Archive through March 16, 2000

** 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 16, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Simon's Theory : Annie Crook , Clarence and the Ripper.: Archive through March 16, 2000

Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 11:27 am
The same problem is true with Kelly and Mrs Maxwell I suppose , except Maxwell knew Kelly very well and Mrs Long didn't know Chapman at all. No matter what theory we have about Chapman's death one out of the four - Phillips , Long , Richardson and Cadosh - must be wrong. There is no possible way all four could be right ( Go on , anyone out there who can suggest a suitable hypothesis where all four ARE right please post it to this board NOW ! ) and I humbly submit that it is most likely that Mrs Long who was wrong. Remember a misidentification of Chapman had already taken place in the Ten Bells at 5am , so there is a precedent for this already. As for Polly Nichols , Dr Llewelyn was of the opinion the body had been moved ; its perhaps possible that the body could have been carried out of a coach right next to the spot and placed on the ground , then the coach drove off. This would leave no bloodtrail. I believe spots of blood WERE found in Bury Street ( see the A-Z ) which could have come from Nichols being killed , or they could have dripped off the carriage as it made its way to the spot. Or they could have come from the murderer fleeing the scene , or they could be a red herring - I 'm not saying this is conclusive evidence but its certainly possible that it is . Nichols can't have been killed in Bury Street and carried to Buck's row by hand , that would have left a trail however. I still hold by my theory about Chapman though , I believe it is the MOST plausible theory that we have at this present time.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 01:46 pm
Simon - My friend Wolf has presented an admirable rebuttal of your theory, and I am afraid anything I say is mere dross to his gold. However: During the Nichols inquest, the specific question of whether there were carriage tracks near the body was brought up and denied. Dr. Llewellyn initialy thought her body had been moved, but this is because he was nonplussed by the small amount of blood around the corpse. When he saw the blood had soaked into Nichols' clothing, he realised he had been in error. After that, neither he (nor, I may add, the police) ever believed Nichols was not killed where she lay. The "blood stains in Bury Street" were investigated and asserted to have no connection with Nichols. Mrs Maxwell did not know Mary Kelly "very well;" she made the point at the inquest that she had only seen her a very few times and never (or almost never) before spoken to her. Additionally, there is no known connection between Walter Sickert and HRH Princess Alexandra, nor between Sickert and JK Stephen; this has already been discussed and disproven in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin Howells and Keith Skinner. I apologise for not providing essential HO reference numbers and page numbers for the above, but hope you will trust to my recollection. If I am in error, I am sure those more conversant with the case than I will say so. Regards, CMD
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 10 March 2000 - 10:59 am
Here follows my research into Winifred Collis , rumoured doppelganger for Mary Kelly : I consulted the public register of births for Great Britain , considering the years 1859-1872 for Collis' birthdate. As expected , sadly , no person by the name of Winifred May Collis was listed. I thus expanded the search to include the following plausible variants of Collis : Collins , Colliss , Colls , Callis , Coles , Colles , Collyer. The name Winifred was actually suprisingly rare but the following names were unearthed : 1861 Winifred COLLINS born Haslington 1865 Winifred COLLINS born Wellington , Shropshire 1867 Winifred COLLINS born Prescott 1868 Winifred Theobald COLLS born Camberwell , Winifred COLLYER born Lambeth 1871 Winifred COLLINS born Bury , Lancashire With the 1861 candidate probably born too early and the 1871 candidate probably born too late ( Collis was supposed to be aged about 20 ) that leaves us with 4 potential candidates , none ideal. The other possibilities are the following : (i) That Collis was born in Ireland or another part of the Empire and thus does not appear on the Register. (ii) That Collis was born in America and thus does not appear on the Register. (iii) That Collis was born pre-1859 and her age in Abberline's diary is wrong. (iv) That Winifred May Collis is an alias for another woman or that the woman's forenames were NOT Winifred May. (v) That Collis never existed and is made up by the forger of the Diary. The next step will be to check the 1881 Census records and Post Office directories for Collis' supposed address to see if she can be found there , again though I am afraid I am not hopeful.
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Saturday, 11 March 2000 - 03:19 am
First of all I would like to thank everyone for their kind words and also to add to Simon that I am not trying to bludgeon you with my arguments. I had to cut out a lot of material from my Sickert file or else my post would have been twice as long (that's not gloating, it's just that the file goes back to 1975.) As C.M.D. has already posted, Dr. Llewellyn noted what seemed to be a lack of blood at the scene but still felt that Nichols had been murdered where she was found. NICHOLS From the Boston Daily Globe, October 2nd, 1888. It was evident that the murder was committed some distance from the place where the body was found. There are, however, a number of people who...say that they distinctly heard the screams of a woman early on the morning of the crime. A Mrs. Conville, who lives near the place, said: "I was wakened early on Friday morning by my little girl, who said someone was trying to get into the house. I listened and heard screams. They were in a woman's voice, and, though frightened, were faint-like, as would be natural if she were running. She was screaming "Murder, police! Murder, police!" She screamed this give or six times, and seemed to be getting further away all the time. I heard no other voice and no other steps. She seemed to be all alone. I think I would have heard the steps if anybody had been running after her, unless they were running on tiptoe." The Scotland Yard detectives at once searched everywhere in the vicinity in the hope of discovering some clew. None was found. In fact, everything seemed to indicate that the murder was committed some distance away, as drops of blood were found along the sidewalk; but what perplexed the police most was the fact that the blood stains were found on both sides of the street. From the Kingston British Daily Whig, September 1st, 1888. NEW YORK, Sept. 1.--The Time's London says a strangely horrible murder took place at White Chapel [sic] yesterday morning. The victim was woman, who, as 3 o'clock, was knocked down by some man, unknown, and attacked with a knife. She attempted to get up, and ran a hundred yards, her cries for help being heard by several persons in the adjacent houses. No attention was paid to her cries, however, and when found at daybreak she was lying dead in another street, several hundred yards from the scene of the attack. From the London Weekly Herald, September 7th, 1888 Bucks Row is a narrow passage running out of Thomas Street, and contains about a dozen houses of a very low class. It would appear as if the murder had been committed in a house, and the body afterwards removed to the place where it was found. These erroneous news reports all seem to stem from the discovery of what may or may not have been blood found on "One spot on Brady Street." and the question of how it might have got there. Witnesses such as P.C. Neil, Henry Tompkins, Mrs. Green and Mrs. Perkins heard nothing on or near Buck's Row that night. From the Illustrated Police News September 8th, 1888. Report on the inquest of Polly Nichols: The Coroner: Did you hear any noise that night? Police-Constable Neil 97 J: No; I heard nothing. The farthest I had been that night was just through the Whitechapel-road and up Baker's-row. I was never far away from the spot. The Coroner: Someone searched the ground, I believe? Witness: Yes; I examined it while the doctor was being sent for.�Inspector Spratley: I examined the road, sir, in daylight. A Juryman (to Neil) : Did you see a trap in the road at all? Witness: No. A Juryman: Knowing that the body was warm, did it not strike you that it might just have been laid there, and that the woman was killed elsewhere? Witness: I examined the road, but did not see the mark of wheels. Henry Llewellyn, surgeon: There was very little blood round the neck. There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged. Henry Tompkins, horse slaughterer:(in the employ of Mr. Barber. He was at work in the slaughterhouse, Winthrop street, adjoining Buck's-row, from eight o'clock on Thursday night till twenty minutes past four o'clock on Friday morning.) The Coroner: Was all quiet, say after two o'clock on Friday morning? Witness: Yes, quite quiet. The gates were open, and we heard no cry. The Coroner asked if anybody came to the slaughterhouse that morning. Witness stated that nobody passed except the policeman. He did not see anyone from one o'clock on Friday morning till a quarter-past four, when the policeman passed the slaughterhouse. A Juror: Did you hear any vehicle pass the slaughterhouse? Witness: No, sir. If one had passed I should have heard it. Detective-inspector Joseph Helson: The only suspicious mark about the place where the body was found was one spot in Brady-street. It might have been blood. A Juror: Did the body look as if it had been brought dead to Buck's-row? Witness: No, I should say that the offence was committed on the spot. From the Manchester Guardian sept. 4th, 1888. Inspector Helson, J Division... In making a search for blood stains he saw nothing except some marks in Brady-street, which might have been taken for blood marks. By the jury: He was of opinion that the woman was murdered in her clothes, and that the murder was committed where the body was found. The clothes were not disarranged as they would have been if the body had been carried some distance. From the Boston Daily Globe, October 2nd, 1888. In front of the gateway (where) the woman was found, Constable Neil who was the first person to see the body, immediately after, awoke the Green family and asked them if they had heard any unusual noise. Neither Mrs. Green, her son, nor her daughter, all of whom were sleeping within a few feet of where the body lay, had heard any outcry. All agreed that the night was unusually quiet. "I should have heard it had there been any," said Mrs. Green when interviewed, "for I have trouble with my heart and am a very light sleeper." Another person, a Mrs. Perkins, who lives across the way from Mrs. Green's house, also denied having heard any sounds of disturbance in the street during the night. Wolf.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 09:34 am
Here we go then as I attempt to answer some of the rebuttals to my theory : I cannot prove a connection between Eddy and Walter Sickert , apart from Sickert's own admission that one existed , and the fact that both were active in the Cleveland Street area. It is possible that Sickert had a studio in the Cleveland Street area , in fact it is likely as it would explain his connection with Mary Kelly and Annie Crook. Florence Pash recollected that Sickert had a studio in a ' dreadful neighbourhood ' only a few doors away from a brothel , where boys were also availible ( the brothel at 19 Cleveland Street had been there since at least 1885 according to John Saul , Hammond's associate ). He is not mentioned at 15 Cleveland Street but could have been a squatter in an empty house at that location , certainly he would not take his models back to his house in Hampstead. If he was not a rate payer he would not appear in the directories anyway. It doesn't matter for the theory whether the Crooks were related to the Stephens or not. Sarah Crook could have still been of Scottish descent , despite being born in London. I have proved Alice Crook could have been Eddy's daughter on the 'Joseph Sickert' board Is it too implausible to believe a tobacconists shop could have a sideline in selling confectionary , sweetmeats and even newspapers ? After all , modern 'off-licences' and newsagents in Britain nowadays sell both confectionary and tobacco.To be a ' tobacconist's assistant ' in Victorian London suggested that a girl was on the lookout to meet men , perhaps Annie didn't want to put her occupation down as that , because that wasn't the sort of girl she was. In short , Morgan's shop could have easily sold tobacco AND confectionary. Eddy didn't pay for a private room for Annie as there had to be no suspicion he was the father , he had to have no connection with the child or there would have been a scandal. Questions might have been asked about how a poor shopgirl could afford such care. Since Walter Sickert also knew Annie , we might ask the same question about him. There is no proof of the wedding in St Saviour's chapel but if the idea of the marriage was made up , why not set it at a proper Catholic church such as St Magdalenes ? The kidnapping of Alice Crook must have taken place in 1885 ( or early 1886 ) since Mary Kelly's whereabouts are known after this year. Since there is no record of the whereabouts of Alice Crook for 1886-1888 it is possible she could have been sent abroad. Florence Pash recalls Sickert looking after a child whose nanny had been at one time Mary Kelly , Pash herself looked after the child for a while. This was Alice Crook.Since Kelly had left and Sickert was looking after the child on his own , it suggests the mother was absent. This is consistent with her being incarcerated somewhere. Annie Crook had delusions in later life that she was being tortured , suppose this really happened to her. Annie Crook put her religion down as CoE when she entered Marylebone Workhouse in 1885 , but her niece Ellen Lackner recollected that Annie was a Catholic. It may simply have been more convinient to put down her religion as Anglican , or perhaps she feared persecution or predjudice from the Workhouse board if she put down her true religion. Mary Kelly probably fled to the East End in late 1886. The prostitutes blackmailed Walter Sickert as they thought he was a wealthy man : he was a painter , he took holidays in France , he had a house in Hampstead , his wife had money etc. Florence Pash recalled that Mary Kelly blackmailed Sickert but it was for a paltry sum. The blackmail attempt on the Government took place in late July 1888 when Kelly needed money. Nichols could have joined the conspiracy in early August when we know she was in the area. Lord Salisbury was not a mason , Lord Randolph Churchill WAS a Freemason , he is listed as being one in Pick and Knight's ' A Pocket History of Freemasonry '. If Grand Lodge now know the truth about what Randy did , is it hardly suprising they now deny he ever was one. I think it unlikely Emma Smith was attacked by Netley , but she could have been told what to say had happened. She certainly seemed to have been tortured and her story about what happened to her was very hazy. This is before the blackmail attempt on the Government but there could have been rumours of trouble brewing in the East End months before this , enough to send Netley and friends into the East End hunting for Mary Kelly. Mary Kelly had not the money to leave the East End after Stride's murder but she did take precautions to avoid being attacked. She stopped walking the streets alone , she may have moved another prostitute into her room for protection and SHE STOPPED GOING TO HER LOCAL PUB ! This last fact suggests she believed somebody to be after her in particular. She told her friend she was unhappy and frightened , and wished she was able to return to her people in Ireland. Eddy was exiled to Glamis as it was far away and remote , the Monster of Glamis was a cover story and the owners of the castle discouraged anyone from searching for secret rooms. Lady Granville stated " When I lived at Glamis children often woke up at night in those upper rooms screaming for their mamas because a huge bearded man had leant over them " , local rumours persisted into the 30s that a mentally retarded man lived at Glamis who looked like the late king Edward VII. I have already commented on the Diary and the carriage on the 'Joseph Sickert' board. I hope this clears everything up Wolf , if not keep posting !!!
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 10:05 am
CMD , just because there were no carriage tracks beside the corpse doesn't mean that no carriage had passed by that spot on the night of the murder. Its just that none were found. Remember that wagons would have passed through Bucks Row on the way to the slaughterhouse as Stephen Knight points out. And carriages , carts and cabs may have also passed through the street on that day - they left no tracks either. If the blood from Chapman had soaked into her clothes then she COULD have been carried to the spot without a blood trail being formed from a nearby carriage which then may have disappeared into Bury Street. Wielding a knife would make a noise just as a struggle would make a noise. But the residents of Buck's Row heard nothing : a soundproofed carriage would have done the job just nicely. It seems to have been the opinion of the doctors that Nichols was killed where she was found , but we should remember that this is only an opinion and NOT a FACT as we are repeatedly told. In fact Wolf's posting about the American newspaper reports suggests something was going on that night in Bury Street , setting aside the opinion that Nichols was killed where she was found might lead us to confirm these reports as possible important evidence , rather than falsehoods.
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 12:54 pm
Before getting down to this, can anyone tell me why I got a copy of Wolf's admirable post of the 9th March TODAY (14th March) without any of the other posts on this board since then. Maybe they'll come next week. I thought the mail service was slow, but this... However: Far be it for me to add to the Sickert nonsense but: The 1881 census shows no Winifred or Winifred May Collis anywhere in the UK. The nearest possible match is MAY COLLIS born 1868 St. Helens, Isle of Wight. She's a servant at the age of 13 (!) at the residence of Edward Newbald aged 46, Town Councillor and retired watchmaker of Ryde, IOW. Interestingly enough, Mr. Newbald was born in Shoreditch! Simon: Where did Walter Sickert ever say that he had a connection with the Duke of Clarence and Avondale? (Eddy.) If you mean the redoubtable Joseph, he's already confessed to lying. Would you buy a used diary from this man? Walter Sickert was hardly the sort to have to squat in an empty house. He came from a respectable family who if not wealthy were "comfortable." Artists have starved and lived in squalor: Walter never did and I suspect you are getting desperate to prove this theory. I'd agree that a tobacconists could well have sold sweets but a "confectioners assistant" denotes work in a specialised shop. I doubt that she worked at 22. Many heirs to the throne have sired illegitimate children and not gone through all the fuss and bother that this theory needs. The Crooks were not Catholic as Wolf has already told you. Of course without that brick in the wall, the whole house collapses. Maybe they pretended to be CofE so as to avoid the Masons? Peter
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 03:51 pm
Simon, Simon, Simon. . . Are you actually reading what you're posting? I am not interested in arguing "could," "probably" and "must have," which is what your last two posts are made up of. For someone so quick to point out that doctors' observations of the Nichols' murder were only opinion, you seem to take your own opinion as gospel. I do not know if you have ever taken a course in logic. What you are doing is presenting "negative evidence," and it is impossible to disprove this. All one can do is present alternate explanations which narrow a field of probabilites. For example, I might say that the moon is made of green cheese. You cannot logically prove that it is not; all you can do is present objections to my premise that disallow the moon being made of such an unlikely comestible: the rocks brought back by astronauts were made of rock, they reported a layer of dust on the surface of the moon and so on. These "proofs" (for lack of a better word) make it unlikely the moon is made of green cheese. I, however, can say to you "well, the cheese must be underneath the surface of the moon and the astronauts didn't look there." In short, an objection can be made to any premise. Personally, I find this style of argument irritating, and it seems to be the favourite fall-back of some Royal and Diary theorists. "Just because there were no carriage tracks found beside the corpse doesn't mean no carriage had passed by the spot on the night of the murder." Well, for goodness sake, Simon, I can argue that Polly Nichols was murdered by extraterrestrials. You counter that the police saw no evidence of a flying saucer. I say to you "that doesn't mean that one hadn't passed by." I repeat again, you cannot logically disprove a negative, and if (by what I read above) you are unwilling to accept police or medical findings because they contradict your theory, I'm afraid we have very little common ground to argue. I don't mean to be cross with you, Simon, and I'm sure there are many others frequenting these boards who are more able than I to dispute the Sickert theory with you. I will, however, ask why you are so eager to believe Joe Sickert and Florence Pash (neither of whom had first-hand experience of 1888) yet unwilling to believe the contemporary observations of police and doctors? As ever, CMD
Author: David M. Radka Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 10:00 pm
I don't what it would be to logically disprove a negative. I am, incidentally, a former categorical syllogism and predicate logic teacher of the Pennsylvania State University. I can see how a negative would not lead validly to a conclusion, but not that a negative could not be logically disproved. David P.S. I am a big fan of C-M.
Author: Guy Hatton Wednesday, 15 March 2000 - 06:17 am
Certainly, as soon as arguments descend to the level of "must have", "surely","assuming that" and "without doubt", very loud alarm bells start sounding for me. What Simon is doing here is not only adopting Knight and Fairclough's theory and trying to pass it off as his own, but also their dismal level of logical argument, and their disregard for evidence. As an example, I would draw reader's attention to Fairclough's retelling of the story about Lord Randolph Churchill's alleged encounter with a prostitute during his student days. We are told that it shows he had a reason to be "down on whores", even if it is true only in some details or even none at all!!! In other words, Fairclough wants us to accept that this story supports his theory even if it is entirely false - a fabrication, a lie, fiction - call it what you will. This is the level of reasoned argument being adopted here by Mr.Owen. I hearby withdraw from even dignifying it with a response. All the Best Guy
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 15 March 2000 - 07:42 am
Hey Simon, Haven't you read the A-Z, under 'Fairclough, Melvyn' yet? Even he no longer believes his friends theory! Leanne!
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 15 March 2000 - 07:58 am
Hmmm , well I do seem to have upset some people don't I ? Firstly , I never said my theory was original ; it is based on the theories of Knight and Fairclough with a few modifications , however I am well aware that Fairclough doesn't believe in it anymore. Since it is the theory I believe in , it is 'my' theory to expound upon. Secondly , I had hoped people would realise that since I was replying to a long post , my answers would not be thesis-length in nature and negative logic may well have slipped in in some places : the civilised thing to do would have been to point out what was wrong and comment upon it. Rather my board is sullied with ' hoity toity ' posts from CMD and Guy Hatton , people who are taking this all too personally. Gentlemen , calm down ! It is not my intention to bamboozle anyone as I have said before. I have no financial or personal interest in promoting the ' Conspiracy theory ' in any way (as noted before it isn't even my theory to promote !). To state that Mary Nichols could have been killed by UFO's is stupid and pathetic , and does no justice to anyone's theory : one would have expected better !
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 15 March 2000 - 08:54 am
As to the carriage , here I go again : firstly , it is my belief that the victims were killed in a carriage , and all I want to do to start with is to prove that this theory is POSSIBLE. In other words I want to establish that there are no factors which would make this IMPOSSIBLE. As yet , I have found none. The thing that stands in the way of this theory is the opinion of the doctors - note , OPINION - that the victims were killed where they were found. Since no commenting doctor stood over Jack as he ripped Mary Nichols he cannot be sure for a FACT that this is what happened. And the doctors could be wrong. But constantly we are told that the women being killed where they stood is a FACT which , quite frankly it is not. Rather certain people would wish it to be so to prove their so-called theories , of which as yet we know nothing of. So lets get this one straight , is is an OPINION that the women were killed where they stood. Whether the constable found carriage tracks or not , it is STILL A POSSIBILITY that the body was dumped from a carriage. Now , we know that wagons went up and down Bucks Row to the slaughterhouse. Surely if it had been possible to leave tracks , these wagons would have done so : but they did not. I merely stated it was possible , if not likely , that other vehicles had passed up the street on the same day. In any effect , it is possible that the body was carried to the spot without leaving a blood trail , since Polly's coat had absorbed the blood from her wounds. So here is the evidence AGAINST Polly Nichols being killed on the spot.(i) No coachmarks were found on the spot. But no signs of a man kneeling by the body to mutilate it were found at the side of the body either. (ii) No signs of a struggle were found at the scene. (iii) No man was seen running from the spot with blood on his clothes. (iv) The man running away from the scene would have been bloody , at least his arms would have been covered in blood. Yet there was no blood trail found in Buck's Row , why ? (v) Although strangulation can account for there being no scream , it cannot account for the sound of the corpse being moved or the sound of the knife as the ripping was being done. Yet Emma Green and her children heard nothing on that night , despite being only 20 yds away. Why ? (vi) As (v) but apply the question to the following people : Walter Purkis and his wife at Essex Wharf , the keeper of the boardschool , the three slaughtermen. (vii) Why did no-one hear Jack talking to Polly Nichols , or Nichol's drunken ramblings ? (viii) Why was there no trail of Jack's footprints leaving the spot ? (ix) Why did no-one hear Jacks footsteps as he left the spot ? (x) What about the evidence of the people in Brady Street ? (xi) The murder was commited in an open street , regularly patrolled by constables. If Polly was killed on the spot , how can we explain the fact that the killer took such a mad risk in doing this - why did he not attack her in a private or dark spot as he did with the other victims ? With the spot overlooked by window s, the chance he would have been heard or seen would have been enormous , yet he simply didn't care apparently. My argument is that THIS is quite frankly non-logical , even the worst murderers take at least some precautions. And if the crime ' must have ' been committed spontaneously ( heavy irony ) then let me refer you to points (i) to (ix) above , explain that. Let me see anyone answering the above points in a convincing manner without having to use the words ' must have ' , ' assuming that ' , ' possibly ' , ' surely ' or ' without doubt '. Go on , try it. The fact is that the murders were committed in a coach , it is the most PLAUSIBLE theory that we have.
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 15 March 2000 - 09:27 am
Peter , thank you for your information on Collis - a good candidate : however I cannot agree with you on your other points. Surely I don't have to explain about Joe Sickert , Fairclough and Joe himself have already explained about that themselves. I have also explained my interest in Abberline's diary on this very board , I'm not going to go through it again. As to Eddy and Walter , we will need to find more evidence to conclusively prove their link. Sickert's family did have links with the throne of Denmark though , this is what Sickert told Osbert Sitwell , not Joseph. Florence Pash knew Walter Sickert in the mid 1880s. She said he depended on selling his paintings to pay his nanny , often she went unpaid because Sickert had no money. It was Ellen Cobden who had wealth and not her husband. Again , the testimony of Pash connects Sickert to the Cleveland Street area. The term ' confectioner's assistant ' could refer to someone who worked in a tobacconist. It suggests Annie was an assistant to the person who ran the sweet counter , or she worked in the back preparing sweetmeats. Since she couldn't read or write or probably do arithmetic , her job was probably a menial one and ' confectioner's assistant ' may have been an elevated title , such as ' hygiene assistant ' is a euphemism for cleaner ! Annie Crook WAS a Catholic. Who are we to believe - her own relative Ellen Lackner or Mr Wolf , as erudite as he is ? Thus the theory does NOT fall down , much as you so hoped. As to Joe Sickert being the son of Walter , Florence Pash was told he was , almost certainly by Alice Crook herself. Thus this information does not come solely from Joseph himself. Why the morgantic marriage was so dangerous to the Crown I have already explained , as have others more knowledgeable than I. Suffice to say what people believed at the time was sometimes more important than how things really were.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Wednesday, 15 March 2000 - 09:51 am
Well, Simon, you have certainly thrown down the gauntlet. I do not appreciate my posts being labelled "hoity-toity," but perhaps I deserved that. Let us, therefore, return to the matter of the supposed coach. First, from the "Daily Telegraph" of September 3, the first day of Nichols' inquest: A Juryman: Knowing that the body was warm, did it not strike you that it might have been just laid there, and that the woman was killed elsewhere? Witness (Insp. Spratling): I examined the road, but did not see the mark of wheels. Then again from September 4: The Coroner: Then you did not see a soul from one o'clock on Friday morning till a quarter-past four, when the policeman passed your slaughterhouse? Witness (Henry Tomkins): No, sir. A Juryman: Did you hear any vehicle pass the slaughterhouse? Witness: No, sir. Would you have heard it if there had been one? - Yes, sir. And again from the final day of the inquest on Sept 22: Coroner Baxter: . . .[t]he condition of the body appeared to prove conclusively that the deceased was killed on the exact spot in which she was found. There was not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying, this circumstance being sufficient to justify the assumption that the injuries to the throat were committed when the woman was on the ground, whilst the state of her clothing and the absence of any blood about her legs suggested that the abdominal injuries were inflicted whilst she was still in the same position. . .if, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood-stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row. . ." Now this last bit may certainly be regarded as "opinion," as Mr Baxter does use the words "if" and "might," but as he was summing-up to the jury, we can take his words as a fair synopsis of all the collected evidence (and opinion, yes). I will return to my earlier example of the moon. You, Simon, say "I want to establish that there are no factors which would make this [the carriage] IMPOSSIBLE." As I said previously, I believe (and perhaps I should modify my tone, then and stress this is MY PERCEPTION) you are forcing me to the logical impossibility of trying to prove a negative proposition; nobody can prove that something did not happen. The best you can do is prove that something else happened that excludes the event you wish to disprove. The proposition that Mary Ann Nichols was not killed where she lay is a negative proposition and you can't prove it directly; you can only prove - or, I should say, try to prove - that she was killed where she lay, which means, logically, that she couldn't have been murdered in a carriage. The earlier testimony by Spratling and Tomkins addresses the possibility of a carriage in Buck's Row. Spratling testified he saw no wheel marks, and Tomkins that he heard no vehicle pass by. This narrows the likelihood of a carriage passing through Buck's Row, stopping by the death spot and dumping out Nichols' body. The summing-up by Coroner Baxter also argues against the possibility of the body being ripped somewhere else, presenting, as it does, the flow of blood from the neck and abdomen as strongly for the probability of an on-the-spot murder I should also note that the Sept 4 inquest also features the testimony of Insp. Helson, who noted "There were no cuts in the clothes, and no indications of any struggle having taken place." There is thus no need for "the sound of the knife as the ripping was taking place." I can assure you from my own experience the slitting of flesh is a generally silent procedure. Now I fear I have rambled on a bit more than the collected worthies might care to read, but I hope, Simon, that this makes my position a little clearer. If you don't agree, then you don't, and there's nothing else I can say. I am sorry if you thought I was being superficial with you, and I should not have used such a dismissive tone. In this field, there ought to be mutual respect, and so I apologise for breaking the compact. Regards, CMD
Author: David M. Radka Wednesday, 15 March 2000 - 12:24 pm
Oh! You are cats and dogs, are you? Boom boom! PS It's hoidy-toidy, not hoity-toity. I ought to know, I was raised in New Britain, Connecticut. David
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Wednesday, 15 March 2000 - 01:06 pm
CMD: I can't agree with you about the UFO sighting. Surely, given the amazing technical advances of the Zeta Reticulans, the fact that a UFO wasn't sighted that night is proof positive that it was there shielded by its invisibility beam. Simon: Are you going to believe the research undertaken by a number of respected JtR writers and students who have actually looked at records, none of which show the Crook's as being anything other than CofE or are you going to believe Ellen May Lackner. I've not had the pleasure of reading Jean Fuller's book on Sickert although I have read her book on Victor Neuberg, famously changed into a camel by Aleister Crowley. I therefore can't say how Ellen Lackner is related to Joe Gorman "Sickert." If she's a Sickert cousin, she may indeed have worthwhile information. If she is a Gorman cousin or related on Joe's mother's side, then I'd suggest that she only knows what Joe told her. Now here is what seems to be the census entry for the Crook family: Dwelling: 2 Rose Street Census Place: St Anne Soho, London, Middlesex, England Source: FHL Film 1341029 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0129 Folio 25 Page 41 Marr Age Sex Birthplace William CROOK M 50 M Eton, Buckingham, England Rel: Head Occ: Piano Forte Finisher Sarah A. CROOK M 42 F Scotland Rel: Wife Annie J. CROOK U 18 F London, Middlesex, England Rel: Daur Occ: General Servant Domestic Alice CROOK 12 F London, Middlesex, England Rel: Daur Occ: Scholar Note that Annie has a sister Alice so any story about Annie's daughter having a "Royal" first name is nonsence. Walter Sickert seems to be out of the country in 1881 but his father Oswald lives in reasonable comfort with his wife and other children and although the family might have some connection with the Danish court, Oswald and most of his children are actually born in Bavaria. You say: "As to Eddy and Walter , we will need to find more evidence to conclusively prove their link." Bad research method. More evidence might conclusively disprove their link. What do you do then, Simon? Really, I could go on and on but as everyone else has already told you how daft your ideas are, I'm afraid that I can't be bothered. Peter.
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Thursday, 16 March 2000 - 12:20 am
Simon, I have to whole heartedly agree with Christopher-Michael. Your response is littered with "it is possible", "it is likely", or "it must have" only because it fits your theory but not the known facts. I was also bemused by your claiming that with the eyewitness opinions, "we should remember that this is only an opinion and NOT a FACT.", while offering no verifiable facts of your own. You cannot prove a connection between Eddy and Walter Sickert, "apart from Sickert's own admission that one existed," As Peter has already mentioned, the only admission that one existed comes from Joseph Goreman Sickert and not from Walter Sickert. If you want to argue that Florence Pash is a credible source, you first have to give evidence of where she received this information and from whom. Realize that the "information" in Jean Overton Fuller's book, Sickert and the Ripper Crimes was passed from Florence Pash to Violet Overton Fuller to Jean Overton Fuller, with additions by Joseph Sickert. Also know that some of Florence Pash's claims have been proved to be false. This is fact. You wrote, "thefact that both were active in the Cleveland Street area."with no mention of the fact, that a period of 12 to 15 years separated their activities. "It is possible that Sickert had a studio in the Cleveland Street area , in fact it is likely as it would explain his connection with Mary Kelly and Annie Crook." You first have to prove any connection with Mary Kelly and a connection with Annie Crook as early as 1885, (the date she lived on Cleveland Street.) Just repeating Joseph Sickert's claims is not proof. "Florence Pash recollected that Sickert had a studio in a ' dreadful neighbourhood ' only a few doors away from a brothel , where boys were also available ( the brothel at 19 Cleveland Street had been there since at least 1885"), Well yes, Melvyn Fairclough, in The Ripper and the Royals edited the information which Jean Overton Fuller claims that her mother claims that Florence Pash said this. What Jean Overton Fuller wrote was:, "Florence was at one time familiar with a dreadful neighbourhood... Florence had not named the street. She had referred to it as being near a Square, but had not named the Square, either. Some run down, low district. �Why was Florence living in a low district?' She had not said living in. She referred to a studio in. A studio where she used to visit an artist. Probably Sickert... On another occasion, Mother - obviously a bit shaken - said that Florence had spoken of a house in the street at which boys were available to men. �Only a couple of doors down.' As you can see, Florence never mentioned the name of the street or year that this happened but more importantly, she never said that this was Walter Sickert's studio. It was Jean Overton Fuller who makes the connection based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Also, Fitzrovia has been called Bohemian and "much like Chelsea, after the War" but it was not a "low district" or "dreadful Neighbourhood". He is not mentioned at 15 Cleveland Street but could have been a squatter in an empty house at that location... Yes, he could have been a squatter at 15 Cleveland street, he could have been a squatter in the sub basement in the houses of Parliament. Prove it with hard evidence. Oh, and by the way, "certainly he would not take his models back to his house in Hampstead. " No. He would take them back to his studio at 13 Edward Square, Kensington. This is were his studio was in 1885, as I have already posted. "It doesn't matter for the theory whether the Crooks were related to the Stephens or not...", It does matter if the theory is based on lies or half truths. If one part of the theory can't stand up to scrutiny, then the rest of the theory has to be considered with grave caution. This is where you have gone wrong. Your inability to question the whole when the parts prove false. "I have proved Alice Crook could have been Eddy's daughter on the 'Joseph Sickert' board.", No you haven't because no one can. "Eddy didn't pay for a private room for Annie as there had to be no suspicion he was the father, he had to have no connection with the child or there would have been a scandal." Then why would he marry Annie twice, three years later? You don't seem to understand the filthy, squalid conditions that Alice Margaret was born in at Marylebone Workhouse. It would have been infinitely better to have given birth in a private house under doctors care, say, Sickert's house? Sickert the close friend of both Eddy and Annie? "There is no proof of the wedding in St Saviour's chapel but if the idea of the marriage was made up , why not set it at a proper Catholic church such as St Magdalenes (sic)? "Yes, this is Fairclough's argument. It can't be a lie because nobody would invent something that is this illogical therefore it must be the truth. Rather, if the story of the Catholic wedding service was true than why is there no evidence that it ever took place? "The kidnaping of Alice Crook must have taken place in 1885 ( or early 1886 ) since Mary Kelly's whereabouts are known after this year." Must have?, not according to Joseph Sickert. Melvyn Fairclough gives a date of 1885 and tries to attribute the 1888 date of the kidnaping of Annie and Eddy from Cleveland Street to Stephen Knight, mentioning that this cannot be the right date since Walter Sickert's studio at Number 15 had been pulled down in 1887. Simon, rather than face the known facts which disprove your theory, both you and Fairclough merely change your story around to fit those known facts. What you are forgetting is that the story is Joseph Sickert's and he has been telling it since 1973. Joseph says the marriage between Annie and Eddy took place in 1888 as did the kidnaping. "Since there is no record of the whereabouts of Alice Crook for 1886-1888 it is possible she could have been sent abroad. Florence Pash recalls Sickert looking after a child whose nanny had been at one time Mary Kelly , Pash herself looked after the child for a while. This was Alice Crook...." Proof? Although Florence Pash tells the story of a murder attempt on Alice Crook while in her care and Joseph Sickert tells a version of this same story, no evidence for this attack has ever been found. As I wrote earlier, all documents in existence on Annie Crook, her mother Sarah, her father William and her daughter Alice, list their religion as Church of England. " Mary Kelly probably fled to the East End in late 1886."None of the Sickert story jibes with what little we know of Mary Kelly's life in London. Maurice Lewis stated that he had known Kelly for about five years, George Hutchinson stated that he had known her for at least three years. The A to Z lists her arrival in London at C. 1884 but her arrival in the East End is unknown. One thing that is known is that Sickert claims that Mary Kelly fled from Cleveland Street shortly after the kidnaping of Eddy and Annie, in 1888. Once again you are changing the story to fit the facts. Florence Pash claimed that Mary Kelly had blackmailed Sickert over some affair that Sickert had had. There was no mention of Royals or Masons. "Lord Randolph Churchill WAS a Freemason , he is listed as being one in Pick and Knight's ' A Pocket History of Freemasonry '." Okay, Randolph Churchill WAS a Freemason. Just because the Grand Lodge denies this shouldn't be taken as any sort of proof. The Grand lodge doesn't deny the fact that Gull or other so called conspirators were Masons but they have made an exception with Churchill? Emma Smith was not "hazy" as to what had happened to her and you have yet to explain why she was left alive and why she was raped by the conspirators. Mary Kelly had not "stopped walking the streets alone," as the testimony of those who had seen her on the night of the 9th proves. Kelly was living with Joe Barnett when she invited another prostitute to share their room. How would this other woman provide protection for Kelly from a gang of high placed murderers. "SHE STOPPED GOING TO HER LOCAL PUB ! This last fact suggests she believed somebody to be after her in particular." Kelly's locals were the Britannia (the Ringer's), at one end of Dorset Street, and the Horn of Plenty, at the other. She did not stop frequenting either of them and was seen at both on the night of the 9th. Glamis Castle is not a prison nor an asylum, it is a family home and a bit of a secrecy nightmare. As for the Monster of Glamis, the story has been around since the early 1800's. The "huge bearded man" in Lady Granville's tale was "Earl Beardie", the ghost of Alexander, the 4th Earl of Crawford, who played cards (or dice, depending on the story) with the devil at Glamis and lost. This is also a very ancient story that well predates the life of the Duke of Clarence. There are no tales other than the Monster that speak of a mentally retarded man living at Glamis. The Monster was described as "frightfully deformed, grotesque and bloated. He had no neck, only minute arms and legs and looked like a flabby egg but grew to a large size and possessed enormous strength. Now, detractors of king Edward VII might agree that this is a precise description of him but I would tend to disagree with them. Wolf.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 16 March 2000 - 05:34 am
Wolf , 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. I would love to ask Florence Pash all about Walter Sickert and his paintings , let alone the Ripper case , but I cannot due to the fact that she passed away long ago. I know you don't believe in this theory , but suppose it is true in some form. Suppose the reason for Kelly being killed was because she knew too much about the foibles of the Royal Family. Then how do we get to the truth ? The main source is Joe Sickert who was told a story by his father Walter , but this story cannot be entirely true as facts contradict parts of it. Does it mean Sickert's story is entirely false then ? No , it doesn't. Joe seems to have a bit of an eccentric personality which doesn't help , but at least parts of his story are confirmed by independent witnesses Florence Pash and Ellen Lackner , Annie Crook's niece. Which suggests something may be in it after all. Wolf , CMD , Peter , Guy , David : take a look at my post March 15th , 8.54am. Here you will find 11 points that must be answered about the Polly Nichols murder if you are to conclude that the killer was on foot and alone. Please try to answer them. Then think about my comments on the Chapman murder , to which similar points apply. Which is more probable ; that the killer was alone and on foot , or that the killer was part of a gang which used a carriage ? Think of the question in a vacuum from the other cases , in relation to these points ( The Chapman discussion is on the 'Joseph Sickert' page , in the archives , if you want to find it ). I will be interested to know what you think !
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 16 March 2000 - 06:09 am
Wolf , I can answer certain of your points straight away. The information that Mary Kelly stopped walking the streets alone and stopped frequenting her local pub ( which I believe refers to the Ten Bells , the site of her beat ) comes from her boyfriend Joseph Barnett. Kelly took a keen interest in the Ripper crimes and asked Barnett to read to her all the details on the latest murder from the newspapers whenever it happened. When Barnett left , Kelly had to return to the streets for her income. As to ' Earl Beardie ' how can you say my theory is improbable and yet you expect me to believe it was a GHOST haunting Glamis castle !!! The letter to Joe Sickert from Anne Thompson of the ' Sunday Post ' , Dundee , Scotland contains information about a mentally retarded man being at Glamis , quote : " My late father once told me that when he was a boy , at the time of World War I , he visited relatives near Glamis , and saw a man who looked like the late King Edward VII. He was told the man was mentally retarded and lived with his parents in a cottage on the estate...it fits the theory of Prince Eddy as the Glamis recluse " ( Fairclough paperback edition , p196 ). As to Lord Randolph Churchill , I suspect the removal of his name from Lodge records is down to his famous son Winston , who wished to vindicate his father and preserve his good name. In 1906 he published a biography of Randy , described by Ted Morgan as ' one of the most systematic whitewashings that any biographer , whether related to his subject or not , had ever published '.