knight's book in 1976 were very different, and in 1978 Sickert admitted that the whole Jack the Ripper portion of the story was pure invention. The idea that the women were killed as a cover-up of an illegal marriage and to stop an attempted blackmail is not consistent with the manner in which the Ripper murders actually occurred. If there were such a conspiracy, the most efficient way to achieve its goal would have been to quietly abduct each of the women, take them to a remote rural area, kill them and dispose of the bodies. The victims were desperately poor people, whom few would have missed and no one would have looked for. Fast, quiet, discrete - exactly the way the conspirators would have wanted it. What actually happened instead is that the murders took place over a ten week period, the bodies were horribly mutilated and left in public places, the press coverage was intense, and hundreds of extra police poured into the area. Slow, messy, conspicuous - the very last thing the conspirators would have wanted. No, the whole theory just doesn't stand up to the light of reason and known facts. Caroline luv, I thoroughly enjoyed your comment re the Brits loving a good scandal. Barbara Walters interviewed Monica Lewinsky on the 20/20 TV program last night, and the ratings were through the roof. Her book is flying off the shelves here, hurtling to the top of the best-seller list. Seems we're rather fond of a good, juicy scandal on this side of the pond as well. :-) Cheers all, Jim
Author: Caroline Friday, 05 March 1999 - 03:02 am
Cheers, Jim. I take it I can safely leave you to handle richie for me. (I'm not up to that at this early hour!) Isn't it quaint how some Americans (not you, Yaz or David, amongst other illustious company, I hasten to add) can waffle on for the USA to their heart's content, without a hint of a capital letter until they want to shout at one! Do Americanised Victorian poets do the same with beginnings of lines, I ask myself? Just a thought, for any would-be diary hoaxers. Love, Caz
Author: richie u.s.a. Saturday, 06 March 1999 - 12:10 am
dear caz and brian, one book says annie crook was a catholic, another says she wasn't. one book says the goulston street graffitti was vital evidence, another book says it had nothing to do with the murders. mary kelly's heart was taken, mary kelly's heart was not taken. brian, your logic of leaving the bodies in some out of the way place makes perfect sense. but they weren't. they were dumped right in the middle of white chapel-in a somewhat strange arraingment. like a rectangle. not a park or in a river. but where they came from, for all to see. as i understand it, whitechapel at that time was a very crowded district, with several families living in one tenement. the area was covered with cops, people were in a panic-and nobody sees a thing. perhaps more importantly, nobody heard anything. in my conversations with caz, i mentioned the questionable behavior of charles warren, the fact that most of these murders took time, and the lack of blood found at the crime scenes. nobody seems to have at least a thoery on any of these subjects, not to mention the configuration you come up with when you draw straight lines between the first four victims. hopefully, somebody will attack these issues, as opposed to attacking me. the following is for my dear caz-MONICA LEWINSKY IS NO MYSTERY. SHE'S A BIMBO. AND NOW THAT SHE's GOT A BOOK OUT, SHE'S ABOUT TO BECOME A VERY RICH BIMBO. THE FACT THAT THIS BOOK IS FLYING OFF THE BOOKSHELVES ON THIS SIDE OF THE ATLANTIC SHOULD TELL YOU THAT AN AWFUL LOT OF AMERICANS ARE AS INTERESTED IN A STAINED DRESS AS YOUR COUNTRYMEN ARE. AND AS FOR OUR SACRED PRESIDENT CLINTON, HE SHOUD BE IMPEACHED FOR BEING A DEGENERATE MORON. THIS IS THE SAME MAN THAT HAD THE NERVE TO GO ON T.V. AND SAY THAT SMOKED GRASS ONCE, BUT DIDN'T INHALE. AND THIS IS THE CLOWN THAT GOT HIMSELF A SECOND TERM, THANKS TO THE INTELLIGENT, WELL-INFORMED POPULACE OF THE UNITED STATES. i hope that iv'e shown you that, as far as this american goes, america has its own dirt to dish up. i'll never be percieved as a victorian poet-but then again, i woudn't want to be. we have our own mystery in the form of j.f.k. 75 years after jack(and his gang) had their fun, this country watched an 8mm film of their president getting his brains blown out, all over the back seat of a limo, as well as his wife, who was sitting right next to him. 36 years later, wer'e really no further in solving that crime than we were then. the mob, the cubans, the cia, the military establishment, big oil, big buisness-book after book, special after special, even a full-length movie. AND YES, CAZ- WE HAVE OUR OWN SHARE OF TIGHT- ASSED PEOPLE ON THESE SHORES AS WELL. have i blown my horn enough for you? jack the ripper and j.f.k. have grown far beyond the word 'mystery'. they've become industries in their own right. and all wer'e left with are shadows and echoes of a terrible set of crimes. but come on, caz. 111 years later, and there factual accounts of actions taken by certain people that make no sense. let's start with one-charles warren. mr. depalma is welcome to comment. and i still don't know how scotland got involved in this!
Author: Anonymous Saturday, 06 March 1999 - 04:04 am
OK, let's take this point by point.The Prince of Wales was noted for leading a pretty social life and had several mistresses but the major scandal of his life was Tranby Croft which involved gambling rather than sex. He was a very popular King and most of the country loved him because he was the epitome of good living and jolliness. Considering recent US politicians the phrase "casting the first stone" comes to mind. Prince Eddie's main fault was being thick as two short planks. Although implicated in Cleveland Street, he certainly wasn't the ripper. Victorian newspapers were a scandal ridden as current ones and more muck-raking. Try reading some. You've obviously got a bee in your bonnet about British society both then and now and don't understand a thing about it. Charles Warren's actions over Goulston Street were pretty daft and were thought so then. However in the context of the time you don't have to bring in conspiracies to make sense of his motives. Read some more books. Also, the graffittii was discovered about 3am and removed about 5:30, not the middle of the night. I don't know whether Warren visited the site or sent a message. Given the two murders and the high profile of the case and given that Major Henry Smith of the City Police visited Mitre Square shortly after the body was discovered, it's not odd that Warren was also woken early. Go away until you've read more books.
Author: Jim DiPalma Saturday, 06 March 1999 - 07:29 am
Hi All, Richie, others have noticed and theorized on the seeming geometric placement of the bodies. Check the suspects page on the Casebook under Robert D'Onston Stephenson. Also, Melvin Harris has written two books, "JTR: The Bloody Truth", and "The True Face of Jack the Ripper", that cover this suspect in detail. Anonymous of March 6 is correct in that Prince Eddy was not the Ripper. His whereabouts on each of the murder nights are known, he was not even in London on any of those dates. Another point against that particular variant of the royal conspiracy theory. My understanding of Warren's role in the Goulston St. graffiti affair is that he did visit the scene personally and ordered the graffiti erased. He has been heavily criticized for destroying potential evidence, and a lot of people have read conspiracy into his actions. I think the Official Documents page on the casebook still has a copy of Warren's letter to the Home Office explaining his decision to erase the graffiti. As to how Scotland got into the conversation, I think it was when you asked Caroline to disprove the royal conspiracy theory. My understanding is that in Scotland, when a suspect is tried and acquitted of charges, they don't say "not guilty" as we do here, but "not proven", which is probably a more accurate term. And please, Mr. DiPalma is what people call my father, it's just Jim, OK? Cheers, Jim
Author: Caroline Saturday, 06 March 1999 - 10:07 am
Dearest richie, Why do you seem to be drawing me into a conversation about Monica, whom I never mentioned (and who is brian?), and why should you blowing your own horn possibly be of any interest to me? Are you currently in a freak show? You should certainly capitalise on this talent of yours, I'm sure a lot of my male friends here would be very jealous to hear of your contortionist abilities. Love, Caz Happy days--and nights, surprised you find the time to post here at all!
Author: Christopher-Michael Saturday, 06 March 1999 - 03:59 pm
Richie and all - I'm not quite sure, Richie, why you seem to be in such a mood about the Whitechapel Murders, nor why you are determined to make it a conspiracy. Your posting of March 3 has a number of errors in it, and I can assure you the "case" of Royal or Masonic or Governmental involvement in the murders is hardly as clear-cut as you seem to believe it. However, in the interests of time (and not wishing to bore anyone), I shall take a moment to come to the defense of poor Commissioner Warren. Sir Charles can hardly be described as hysterically rushing to Goulston Street to sponge away the "Juwes" graffiti. The writing, and the piece of Catharine Eddowes' apron below it, were discovered by PC Long at about 2.55am. At about 5.00am, Superintendent Arnold was briefing Sir Charles on the "double event" (which, of course, was perfectly proper, as the murder of Elizabeth Stride and the graffiti were both on Met territory). Arnold gave it as his opinion that with the anti-Semitic hysteria on the streets of Whitechapel, a scrawled message implicating Jews in these last two murders might touch off riots and lynchings. Arnold informed Warren that he had already sent a policeman with water and sponge to Goulston Street to wipe out the writing, and he was waiting for orders. Sir Charles realised that such a decision ought not to be made by a subordinate, and to his great credit decided to visit Goulston Street to investigate the writing for himself and determine whether or not it was worth preserving. Once there, he conferred with other policemen on the scene as to the options available to them. Could they wait and have a photograph taken? This did not seem possible, as more and more people were flooding the streets, both those going to work and those who had heard about the recent murders. Perhaps the words could be covered over? Maybe, but a cloth might easily be torn off. Perhaps, then, they could simply erase the word "Juwes" and leave the rest of the message, hoping no-one would know what it referred to? Sir Charles considered the various suggestions, but, as he later outlined in his memo to the Home Office, he felt that any preservation of the writing out in the open was likely to trigger violence, and his duty was to maintain public safety. After ordering copies of the graffiti to be written down (which rather takes the wind out of the sails of those who see his acts that day as sinister), Sir Charles then had it washed away at about 5.30am - over 2 hours since it had been discovered, and over half an hour since he arrived. Hardly, you must admit, the actions of a panic-stricken Masonic lackey determined to institute a coverup. And by the way, Richie - Polly Nichols was the first victim, not the fourth. You are thinking of Catharine Eddowes, who occasionally used the name "Mary Ann Kelly." Christopher-Michael
Author: Jim DiPalma Saturday, 06 March 1999 - 06:24 pm
Hi All, Christopher-Michael: Thanks for providing the detail on Warren's actions. You explained it far better than I could, and I agree, it hardly smacks of conspiracy. Caroline: It has been said that the reason most men don't is that they simply can't. Oops sorry, this is a public board. Last time, I promise, Jim
Author: richie u.s.a. Saturday, 06 March 1999 - 10:05 pm
since so many people have decided to criticize me for how i say things, rather than face a few questions about blood and police procedure, i'd like to hear your views as to the identity of the killer.
Author: Christopher-Michael Sunday, 07 March 1999 - 04:20 pm
Richie and all - It is not my desire to criticize anyone for "how" they say things, but rather to note "what" they are saying. There are a great many mysteries and odd occasions connected with the Ripper case, but isolated events cannot and should not be arbitrarily joined up into a grand consipracy that defies all logical explanation. My views on the identity of the Ripper have been stated in various places on different boards, and I see no reason to go into it here. Suffice it to say I believe Jack the Ripper to have been an utter nonentity who was likely interviewed at some time during the panic, but released. I do not believe him to have been Gull, Maybrick, Sickert, Eddy, Hutchinson, Tumblety, Barnett or most anyone who has been named. There are suspects who are more plausible than others, but none who fit the bill completely. None. If you care to enter into a discussion of the Royal/Masonic conspiracy (as you appear to believe it to be very likely), I would be happy to go through it with you and explain why IN MY OPINION (please note those words) it is a non-starter. Forgive me, but I'm not sure what you mean by "face a few questions on blood and police procedure." If you've questions, please ask and I shall do my best to answer. Other than that, I would suggest a good use of your time would be to read Philip Sugden's "Complete History of Jack the Ripper." Christopher-Michael
Author: richie u.s.a. Sunday, 07 March 1999 - 06:57 pm
to christopher-michael, i'm aware that every theory put forth as to the identity of the murder(ers) has missing pieces. probably mine most of all. we all read the same books,some more than others, and come to our own conclusions. there is no documented evidence i can point to, no police reports i can refer to. am i wrong to say that, in the end, all we are left with, for the most part, are shadows and echoes? all i can do, and did, was try to put myself in the atmosphere of the time when these murders took place. four out of the five agreed-upon victims were literally plundered-and that took time. intestines were draped over at least one victim, i believe the first. two others were cut to shreds as well. to me, time is one of the bigger factors. the people of whitechapel were understandably in a panic. there were supposedly cops covering the entire area. and yet, nobody saw or heard a thing. i think it was in paul begg's book 'the un-cencored facts' where the term 'staggering arrogance' is used. i may be wrong on the book, but i remember reading it somewhere. if there indeed was an attempt to black-mail the royal family, and i do stress the word IF, the powers that be would be forced to take action. and if the prince did in fact marry a commoner who was also catholic and had a child by her, then some serious response (and maybe a serious example) had to be made. i know there is no record of a marriage certificate to support any of this, but why would any one expect to find such a piece of paper? earlier on this page, i mentioned the fact that charles warren, then commisioner of the police, ordered that the gouston street graffitti be erased. his explanation, if i understand it right, was that the jewish community would be the target of even more suspicion and hatred had he not done so. again, i put myself in the position of on-looker and ask 'why?'. he could have easily cordoned off the area with cops, waited until the sun came up, and taken a picture of it when there was enough sun light. and as i understand it, the word was spelled 'juwes'. if stephen knight was right, and that word has its basis in masonic law, then is it really too far a stretch of the imagination to say that some very powerful people were trying to make a point? i know this is all conjecture. a recent special on jack the ripper even said that the writing had no connection to the case at all. the holes in my theory get even bigger with street-wise common sense. if i was involved in a black-mail scheme, and knew that the people i was involved in it with were being killed, common sense would tell me to run like hell. that brings us to mary kelly, my favorite topic of all. but iv'e chewed your ear off enough for now. hope to hear from you again. richie u.s.a.