|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Simon's Theory : Annie Crook , Clarence and the Ripper.
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Simon's Theory : Annie Crook , Clarence and the Ripper.
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 08:47 am |        | | Does this mean someone has got a bit close , Dave old bean ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 09:03 am | | There is a solid case for Winnie the Pooh committing the murders actually , possibly helped by his four friends. Naturally I cannot reveal too much of this theory as it is will appear in my forthcoming book ' Jack the Ripper : The Worlds first Stuffed Serial Killer ' , but I am prepared to drop a few hints as to why I suspect this bear of little brain. Firstly , anyone with the same name as a slang word for 'excrement' must have one heck of a social complex. Secondly , I believe the phrase '...of little brain' to suggest that our suspect was in fact mentally deficient which we all know is synonomous with being CLINICALLY INSANE ! Thirdly , Kanga had a handy pouch to store the knives and organs , while Eeyore could have pulled the carriage. Fourthly , the mispelling of ' Jews ' in the Goulston street graffiti is consistent with the spelling of one who wrote ' Wol ' when he meant ' Owl '. Finally , I have it on good authority that Pooh was ' down on whores ' although obviously I cannot reveal my source. This theory also helps to explain the implication of Sooty in the crime , after all both Sooty and Pooh are small yellow bears and it could have been a case of mistaken identity. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 09:11 am | | David -
I will freely admit that sometimes I absolutely cannot follow your sense of humour, but. . .your last post is a joke, isn't it?
Are you actually saying that if some poster on these boards gets too close to your solution (which, I might remind you is only "your" solution and not "the" solution until it is - if ever - published) then you'll print the whole thing and have done with it?
Conversely, then, if no-one ever gets too close, how long do you plan going on with this intellectual striptease? I like you, David, but this has really gone on far too long to be even mildly amusing anymore.
Oh, and a word of advice from me: get yourself another lawyer, because whomever you've got hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 10:25 am | | | Back to the serious stuff now please ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 11:08 am | | Wolf , I admit that the letter from Anne Thompson is inconclusive , but I merely stated it to disprove your point that " There are no tales other than the Monster that speak of a mentally retarded man living at Glamis ". Naturally , if Eddy was a secret prisoner at Glamis you would expect the only information availible about him being there would be inconclusive rumours ! They could be substantiated though by the photograph of Eddy in old age which appears in Fairclough's book : if the piece of furniture in the photo or the easel or even one of Eddy's pictures dated post-1892 could be found and traced to Glamis , then that would be compelling evidence indeed. Unfortunately , this is probably beyond me but there are certain ways I could find the proof...which could be dangerous to my own health so I'm not going to try ! As for Joe Sickert's theory , please note the title on the top of this board. It is MY theory , although it is obviously based on Joe's theory. The fact that Joe's theory has certain verifiable errors in it does not make it entirely false , so I want to see if there actually is some truth in it. I will try and find the source for Kelly's behaviour if I can , but please believe I did not deliberately invent the information - I'm sure I read it somewhere. As to Winston , he did NOT entirely expunge all records of Randy being a Freemason. Firstly , Pick and Knight must have had some source to believe Randolph Churchill was a Mason or he would not be included in their Pocket Handbook. Secondly , a Rudolph H.Spencer was initiated into the 1st Lodge of Ireland in 1878 and was passed and raised into the Westminster and Keystone Lodge no.10 in London later that year. The full name of Randolph Churchill was Randolph H. Spencer Churchill and when he travelled abroad he used the alias ' Mr Spencer ' as Fairclough points out. There is no record of a Rudolph H. Spencer being an Freemason in Irish Lodge records , the information comes from Freemason Hall records in fact : it is also true that Randy was in Ireland in 1878 as his father's secretary and he travelled back and forth to London quite frequently. Being MP for Woodstock , the Westminster Lodge would be a convinient one for him. There is no definite connection between Randy and Rudolph but it does seem likely that they are one and the same person I think. I make no apologies for Stephen Knight but I don't think you can say that Fairclough's book is not well researched : he spent seven years on ' The Ripper and the Royals ' and I certainly felt it was scholarly and logical given its subject matter. I think Guy has deliberately misinterpreted the piece about Randy almost catching syphilis , what Fairclough meant I think was that even if the story was only part true it would show Randy was ' down on whores ' , and even if it was false it showed a contemporary view of Randy's proclivities and the perception of his character. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 11:15 am | | | I have obtained the address of , and written to Mr Joseph Sickert viz. obtaining an interview with him and asking him certain questions about his story. Watch this space for further details ! |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 11:21 am | | Simon:
David's doomsday clock is now ticking, for you have come very close to the core of the entire problem. Sooty IS Winnie! The two are identical and are just two parts of this psychopath's twisted personality. See however the gradual degeneration of a brain that originally was a friendly, helpful middle-class bear to one that dares to point water-pistols at Prince Charles. To my mind this proves that the Bear(not yellow originally) could not in 1888 been deranged enough to be JtR. The link to the real Jack is there: not in the Cabal of Kanga, Pooh, Eeyore and Wol but in the Leader of that group: he who must not be named lest the dread Radka unleashes his curse upon this world. Look with unbiased eyes upon the Mary Kelly Photo. There on the wall by the head of the bed are the initials that prove the entire conspiracy: not F.M. but C.R!
Peter |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 03:13 pm | | Hello, David:
If your theory is the answer you say it is, perhaps we should plan a special session at our Park Ridge, New Jersey, convention coming up on April 8-9. Are you planning to attend? Certainly we would wish to welcome the man who can at last put us out of our misery in regard to this most frustrating of cases.
Best regards
Chris George, Treasurer
Casebook Productions, Inc.
Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth"
Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9, 2000
http://www.casebook-productions.org/conference.htm |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 04:57 pm | | Christopher,
I regret that I cannot attend due to needing to work seven days a week because of tax season. I've already sent my regrets to Mr. Begg, who seemed understanding to my situation. I deeply regret the scheduling, since it probably means the loss of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to meet him, and I live only about 150 miles away.
I hope everyone has a great time. I will miss you all, and hope there will come another chance to meet someday.
David |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 03:20 am | | Re. Winnie the Pooh, Christopher Robin et al.
I have just written a profile for Lewis Carroll on the 'suspects' page that uses an anagram from 'Winnie the Pooh' to point up the absurdities in Richard Wallace's theory.
The anagram is constructed from the opening line of the book:
'Here is Edward Bear coming downstairs now'
and reads:
'Stab, red red women. CR is downing whores - AA'
In view of the theories expressed here by eminent minds like Mr. Birchwood's, I find it hard to dismiss this as mere coincidence.
Should we anagram the rest of A.A. Milne's work?
Or the titles of Sickert's paintings?
Or David Radka's posts?
Or all three?
These are deep waters. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 05:30 am | |
Quote:"I think Guy has deliberately misinterpreted the piece about Randy almost catching syphilis , what Fairclough meant I think was that even if the story was only part true it would show Randy was ' down on whores ' , and even if it was false it showed a contemporary view of Randy's proclivities and the perception of his character."
Sorry to have to break my previous promise, but NO, Simon, I don't accept that I misinterpreted anything. I'm not about to attempt to "read between the lines" of Fairclough's diversionary ramblings. I prefer to go by what he actually says, and my point is this - that if the story is only partly true, then it is dangerous to draw conclusions from it, and if it is entirely false, then Fairclough has no right whatsoever to draw any conclusion at all. Nonetheless, he still invites the reader to follow him in his belief that Randolph had reason to be "down on whores", which he derives from this questionable tale. Presumably, Mr. Owen would not like it if I attempted to propagate a "view of his proclivities" which portrayed him as say, a child molester, based only on an entirely unverifiable rumour. Indeed, he would be entirely justified in defending himself by all available means. Why Randolph Churchill (despite being deceased, and hence unable to defend himself by legal means), should be treated with any less respect, baffles me entirely.
One positive thing to have come from Mr. Owen's obsessive retelling of the Sickert/Fairclough story is that I have been prompted to look again at The Ripper and the Royals. It has not, however, improved the book's standing in my estimation. If anything, I have been even more appalled this time round by the poverty of Fairclough's research and reasoning. So much is taken uncritically from Sickert, and so much twisting of, or in some cases apparently deliberate risregard for, contradictory evidence is required, that I cannot for a moment understand why an obviously educated reader such as Mr. Owen gives it any credence. Another snippet intended to illustrate the point - look at Fairclough's description of Warren's reasons for resigning, and ask yourself what is missing from the account - something which is not difficult to discover, having been in the public domain for some considerable time, and which practically every other author has managed to include.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 07:58 am | | | I suppose I deserved that. Sorry Guy. As to children , I like them but I couldn't eat a whole one... |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 08:22 am | | And as to the mysterious 'C.R.' : surely is a ' Robin ' not a red-breasted bird ? The only reason A.A. could have given C.R. this nickname is because he had staggered in late at night with blood all over his clothes. Plus , may I refer you to a common rhyme : " They're changing guard at Buckingham palace / C---------- R---- went down with Alice ". Only now can the content of this rhyme be revealed ( the full version of this cryptic poem is to be printed in my book ' Jack the Ripper : World's First Stuffed Serial Killer ' , out soon folks ! ). The term ' They're changing guard...' refers to the imprisonment of Eddy at Glamis and his replacement by his brother George as Heir to the Throne. Notice both brothers were in the military. The phrase ' C.R. went down... ' obviously refers to C.R. being down on whores , and ' Alice ' refers to MJK as she looked like Alice in Wonderland. Thus we have proof in these first two lines that Eddy did not die as stated , and that C.R. murdered MJK. I have examined the mortuary photo and the letters ' C.R. ' ARE printed on the wall ( Thanks Peter ! ) but they are followed by the letters ' A.P. ' as well. I can only surmise what these latter two letters mean , but I suspect they can only refer to the phrase ' At Peace '. This shows that C.R. had satiated his hateful feelings with the death of MJK , and also explains why there were no more Ripper murders after this horrible event. The guilty remain silent , but they cannot do so for very much longer... |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 09:05 am | | No problem, Simon. It was, after all, Fairclough's reasoning which was the intended target of my criticism, not yourself. For my part - apologies for appearing to adopt a hoity-toity attitude previously (NB Mr. Radka - hoidy-toidy is, to my knowledge, merely an American variant). Please understand that I prefer to criticise ideas rather than people, although it can sometimes be very difficult to make the distinction clear. No personal offence is ever intended. Oh, and apologies too for the word risregard. I did of course mean disregard. Perhaps I should give the spellchecker another chance!
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 09:29 am | | Serious bit now. I dipped back into the Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper to find the Bruce Paley quote about how MJK had stopped frequenting her local pub( on p.245 ) and I also found this by Melvyn Fairclough , on p.156 : " Freda Thompson , over 90 years old and living in Hastings , was told as early as 1915 that the Duke of Clarence was in some way connected to Jack the Ripper. She had never heard of Joseph Sickert or Stephen Knight's book until 1996. Part of her story came from her great-grandfather , Sam Lythal , a City of London Detective Sergeant when the murders happened. He told Freda's father that it was known at the time that the Duke of Clarence met a working prostitute , married her and set her up in a house in Fitzroy Square off Tottenham Court Road. On the morning of Catherine Eddowes' murder Sergeant Lythal was sent to Mitre Square at six o'clock. He claimed that when he went into the square he saw three men that he knew belonged to the royal household. " What this proves is there is independent annecdotal evidence that Clarence was involved with a common woman which does not rely on the evidence of Joe Sickert and that it was in existence over 60 years before Stephen Knight wrote his book. Although Fairclough's identification of George Hutchinson is wrong , it is interesting to note that this Hutchinson believed Randolph Churchill to be Jack the Ripper. More annecdotal evidence. Ellen Lackner had also heard of this rumour about Clarence and her mother would not allow her aunt , Annie Crook , to come into the house because of her connection to Jack the Ripper. More annecdotal evidence. And Fitzroy Square is right behind Cleveland Street , where we know Annie Crook had been resident. Guy , I hope you can see now why I am pursuing this theory now ; with all this smoke I cannot help believing there is some fire there too. I don't mean to bring slander on Randy's character , but he is a legitimate suspect as much as any other and I will accuse him as I must : this is why we have to determine if the Abberline diaries have any foundation in the truth. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 10:15 am | | Clearly, some kind of Clarence/JtR rumours have been in existence since before Joseph Sickert's emergence - Stowell and Harrison's allegations prove this. My suggestion is this - that rather than supporting Sickert's thesis, they form, if you will, a literary influence - that is to say, Sickert has based a very highly-developed fictional account on the basis of these rumours. I have to say that I admire his imaginative talent, but I am not convinced that it is any more than that.
If you wish to investigate the "fire", as you put it, all well and good. I would suggest, though, that evidence such as that put forward by Wolf in his recent posts points to the rumours being nothing more than that. Certainly, you should attempt to check them without reference to the "smoke" from Sickert (not easy, I confess!). Your method should be to seek evidence which disproves the thesis, rather than the other way round.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 01:04 pm | | Hi, all:
Since David Radka has raised the vaunted name of Eric "Zippity" Vaughan, I thought you would all like to be exposed to a slice of Zippity's philosophy on the case.
The following was posted on the Black Dahlia message boards http://www.bethshort.com/dcforum/Armchair_Discussion/1.html#1 by Zippity on Feb-04-00 at 06:53 PM (EST):
"Some things are just disgusting by nature. Take England's Jack the Ripper. As long as you can keep the story within a Agatha Christie/Murder She Wrote format, people will eat it up. Once you get into the real Ripper, people will puke it up (unless they're goths) and they'll remember the recanter who made them feel that way. . . .
"I grabbed the evidence needed to prove who the real Ripper was because the vainglorious scum went and put his initials in blood on the 'Saucy Jack' letter. (Tilt your head left and you can just make out 'ft', Francis Tumblety.)"
Even though I have made a study of the Jack the Ripper letters and will be presenting on them at our convention in Park Ridge, New Jersey, next month, I hold no brief for Zippity's finding. I also do not know whether Zippity may have been paid a retainer by authors Stewart P. Evans and Paul Gainey. :-)
Chris George
Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth"
Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9, 2000
http://www.casebook-productions.org/conference.htm |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 01:58 pm | | Thanks so much for finding Zippity, Chris! I'm going to try to contact him! It's like finding your long-lost parent after 30 years!
David |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 02:07 pm | | David:
Be careful. I think the staff only allow him to post during recreation periods.
Chris |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 02:39 am | | Thank God, Karoline, your voice of reason
has returned......all this flagrantly
flippant foolishness of late only tells
us the sad state of affairs in Ripper
studies.
Your ownership of Puccinni's underpants,
your expose of the REAL culprit, and my
supporting article on Sooty and the infamous Lord's loo graffiti have
combined to place the truth before the
public..........and the truth shall set
you free (or some such nonsense!!)
Please continue with your Sooty studies;
the world needs researchers such as you.
And, Peter.....everyone knows ancestry is
traced through MITOCHNDRIAL DNA...how the
hell can you deny Karoline's ancestry in
this cavalier (or are you a roundhead?)
fashion?
Karoline, we'll miss you dreadfully in New Jersey. Hope all is well with you.
J |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 01:04 pm | | Karoline:
Deep waters indeed. As we delve deeper into the dark underworld of Victorian and early 20thC childrens literature we come up with more shocks and a greater appreciation of the Conspiracy that must indeed control everything. Winnie the Pooh had of course several identities before his mind collapsed and he went into television. He was Edward Bear and of course Edward VII was the father of the Duke of Clarence and Avondale. He was then widely known to be "living under the name of Sanders" which brings to mind one of the three insane medical students. But was he ever a resident of the Wild Wood and is the anonymous leader of the ferrets actually Pooh in disguise?
Judith:
In this case, I think you mean Mitosockrial dna. Obviously, to prove or disprove this matter absolutly, we will need samples fromm Sooty, Soo and Karoline herself. I'm sure that Karoline and Soo will cooperate but it will be a braver man than I to ask Sooty for a sample of hair. I suggest we nominate Simon for that task.
I'm sure the Truth is Out There but where was J. Edgar Hoover in 1888?
Peter. |
Author: NickDanger
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 03:20 am | | Hi all,
This story is not without a hopeful finish. I understand that Pooh the Ripper was rehabilitated and became 'Gentle Ben'.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 05:59 am | | This following theory is a bit controversial , so post if you don't agree! There seems to be a wide variety of opinions on the killer , and this has come out in the posts which have been sent recently to this site. I don't believe that any other SK has such a wide diversity of opinions on their character. Check it out. Is Jack the Ripper... An intellectual or a dullard ? A madman or sane ? A sociopath or not ? Clever or stupid ? Methodical or spontaneous ? An organised or disorganised killer ? Cunning or dense ? Pooh or Sooty ? (joke!) The fact is that nothing seems to fit , thus I suggest that it is like the story of the three scientists examining the elephant in the dark : we are all groping at something bigger than the sum of its parts. I suggest that the only way to solve the conumdrum is to assume that an element of DECEPTION is involved here , and that the real killer was decieving us into believing us the crimes were by a maniac. The mutilation of MJK is not consistent with that performed by a serial killer either , it is deliberately ' over the top '. My contention is no IRRATIONAL man could produce what was found in Miller's Court , that the murder had to be the work of a cruel but sane man and not the work of a modern serial killer or lunatic. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 06:08 am | | | Further support for this is that the killer would need inspiration for his work : Vacher and Peter Kurten were both inspired by JtR. Other killers have been inspired by films or pornography. But what could have been the inspiration for Jack the Ripper ? My suggestion is that it was the Masonic ritual killings of the 3 Juwes , where the Ruffians are disembowelled , that was the inspiration for the Ripper murders and that the Goulston Street grafitti is a taunting clue to this. The mutilations do not follow those of the 3 Juwes exactly , but remember that this was killing done in contravention of the code of the Brotherhood , not in compliance with it ; the killers only felt obliged to gloat when they thought they had murdered the real Mary Kelly. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 08:29 am | | I'm not sure that a serial killer "requires" inspiration - even though many claim, as you say, to have been inspired by earlier criminals, books, films etc. Often, though, I suspect that these "inspirations" are either invented or exaggerated in an effort to exculpate the killer in some way. That is, they are essentially a cop-out on the part of the criminal post-arrest. Which brings me to my second point - that, in dealing with an undetected criminal, we are almost inevitably doomed to fail in our efforts to determine whether or not the options you quote above "fit". Such determination can perhaps only really be achieved once the identity of the criminal is known.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 10:27 am | | Hi, Simon:
The point about the Ripper murders is that the killer can be virtually anyone we want him to be, and his motives can be any one of a number of motives. We are dealing with an unknown murderer, as you indicated, so any of a number of scenarios can be made to fit, particularly if, excuse me for saying so, one wants to accept unverified stories and unverified "facts" as the truth. The latter way of proceeding to look at the case is certainly what has happened in the past with the Royal conspiracy theory, and what you continue to do, as is evident with your stated willingness to accept anecdotal evidence as an indicator that your theory may have validity. If one accepts anecdotal evidence, Simon, all you have is an anecdotal house of cards. It just becomes a game of "Simon says. . ." However, what Simon says is not necessarily so, as has been pointed out to you time and again by Guy Hatton, Christopher-Michael DiGrazia, Peter Birchwood, and others.
As Guy says, because we do not know who the killer was, his motive, if he had one other than lust murder, could have been anything. Also Guy makes a very valid point that what a murderer "confesses" about his motive after he has been captured may not have been the true motivation for the crimes.
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 05:56 am | | | I don't see anything wrong with using annecdotal evidence , as long as it isn't the only evidence used : I know it seems like building the house first and then the foundations , but as long as the foundations are put in , the house will stand. The point is , the annecdotal evidence reflects the views of people closer to the time than we and should be worth following up : sometimes it does become corrupted by the passage of time but then the task is to determine how corrupted it has become , and what the truth in it is. Thats not an easy task but it is hopefully one worth doing. We have for instance no annecdotal evidence that Joe Barnett killed MJK , surely someone would have been suspicious who knew him if he had commited the crime. Adversely , there was plenty of annecdotal evidence about Jeffrey Dahmer's unusual proclivities among the local homosexual community but the police took no notice of it. The phrase is ' Theres no smoke without a fire ' Christopher. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 10:28 am | | Simon:
As you know, there were suspicions at the time that the killer was a Jew or a foreigner. Those suspicions would fit in with your characterization of "anecdotal" evidence. Does the fact those suspicions were strongly held make it so that they were valid? It certainly does not.
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 11:22 am | | I stand by what I said. The Jewish rumours came from the fact that a man named ' Leather Apron '( John Pizer ) was going around bullying prostitutes and threatening them with a knife. In the absence of any other suspect , and with the prevalent feeling that no British person could have committed such a crime , Leather Apron became Jack the Ripper. Even after Pizer had been cleared , the furore had been such that people still suspected that it might have been a Jew who did it ( This carries on today with the fact that people STILL suspect Kosminski as being the murderer ! ). Thus there was some truth to the rumour in that there was a Jew behaving in a suspicious way at the heart of it. The rumours that the Ripper was a doctor derive from Wynne Baxter's estimation that the killer had medical skill at the Chapman inquest , I believe this to be true in that the killer was either directed in the mutilations by a doctor or had some medical skill himself. The Ripper as an aristocrat probably derives from Hutchinson's description of the man he saw accompanying Mary Kelly. Now what do we make of the rumours from more than one source that Eddy married a prostitute and fathered a child by her ?( in currency before the 1889 Cleveland Street affair ) And that the Ripper was one of the highest in the land ? These rumours won't go away because we want them to , because we want to believe something else. However Chris is right that a theory cannot be built wholly on substantiation and annecdotal evidence. To try and convict the Conspirators on what I have at the moment would be a pointless task , I simply haven't achieved anything concrete against them. Hard evidence is needed to bring a verdict of Guilty against them. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 12:31 pm | | Hi, Simon:
I think we have to also recognize that in trying to plumb the depths of a mystery, people do grasp for explanations that are not necessarily the correct ones. The killer got away after committing this very high profile series of murders. So therefore he must have been an influential person, there was a conspiracy, the authorities performed a cover-up, etc., etc. These are all the sorts of ideas that float around in a sensational case but just because these things are rumored does not make them so. It could be that the Royal rumors were just that and are akin to the "urban legends" of our day. In the Ripper case, there are a large number of scenarios that have been suggested, some of them more outrageous than others. There is a key to the mystery but I would suggest that the Royal conspiracy solution requires too many ifs and maybes to make it work. There are too many unsubstantiated "facts" that are essential to the story but that no one can verify.
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 27 March 2000 - 06:27 am | | | Hi Christopher , yes I think you are right. There are too many unsubstantiated claims in the Royal Conspiracy theory at the moment to make it work , this is the conclusion I have come to. When Fairclough set to work on the story , he had what he believed to be a true document ( Abberline's diaries ) to support his conclusions : sadly we must believe the diaries to now be fakes. I still think it is worth investigating this story further but it won't stand up without more evidence ; I have written to Joe Sickert but as yet he has given me no reply. I'll post again to this board if I can get to talk to Joe and see his diaries and evidence for myself. |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 27 March 2000 - 01:14 pm | | Judy - thank you for the kind words. I think Simon needs to be shown the Lord's graffiti - then truly will he be One Of Us.
The Underpants will, of course, be on public view at the upcoming ripper conference in New Jersey, along with prints of Walter Sickert's paintings, and a virtual reality re-creation of Mike Barrett being too drunk to forge the Maybrick Diary
Further details on request from Chris George. |
Author: judith stock
Monday, 27 March 2000 - 04:08 pm | | It's sad, Karoline, that we who know the
truth must constantly wear out our vocal
cords trying to persuade non-believers!!
Ever since you revealed the secret of the
underpants and I backed you up with the
graffiti, I've been convinced of where
the culprit was, but........ah, well, it
is a bit of a Grail quest, don't you
think?
Keep on trying, K; I am....one day, we'll
see the publication of your book and
THEN well see who's laughing!!
Take care,
Judy |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 04:40 am | | Simon--
I certainly find it commendable that you are willing to defend your theory against all-comers and (usually at least) do it with good cheer.
This is a small point (although it touches on an important element in your theory) but would it really be such a wild coincidence that Eddowes used the name "Mary Kelly" as an alias? Much like "Jane Kelly" (which she also used) it would be pretty dang difficult to come up with a closer approximation to "Jane Doe". And, since people are often known to use the sir name of a friend or lover (ie. John Kelly) when using an alias, it is hardly remarkable in itself. Is it more compelling than, say, Severin Klosowski marrying a woman named Annie Chapman? Or finding out that a Kosminski family lived on Goulston Street? I tend to think that the human mind is brilliantly capable of seeing patterns and connections...even where they don't exist. And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, as Freud once said.
Speaking of seeing things, I've been tilting my head to the left for a week now (only off and on; not continuously!) trying to see the "FM" smeared in blood on the "Saucy Jack" letter (as described by C.T.G. above) and still can't make it out. And, er, um, anyway, what about the alternative reading of "Francis Thompson" ?
cheers,
RJP |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 05:17 am | | There is new evidence in the Sooty case : reports have come in of a ' shadowy figure ' behind the little bear , directing his actions , orchestrating all his moves. Could this be the Napoleon of Crime ? Could Sooty have been merely a ...PUPPET...in the plans of someone else. The letters ' F.M. ' on the wall , could they mean ' From Moriarty '... or ' From Matthew '!!! ( shock horror , dramatic music plays in the background ). Matthew Corbett , son of Harry , was 52 last Tuesday. Happy Birthday Matthew ! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 05:30 am | | | Damn, and here I thought it stood for "Florie Maybrick"!!!! |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 11:36 am | | There has been speculation of the most serious sort that Sooty was indeed a
puppet in the murders--of course, the
only one we know to have been able to
wear a Sooty suit, and thus cast suspicion on the poor little guy is---
Howdy Doody!
And we all know who pulled Doody's strings, don't we?
Hope to see you all in NJ---we'll meet at the Puccini's underpants exhibit......
Regards to all,
Judy |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 02:20 pm | | Well, I think I had a criss-cross in a synapse
last night, thinking that Florie Maybrick's maiden name would have made her another "F.T."...but no, it was Chandler. But this is a GOOOD thing. One less suspect...
Simon, I 'sort of' like your point about the anti-semitism in the East End, in regards to Pizer being a suspect, etc. Not to mention that the whole Lipski affair was still fresh in everyone's mind in 1888. But is it fair to say that this prejudice exists in the form of those who "STILL suspect Kosminski"? At times, at least, I am among those who number A.K. as a plausible suspect. It has nothing to do with him being Jewish, but, rather because there is some vague likelihood of him being indentified by an eyewitness, and the fact that he was tentatively fingered by both Macnaghten and in the Anderson-Swanson marginalia. Like it or not, with Druitt and Ostrog, he's always going to have his 'fan club'.
Incidentally, I read a book by Arthur Griffiths, a friend of some of the Police Inspectors associated with the Ripper thing. He discussed with some sympathy the 'Persecution of Jews and Moors' in Spain. This doesn't prove anything, but I think it it might be hasty for anyone to suggest that there was anything like rampant anti-semitism among the Police Officials in 1888.
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 31 March 2000 - 03:24 am | | | I wouldn't say that those who suspect Kosminski are anti-semitic , but that the anti-semitism of the times is still influencing them to look for a Jewish subject ! |
|
|
|
|
