|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 19, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Simon's Theory : Annie Crook , Clarence and the Ripper.:
Archive through March 19, 2000
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 16 March 2000 - 06:35 am |        | | The only connection that Glamis had to a recent Royal family is through Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the mother of our reigning Queen who was born in 1900. There would be no reason to pick Glamis as a place to tuck away an inconvenient Eddy. The Anne Thompson story probably comes from the true story of Prince John who was I believe the son of George V (Eddy's brother) and although not mentally retarded, suffered from epilepsy and was brought up on the Royal estate at Sandringham. I think he died in the 1920's. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 16 March 2000 - 07:07 am | | | The story cannot be that of Prince John. Born in 1905 he was discovered to be profoundly deaf and an epileptic and was placed in the care of the Royal Nanny at Sandringham. He never left , and died and was buried at Sandringham in 1919. Thus Anne Thompson's father cannot have seen ' a man who looked like the late King Edward VII ' , because Prince John would have been about 9 years old at the time , and living miles away. The 13th Earl of Glamis was a high ranking Freemason and his son , the Righ Hon Patrick Bowyes-Lyons , had shared rooms at Cambridge with Eddy and was his friend. What better place to send the dissolute prince - Glamis was remote , full of secrets and with many rooms where he could have been secretly hidden away. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Thursday, 16 March 2000 - 09:17 am | | Right, then -
Simon, I will take up the challenge and address your 11 points later to-day, once I have prepared a systematic rebuttal. However, before doing that, I throw out a challenge to you.
You say "The main source is Joe Sickert who was told a story by his father Walter." Then prove the relationship. Prove beyond any reasonable doubt, then, that Joe Gorman Sickert/Maybrick/Windsor/Sutcliffe/whatever-the-hell-he-calls-himself-now is REALLY the legitimate son of Walter Sickert.
No referring to Fairclough, Pash, Fuller, Lackner or anyone else's "memories" or "recollections." No "likelies" or "possibles" or "must haves." If Joe is Walter's son, then you should be able to prove it beyond doubt. Do so, and then I might consider your theory. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 16 March 2000 - 09:44 am | | | Can I ask Joe himself ? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 16 March 2000 - 10:23 am | | Why not? Joseph W. Sickert still lives up by Belsize Park NW5 and his number should be in the phone book. I think Melvyn Fairclough lives around Bolton but I'm not sure.
Peter |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 17 March 2000 - 11:48 am | | Personally I think Simon's theory makes a lot of sense.
Why shouldn't the heir to the throne marry a shopgirl if he wants?
And once he has, what more natural than that she should become pregnant.
And find a young Irish girl for a nanny.
And why shouldn't a royal nanny end up living in a one-room hovel in Whitechapel with an unemployed fish-porter? (we all have bad luck).
And why shouldn't she tell her friends about the good times in the past.
And what more natural than that, having heard the story, the three prostitutes recognise the tricky constitutional implications inherent in the morganatic marriage to a Catholic, and decide to blackmail the government.
And obviously, the prime minister, Lord Salisbury, confronted by five alcohlic drop-outs with an agenda, immediately realises he is in trouble.
After all, if it becomes a question of his word against theirs, then the five old girls in the gent's boots and the tatty old hats are just way ahead in the plausibility stakes.
So he frets and he frets, until he realizes there is only one way out.
Obviously someone is going to have to ride through Whitechapel, looking for these women, and then KILL them, one at a time, over several weeks or even months, by cutting their throats and ripping out their bowels, while leaving cunningly contrived messages around the place designed to make it all look like the work of the Masons.
And Lord. S. calls Dr.Gull (who else?) and a couple of other guys to him and tells them to hire the coach and get cracking.
And the three respectable gents say something like 'makes sense to me' and off they go to make a bit of history.
Makes you realize that if the CIA had really been behind the murder of JFK, they'd have
hacked the guy to death in the middle of the oval office, and left a cunning little note behind saying 'Kruschev was here'- just to put us all off the scent.
That's the way you do covert assassination in the real world. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 17 March 2000 - 12:31 pm | | Hi, Karoline:
I do hope you are feeling better. I was most interested to read your riveting treatise on the parallels between the Jack the Ripper murders and the Kennedy Assassination. You may be interested to know that I have it on very good authority that Lee Harvey Oswald chalked on the wall beside the window in the Texas Book Depository in Dallas the words, "The CIAS are the men who are not to be blamed for nuthin'!!!" -- but that G. Gordon Liddey and his team of "plumbers" erased the offending words before they could be photographed and leaked to the general public. I certainly hope that now that this clue has at last been made known by me, it will stimulate a new round of conspiracy theorizing. Just think, we can now spend endless hours debating whether "CIAS" means "Central Intelligence Agency" or "Creatures in Alien Suits." :-)
Chris George |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 17 March 2000 - 04:32 pm | | Hi All,
Uh oh. It appears we're on the verge of the Return of Sooty. Could it be that after all the debate Simon has incited, the various versions of the Royals theory have finally achieved the same level of credibility?
BTW, who has Puccini's underpants, then?
Jim |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 17 March 2000 - 05:44 pm | | Hello Jim:
Yes indeed perhaps a return of the evil yellow beastie is in the offing???? Well at least Simon has enlivened these boards and made us debate a few things even if we do not agree with everything he says. Just look at the large number of topics with postings on them. When we consider that on some weekends in the past the boards have almost "died" this makes for a welcome and positive contrast. Now if we can only get Simon to our convention in Park Ridge on April 8-9, we'll be able to kick him around some more a la Richard Nixon ha ha
All the best all and have a good weekend, whether you are struggling with the vagaries of the Royal conspiracy theory or recovering from St. Patrick's Day festivities. . . . :-)
Chris |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 17 March 2000 - 10:08 pm | | Yes, the impact of Simon is a welcome addition to these boards. Long may he post here--I'm looking forward to it.
Let me give mention, as long as we're talking impact posters, to the individual who had the most incendiary effect of all; the man whose brief but meteoric posting career catapulted all our imaginations; the guy who really, really, "let it all hang out;" who hit the nail right on the noggin; who took us all on a rocket ride we'll never forget; our own "force majeure," he of whom all that's necessary to say is either that you lived before him or you lived after him. The veterans sense who I mean, their spines tingling on this buildup, they're waiting for it to hit... I'm referring to the one, the only, the one and only, who signed his name --
"Eric Vaughan(Zippity)."
-- just like that.
If you weren't here when they happened, you just can't imagine what is was like to eye-witness Zippity's two awesome posts warp in. An honest-to-goodness, real, live, card-carrying necrophilliac. Totally unapologetic, out of hell up through the toilet bowl in the bat cave, proud and in your face. I tell you, it was Chernobyl around here. It made us all tremble, and I believe I've used this alliteration before, like fifteen year-old virgins in estrus at the front gate of Castle Dracula on Walpurgisnacht.
Anyone who wants to post their remembrance of Zippity, please feel free. I'm getting a little misty...
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 05:26 am | | | Actually , Sooty is my main candidate for Jack the Ripper after the Freemasons and space aliens. That little yellow bear has a lot to answer for... |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 07:44 am | | Chris,
I'm okay if I'm forcibly prevented from doing more than about two hours at the key board a day (sounds great, but isn't actually).So, work is hopelessly slow.
By the way, I think 'CIAS' stands for 'crazy implausible argument syndrome', a kind of virus to which few have any natural immunity.
Jim - I have the honour of being the present owner of those undergarments - probably the most important piece of evidence ever to emerge from this enquiry.
Simon -thank you for your support. I spent several months trying to convince the bigots here of Sooty's true identity.
I will be sending you a copy of my newest book -
'Last Victim', in which I use lots of hearsay and bad research to conclusively prove that I am descended from a certain toy panda. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 09:32 am | | G'day Simon,
I've been reading Stephen Knights 'Final Solution' lately, and if you cant see that this is a work of FICTION, then you must believe in Santa Claus.
Leanne! |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 09:53 am | | Apropos of the sainted name of G Gordon Liddy: I once heard him tell a story of his days in the CIA when it was under the direction of J Edgar Hoover (he of the abysmal taste in frocks). Apparently, Hoover was in the habit of scrawling arcane comments in the margins of any field report submitted to him, but such was the fear he struck in subordinates that no-one dared to ask Hoover what a particularly obscure comment might mean.
One day, a report was submitted to him. Hoover's only comment was "watch the borders." This put the department in a quandary. Was Hoover merely commenting on the layout of the report, or did the Director have something more sinister in mind? Everyone was certain Hoover meant the report's borders, but also realised Hoover was just eccentric enough to use this as a test.
So, says Liddy, 2 FBI agents were despatched to the US/Canada border and 2 to the US/Mexico border. When asked why they were there, they answered: "Hoover told us to watch the borders, and by God, we're going to watch them!"
Nice to see you back, Karoline. Brilliant dissection of an arcane topic, as always.
CMD |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 09:07 pm | | G'day Simon,
Oh my gawwwwwd!
I now fully understand Rumbelow's comment of "If X was true, then Y must also be true".
Hey Simon, If the women weren't killed on the spot, and weren't killed in a carriage, then maybe they were killed in Santa's sleigh, before he disappeared into the clouds!
Leanne! |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Sunday, 19 March 2000 - 01:33 am | | Simon if you would like an example of bad investigative technique, re-read your sentence:, "any theory on Jack the Ripper must by necessity have a certain amount of ' it is likely that ' or ' it is possible that ' due to the fact that we are now 112 years from the date of the crimes and we cannot speak to anyone directly involved with them." If you would merely stick to the known, verifiable facts and first hand sources then the need for, it is likely that ' or ' it is possible that ' is done away with or at least greatly reduced.
You ask me to suppose that the Sickert story is true in some form, but I ask you which form of the several that Joseph Sickert has told, am I supposed to trust? Joseph Sickert's original tale had no mention of blackmail nor Masonic conspiracy. In 1973 he told the BBC that:,
"...What then happened, (after Mary Kelly had fled to the East End), was that various people high in Government and the Royal Household became very worried indeed about the possibility of news getting out that the heir presumptive to the throne of England had married, had had a child, and that the child had been born of a Catholic mother...
It was decided that Mary Kelly would have to be silenced. The operation was undertaken by the driver, John Netley, who was a coachman who had regularly driven Clarence although he wasn't on the official Palace staff, and by the Royal physician, Sir William Gull.
To conceal the dangerous motive behind Mary Kelly's death - and the inquiries they were making
for her, she was killed as the last of five woman in a way that made it look like the random work of a madman."
This is different from the story told to Stephen Knight and miles away from the story Sickert told to Melvyn Fairclough. Needless to say, this original story is also filled with lies and half-truths such as Annie Crook never seeing Alice again after 1888. Parts of the story are "translated" by Jean Overton Fuller based on her mothers recollections of what Florence Pash had supposedly told her and we do know that part of her story came from Joseph Sickert.
Simon, nowhere can I find any reference that Joe Barnett ever stated that Mary Kelly had, "stopped walking the streets alone and stopped frequenting her local pub." as you have stated. If you can provide a reference for this point I'd be grateful. Tom Cullen quotes Dennis Barrett as saying that Kelly's "pitch" was outside the Ten Bells but there is no other source for this observation that I can think of. Simon, I do not make things up, The Britannia and The Horn of Plenty were Mary Kelly's "locals" not the Ten Bells. Also, Kelly went back on the streets when Barnett lost his job as a fish market porter, not when he left her.
Anne Thompson's letter is perfectly clear, she writes about a mentally retarded man living with his parents in a cottage at Glamis. She goes on to give the history of the man stating:,
"Local rumour was that his mother had been a maid at Balmoral and had attracted the attention of King Edward when he was Prince of Wales, with the result that she became pregnant.
A man was found to marry her and given a post and cottage at Glamis."
She goes on to say:,
"i have not so far found anyone to substantiate these stories, as the people I heard them from are dead, and others who knew them got them, like me, second hand.
It's possible the man was simply the retarded son of an estate worker with no connection at all to the Royal Family, and that the resemblance was co-incidental. Or he may have been the byblow of someone other than King Edward." If Anne Thompson doesn't know the whole story, other than rumour and gossip, then how can you, (and Fairclough), look on this as some sort of evidence?
Winston Churchill must have done more than just have his fathers name removed from the Grand Lodge records, he must have had all references of his fathers Masonic connection expunged from the face of the Earth, and has left no trace of said connections anywhere. I guess the "proof" is in the fact that Winston had written a whitewashed biography of his father.
Wolf. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 19 March 2000 - 06:48 am | | G'day Simon,
Knight's book and theory, states that:
'Queen Victoria was passionately concerned about the Ripper Murders'. He assumes and cleverly tries to make the reader believe that this concern started after the murder of Nicholls.
On page 141 of Knight's book, he states: 'But murder was so common in Whitechapel in 1888, that her specific concern with Nicholls indicates a deeper knowledge' and: 'But murder was so common place in Whitechapel in 1888'.
Although Whitechapel had a reputation for being violent, dangerous and unsavoury, murder itself was a rare occurence. In 1887, out of 80 homicides in London, not a single one took place in Whitechapel, then:
On the 2nd of April 1888: 'When a woman called Emma Smith was attacked by three men and stabbed to death,' In reality Emma Smith was 'beaten and raped' not 'stabbed' - by: '3 or 4 boys', not 'men', and died 4 days later.
Why Oh Why didn't he employ a 'Ripper' expert, before he wrote this fiction?
Leanne! |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 19 March 2000 - 12:36 pm | | Leanne -
I have previously pointed out that Knight also noted violent death was so common in the East End that the assault on and death of Emma Smith was not even mentioned in the newspapers. This is a lie.
You don't even need to believe me. Just look in "Complete History," where you will find references to newspaper articles concerning the Smith assault which were written when it happened. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Knight, Sickert, et al tell a walloping good story, but when it comes to proven, checkable fact, they CANNOT be trusted.
Excellent post, Wolf. Would that I had your talent.
CMD |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 19 March 2000 - 01:10 pm | | Sooty has been incommunicado for the past 18 months, almost certainly due to the unfavourable publicity given to his private life on these boards. It has however been conclusively proved that he has a complete alibi for the summer and autumn of 1888. I'd recommend Karoline's "The Last Victim" ("...one of the most important and definitive books on Jack the Ripper that has ever been writte." Colin Wislon.)to anyone who has tired of the obvious suspects and feels the urge to speculate on conspiracies, black magic, Armegeddon and small yellow glove puppets. It is however sheer nonsense for Karoline to claim to be descended from Soo. DNA checks positively deny the possibility of any relationship.
By the way, has it occurred to anyone that an anagram of David Radka's last name is Draka which in Transylvanian is the last name of the wife of Count Vlad Dracu?
Peter |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 19 March 2000 - 08:44 pm | | Peter,
Actually, my people came out of the same Russian/Ukranian/Saxon/Polish Corridor region, and at nearly the same time, as Klosowski probably did. They might have known him.
On another "Draconian" note--
Beware of global thermonuclear Ripperology. That's right, I have a file loaded up consisting of 28 questions and answers at the heart of the case, revealing the epistemological center, the identy of Jack the Ripper, why he committed the murders, why he wasn't contemporaneously identified, etc. If I detect anyone getting a little bit too close to the solution on these boards, I may "push the button" to initiate a preemptive action to publicly solve the case before the whole world. A new topic would be opened, titled, perhaps, "The End" or something like that, and everyone would "get it" straight out. My attorney informs me that I may retain certain rights as the solver of the case by this means.
So, your ol' buddy Dave Radka's ready, I'll tell you. Learned it from ol' Vlad.
David |
|
|
|
|
