Archive through March 9, 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 9, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Simon's Theory : Annie Crook , Clarence and the Ripper.: Archive through March 9, 2000

Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 08:19 am
Simon's Theory This board contains my theory about the Ripper conspiracy. It contains both love and hate and is the story of a man called Eddy and a woman called Annie Crook. It is also the story of Mary Kelly , who was foolish enough to try and blackmail the government of England into giving her money. Please find this theory below.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 09:00 am
Okay then , here we go. Princess Alex , wife of the Prince of Wales , picked the painter Walter Sickert as a mentor for her son Prince Albert Victor ( henceforth known by his nickname Eddy ) to introduce him to London literary and artistic society. Sickert was also a friend of J.K. Stephen , Eddy's tutor. Sickert had a studio in an empty house in Cleveland Street and a distant relative of Stephen named Annie Crook used to model for him , Annie worked at a tobacconists and confectioners at no 22. It was Stephen who suggested Annie Crook might be a suitable paramour for Eddy , he was a homosexual and had led Eddy astray somewhat. He thought a female lover for Eddy would keep him away from other men. Eddy and Annie fell in love , they conducted a marriage ceremony in the chapel of St Saviour's hospital in London and Annie became pregnant. However Eddy's father got to know of this and tried to persuade Eddy to give this girl up. He would not. Thus the Prince of Wales determined on a course of action. Annie's daughter Alice Crook was born at the Marylebone Workhouse on 18th April 1885 and Walter Sickert obtained a nanny for her , a girl who had worked with Annie at the shop. She was an Irish girl named Mary Kelly , a widow aged 22 who had moved to London from Wales. Annie moved back to her home at 6 Cleveland Street but one day , while Mary was out with the baby , a gang kidnapped Annie and took her to Guys Hospital where she was incarcerated. She was experimented on by Sir Wiliam Gull and became mentally ill , as well as suffering paralysis and loss of memory. Eddy was taken to see her but she was not the same woman he had loved and that was that. Kelly got scared and ran off , leaving Walter with the baby : he sent Alice to Dieppe to stay with his friends there. Eventually Alice was returned to her mother. Mary Kelly , who had been a witness to the marriage of Eddy and Annie and who held the marriage certificate , disappeared until 1888.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 09:36 am
( continued ). Mary Kelly went to the East End and was distraught when she found out about Annie Crook and what had happened to her. She blurted out her story to a group of women in a lodging house and told them what had happened. The group blackmailed Walter Sickert over this , threatening to reveal all about what had happened , and Sickert paid them off. Kelly attempted blackmail again with her cronies , but this time the demand went to Lord Salisbury , the Prime Minister. Salisbury was not going to have Her Majesty's Government blackmailed by a group of whores. He passed the demand over to the Prince of Wales. Bertie was outraged at this , but moreover the times were those of revolutionary fervour in the streets and he recognised the danger to the Crown. He put together a gang of murderers to silence the blackmailers once and for all - these comprised Sir William Gull , the coachman John Netley , an American criminal Frederico Albericci who had knowledge of the East End , J.K. Stephen , Lord Arthur Somerset , Lord Euston and a man to lead them all. This man was Lord Randolph Churchill and the man we might properly call ' Jack the Ripper '. These men set out on hunting excertions into the East End , trying to find Kelly's blackmail gang : this comprised of Kelly , Liz Stride and Annie Chapman. It is possible Emma Smith was their first victim , she was supposed to be a friend of Mary Nichols who knew Chapman. She was supposed to have been murdered by Netley and Albericci who were trying to extract information on Nichol's whereabouts from her. But she did not know. Nichols was found in August 88 and the location of Chapman's whereabouts was obtained from her ; then she was killed. Chapman was found the following week and interrogated over Kelly's whereabouts , but she did not talk. She was murdered and mutilated. The gang now laid off for a while to let the heat die down but they were soon ready to strike again. Meanwhile Kelly was worried but she had no proof as yet she was being hunted. She and Stride kept well apart , just in case. However the gang had discovered the whereabouts of Liz Stride and were preparing to strike when they heard some incredible news : Mary Kelly had just returned to the East End from the Kentish hopfields. A tail was put on her.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 10:11 am
( continued ). The gang struck on September 30th and Netley tried to entice Stride to come with him to his carriage ; inside Sir William Gull was waiting for her. The gang had used the safety of a carriage to murder and mutilate their victims. But Liz would not come. Netley was forced to dispatch Stride where she stood however and he then returned to the carriage. They then went to get Mary Kelly , who had been locked up for drunkeness. It is possible she had been offered money in order to lure her into keeping an appointment that night , anyway she left and went to Mitre Square where she met her killers. They went to town on her. Then the gang dispersed and either Netley or Abbericci left the taunting graffiti in Goulston Street , boasting of the gang's crimes : " The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing ". The piece of apron was left there as a calling card , to prove the message was genuine. However the gang had murdered the wrong Mary Kelly , the woman they had killed was really called Kate Eddowes who had used the name as an alias. Thus they set out to find the real Mary Kelly and Walter Sickert was forced to draw a portait of her for the gang to seek out. The murder of Kelly took place on November 9th 1888 , the birthday of the Prince of Wales. Her head was ' offered ' to him as that of John the Baptist was offered to King Herod on his birthday by Salome. However Walter Sickert had tipped Kelly off and a friend of hers who had been in the room , a Winifred May Collins , was killed instead. The gang told Sickert that if Kelly gave up the marriage certificate and left the country she would be spared , and so it was done. Kelly emigrated to join her son in Canada. Annie Crook wandered from infirmary to infirmary until her death. Alice Crook married a man called Gorman and died in 1950. Eddy declined into heavy drinking and bisexuality , Bertie decided he was not fit to be King and he was exiled to Scotland and his death was faked. He died in a mental home years later. The rest of the Ripper gang eventually died away but J.K. Stephen was stricken with grief at the news of Eddy's death and was exiled to an asylum where he soon died - but the information he held was passed onto Inspector Abberline of the Yard. The whole was covered up and when Abberline was questioned just before he died , at Bournemouth in 1929 , he was able to say that the Ripper was " one of the highest in the land ".
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 10:43 am
Most of this theory is taken from the following books : ' The Ripper and the Royals ' by Melvin Fairclough , ' Jack the Ripper : The Final Solution ' by Stephen Knight , ' Sickert and the Ripper ' by Jean Overton Fuller ( extracts mentioned by Fairclough ). But hasn't all this been put forward before and discredited ? In a sense yes. The proof for this theory relies on the Diaries of Inspector Abberline , held by Joseph Sickert who is the son of Walter Sickert and Alice Crook. But the Diaries are not in Abberline's hand , they are not written by him. Thus they have been denounced as forgeries. This is true , but the theory I have put forward above is not IMPOSSIBLE , only IMPROBABLE. Joseph Sickert certainly believes it is true , but is he mislead ? Could the information in the Diaries be ACCURATE , even if they are not written by Abberline ? This is what I intend to research and to find out , at the risk of being conned and being disappointed : if it can be proved that the above is correct , then the Ripper mystery is solved. I feel chasing after a serial killer is a pointless exercise , unless a piece of physical evidence turns up tying a particular man to the crime then the killer's identity will always be mere speculation. Every year a new book or two turns up naming another suspect , but we never get anywhere nearer to solving the crimes as nothing definite can be pinned on these men. If Joe Sickert's theory could be proved the case could be tied up for good : although Melvyn Fairclough no longer believes Sickert , he has a good case in ' The Ripper and the Royals ' - one which has made a profound impression on me. Thus the theory above is essentially Sickert's and Fairclough's theory and at this present time this is the theory that I believe to be true. At present I am accepting it as read. But in my posts on these boards I have started to explore other avenues and started to suggest variations on this theory which may be true instead. For instance I suspect Kelly's blackmail attempt on the Government to come in July 1888 , when her boyfriend Joe Barnett had lost his job , rather than Spring 1888 as Walter Sickert told Joseph. As to the Diaries , despite their provenance they need to be investigated further. Some of the information they contain seems to have a grounding in truth ; we know for instance on November 8th Maria Harvey left Mary Kelly a parcel of clothes. Why ? Abberline's diary gives the answer : Kelly earned money by selling old clothes , some of which she got from a mortuary attendant. What other mysteries might the Diaries of Inspector Frederick Abberline explain about the case ?
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 10:49 am
Okay , thats my theory then ! I am ready to defend it as best I am able , and modify it if necessary. I challenge the other posters on these boards to set down their theories as to the killer as comprehensively as I have done , they will make interesting reading. Otherwise , if anyone wants to debate or query the above then I am ready !!!
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 10:55 am
N.B. Any modifications to my theory , or any information that I find out in support of it or against it will be posted up on this board when availible. So watch this space !
Author: Guy Hatton Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 11:04 am
Does the elaboration of a widely-known fact - such as Harvey leaving the clothes with Kelly - by a fictioner writing what we have every reason to dismiss as a forgery, make it worth giving any greater credence to the diary? Of course not. There is no verifiable source for the suggestion that Kelly was a "fence" for stolen clothing, and the diary demonstrates no other knowledge of "inside" information that could support the idea. Attempting to investigate a case by way of twisting events to fit a "rehabilitated" view of a fraudulent document strikes me as a gross travesty of historical method, and I think it only fitting that Simon should be vigorously discouraged from pursuing such a course now, before he gets too deeply embroiled. All the Best Guy
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 11:41 am
Part of the reason for investigating further here is to attempt to discover whether statements made by the diaries can be supported by any outside evidence. For instance surely it is worth researching to see if Kelly being a fence for stolen clothing CAN be verified by some external source. I can see your point , but let us take for instance the Maybrick Diary. It is also a forgery but the information it contains has some factual relevance to the Ripper case. I feel sure that Joe Sickert did not forge the Diaries of Abberline , whatever you may feel Guy , and thus the person who did may have used source material which is no longer availible to modern day researchers ; that is why I feel it is worth investigating further and trying to verify the information contain within. It is not my intention to try and twist events towards my case ; what is the point of that ? That is what Stephen Knight did. Rather , I have put my theory on the boards instead of publishing it so that it , and I , can be criticised and brought back down to earth when we go too far into Cloud Cuckoo land. Because the Conspiracy theory IS dangerous , it has caught up Knight and Sickert and Fairclough and many more in their enthusiasm for it and discredited them all. I want to see if there is any fire behind all the smoke and to see if there is any truth in it , because if the theory IS true then the case is solved. All the best , Simon Owen.
Author: Guy Hatton Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 04:19 am
Hi Simon. Putting aside the question of who forged the "Abberline Diaries" and when, the reason for my concern is this - that you seemed to be in danger of starting from a theory, and then attempting to find the facts to fit it. this is Essentially the same route taken by Knight and Fairclough. It has been alleged before that Knight, in the course of his research, came across evidence which proved the theory to be untenable, yet chose to suppress it. Fairclough was tied to a set of forged documents and a source (JGS) who kept changing his story (or had done at some point prior to advising Fairclough). I wouldn't like you to find yourself in a similar bind, hence my recommendation is this - put aside the theory entirely, and start from the facts as best you can ascertain them from reliable primary sources. By all means investigate such questions as "was Kelly a fence for stolen goods" if you feel they may be relevant, but resist the temptation to give them undue weight, especially if the only source is somebody's interpretation of a questioned document. Try to find as much of the truth of the case as you can before committing yourself to any theory or "solution". That way, you are less prone to being derailed by other people's mistakes or deliberate deceptions. You may miss out on the thrill of feeling you have solved the mystery, but at least you will have satisfaction of having done an honest job. I wish you well, but counsel extreme caution! Guy
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 06:29 am
G'day Simon, Bruce Paley's book: 'The Simple Truth' says that (from the testimony of Joseph Barnett), Kelly arrived from Wales in 1884, aged 20 or 21. She worked out of a West End brothel. There she met a man who took her to France, but for some reason she cut the trip short. Another source tells me that a Press Association reporter wrote: 'It would appear that on her arrival in London, she made the acquaintance of a French woman, residing in the neighborhood of Knightsbridge.....while she was with this woman, she would drive about in a carriage and made several journeys to the French capital....she suddenly drifted into the East End.' Back to Barnetts testomony: Then she lived in Ratcliffe Highway and later in Stepney, with a man named Morganstone. She went to stay in a lodging house, run by Mrs. Carthy, in Breezers Hill, of Pennington Street. She worked out of a brothel here, when she met Joseph Flemming. (In the 'Uncensored Facts', Paul Begg quotes Mrs. Carthy as saying this as reported in 'The Western Mail' of the 13th of November) (1888?) You may be able to work this 'trip to France'lie into your theory, but if the murderers were a gang, instructed to 'silence' blackmailers, why didn't they just slice their throats and disappear? Why butcher the bodies, after death? LEANNE!
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 07:17 am
They didn't just want to kill them , they wanted to eradicate them. ' Pour encourager les autres '. I'm not saying they were killed according to Masonic ritual , but mutilation does figure in Masonic lore and that would have been the inspiration for the killers.
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 08:22 pm
G'day Simon, Please explain! LEANNE
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 01:02 am
Simon, there is absolutely no known connection between Prince Albert Victor and Walter Sickert. There is absolutely no proof that Walter Sickert had a studio at 15 Cleveland Street in 1885, he did have a studio in nearby 15 Fitzroy Street but not until 1922. Sickert's studio in 1885 was located at 13 Edward Square, Kensington. Annie Crook was in no way related to the Stephen family, her mother Sarah, was not born in Oban, Argyleshire but at 22 Great Marylebone Street London on August 31, 1838. Annie's father William Crook, was listed as either a cabinet-maker, piano-maker or french polisher. He never went to Eton and lived and died in poverty. Annie Crook did live at number 6 Cleveland Street at one time, this address was given as residence on Alice's birth certificate of 18 April, 1885, ( Alice's conception therefor, had taken place at a time when Eddy was studying in Heidelberg.) Number 22 Cleveland Street was a tobacconists shop run by Mrs. Morgan, not a confectioners shop while Alice's birth certificate lists Annie as a Confectionary Assistant so she didn't work at number 22. Alice was born at the Marylebone workhouse in squalor and poverty. Why wouldn't Eddy pay for a private hospital room or at least a private doctor's care? There is absolutely no record of any wedding at any place called St. Saviour's that is still in existence. St. Saviour's Infirmary Chapel in Osnaburgh Street is now gone and it's records lost and by some coincidence this is the St. Saviour's where Sickert claims the marriage took place, convenient that. The story of the kidnaping of Eddy and Annie from Cleveland Street in 1888 never happened. Number 15, where Sickert was supposed to have had his studio and from where Eddy was supposed to have been kidnaped, had been torn down in 1886 and by 1888 was a Nurses Institute. Number 6, where Annie was supposed to have been living and from where she was supposed to have been taken from had been torn down in 1887 and was rebuilt as the Cleveland residences. Number 6 was occupied by an Elizabeth Cook who was 68 years old and who died there in 1893. Alice Crook was not taken away from her mother, she was not looked after by Walter Sickert and she was not taken to Dieppe. Records prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Alice lived with her mother Annie up till at least1906. There is no evidence that Annie Crook was constantly institutionalized for the rest of her life, nor that any sort of brain experiment had been performed on her. She did suffer from epilepsy but then, she always had as had her mother Sarah. Records show that Annie and Alice were admitted to the St. Giles Workhouse in Endell Street on 22 January, 1889 or just over two months after the murder of Mary Kelly. They did so voluntarily and only stayed one day. They were not hiding from anyone. Alice Crook was baptized C of E, all documents in existence regarding Annie Crook list her as being C of E, they were not Catholics. Rather than Mary Kelly fleeing to the East End in 1888, we know that she had been living in the East End for at least three to five years Why would Kelly and friends blackmail Walter Sickert? What did he have to hide other than a supposed friendship with Eddy especially if, as you have stated, it was J. K. Stephen who had caused all the mess? I noticed that you have left out the name John Courtenay from your list of murderers. Is this because no evidence has ever been found that he ever existed? The same can be said for Frederico Albericci who you have included. Neither Lord Salisbury nor Lord Randolph Churchill were Masons. Emma Smith died 2 days after her assault and was able to tell the police what had happened to her and where and had given a description of her three young attackers. No mention of any interrogation for the whereabouts of Polly Nichols and why would the conspirators rob and rape her and leave her alive? Polly Nichols had arrived in Spitalfields on or about the 2nd of August, 1888 (less than a month before her death) She had spent most of her last years in Lambeth. How is it that she was considered more knowledgeable than someone who had known Chapman for a long time? How is it that after the deaths of both Chapman and Stride, her co-blackmailers, Mary Kelly still hadn't clued into the fact that she was being hunted? Why didn't she make any attempt at going into hiding? All the medical evidence and opinion point to the fact that all the victims were murdered where the bodies were found, not in a carriage. This is a FACT based on the eyewitness observations of the experts. No evidence that a Winifred May Collis ever existed has been found, let alone that she had gone missing. Mary Kelly's body was identified by three different people who knew her and the body in Millers Court was not pregnant (which Fairclough claims Collis was). Why would she be aloud to live after the butchery to the other victims? If her word was good enough to keep her quiet, why didn't the government just pay her and trust her to stay silent in the first place? Why would Eddy be exiled to Glamis Castle and the care of the Earl of Strathmore? Glamis already has a story of a mysterious prisoner, locked in one of the rooms, never seen by outsiders. This is the Monster of Glamis who was supposed to have been born on 1800 and died in 1921. Sickert probably used this as the basis of his fabrication. As Stewart Evans has kindly posted a sample of Inspector Abberline's handwriting, it is plain to see that it does not match the handwriting of Joseph Sickert's supposed Abberline letter. Considering that Fairclough realized that the Abberline diaries were not in Abberline's hand, how is it that he believed this to be genuine? Appendix 7 of the Ripper and the Royals, "Abberline's account of the five Ripper victims. The following are the background details of the Ripper's five victims, as discovered by Inspector Abberline, and copied verbatim from his diaries." This information was discovered by Neal Sheldon and copied verbatim from his article in True Detective, January 1989 Wolf.
Author: Stewart P Evans Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 01:27 am
Excellent post Wolf.
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 04:30 am
Hear hear.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 04:46 am
Wow ! Even I'm in admiration at that post Wolf ! Thats amazing !!! Hmmm , I think I will need a bit of time to sort this one out and if it can't be solved then its bye bye Conspiracy theory !
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 05:24 am
I can reply about the carriage though : lets go back to the Chapman case for a moment however. As I have argued before the most likely explanation is that the body was moved into the yard post 5.30 am , this allows Dr Phillip's estimate of time of death to be correct and allows various witnesses' statements to be confirmed without the presumption that they were lying. The main problem with a time of death set at 5.30 am is that there are no reported sightings of Chapman between 2am and 5am : given the amount of sightings of Kelly and Stride in the time before their deaths this is remarkable to say the least. Even more remarkable is that this was a fine , warm night and not a cold rainy one like September 30th or November 8th in 1888. People were on the streets. So why was Chapman not seen ? The theory that the victims were killed where they were found is NOT a fact but a considered opinion : there was some debate in the Nichols case , for instance ,with the small amount of blood being found at the scene being a controversial point. Obviously Kelly and Stride were though , I don't question that.
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 08:49 am
There's still a problem for you here though, Simon. If you wish to side with Phillips, you still have to deal with Mrs. Long's positive identification of Chapman as the woman she saw outside no. 29 at (or close to) 5:30. Thus the carriage theory does not entirely allow you to square Phillips and the three witnesses. Regarding Nichols - although there was reportedly only a quite small pool of blood by the body (about a wine-glass-and-a-half), Nichols' clothing had apparently soaked up a considerable amout more besides. Furthermore, there was, it seems, no trail of blood of the kind one might expect even if the body had been moved a comparatively short distance (say out of a carriage). Any doubts that Nichols was killed where she was found are thus not well rooted in the evidence. All the Best Guy
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 08:58 am
Simon, Using the principles of Occam's Razor, it is more than probable that Mrs. Long was simply mistaken regarding the times. As far as the lack of blood volume, remember that if JTR strangled this victim to death, the heart stopped pumping and you would have much less arterial spray than you would if she was still alive.