|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Jack The Ripper was "one of the highest in the land".
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Jack The Ripper was "one of the highest in the land".
Author: Chris Jd
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 12:36 pm |        | True, alas
Christian |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 07:31 pm | | Dear Everyone,
It always amuses me when I read of Prince Eddy's involvement, usually with the connivance of those deadly secret societists ( I think I've just invented a word) the Masons.
I reccommend getting hold of a copy of the Times for Tuesday Dec 16 1890. On page 5 under the heading Royal Visit to Reading there is a very long and detailed article concerning the installation of the Duke of Clarence as the Right Worshipful Provincial Grand Master of the newly formed Masonic province of Berkshire. It then gives in great detail all the information about the Masons you could wish for including the names and ranks of all the Masons attending. Some secret society.
Presumably Eddie had obviously got over his overwhelming desire to butcher prostitutes and was considered fit enough to attend. I'd love to know how he was treated for this venereally diseased and dangerous condition. Two asprins no doubt!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Monday, 14 January 2002 - 12:45 pm | | Hi Thomas,
1) The Lees story is a fabrication and so cannot be used as proof for a theory.
2)" ... ( Stowell's geriatric account) contained the following manifest errors: Gull died in 1890, not in the early 1930s, ... Stowell, as on of [Acland's] executors and trustees, needed no permission from Caroline Acland to go through his papers - nor could he have obtained it in any case, as she died two years before her husband. Gull's papers could not have referred to Clarence's death, as Gull died two years before the Prince. ... Stephen Knight made the valid point that these rumours [Gull seen in Whitechapel] are unknown prior to Stowell's article." (quoted from The A-Z)
Cheers,
Philip |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 07:16 am | | The points of evidence I put out there were not rebutted, much less successfully rebutted. If these points of evidence are not successfully rebutted, which I don't believe they can, then people should admit that there is a good possibility, if not probability, that Dr. William Gull was either Jack the Ripper, or what is more probable, and what I believe is the truth, is that he was the physician of Jack the Ripper, who was Prince Eddy. These points of evidence I want addressed are:
1. The corroborative story told to Dr. Thomas Stowell by Caroline Acland, the daughter of Dr. William Gull, about her father's involvement in the Jack the Ripper crimes, the same story that both the Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article of April 28, 1895, and the account of Robert James Less tell. Dr. Thomas Stowell was an eminent surgeon and a good friend of Caroline Acland, and it is unlikely he would put words in her mouth that she didn't say to him.
2. Two points in the Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article of April 28, 1895; The physician had been a student at Guy's Hospital and was an ardent and enthusiastic vivisectionist( read my post of January 13 2:31 am). These two points describe in all likelyhood, if not in all certainty, Dr. William Gull, and no other person.
I'm asking people to rebutt these two points of evidence, one point at a time. If these two points of evidence are not successfully rebutted, it puts Dr. William Gull right in the middle of the Jack the Ripper crimes( in my opinion, as the physician of Jack the Ripper, who was Prince Eddy).
I want people to rebutt these two points of evidence before spending to much time going back and forth about Prince Eddy, because these two points of evidence are important evidence. I ask again, will any people rebutt these important two points of evidence?
Chris, John and Ally
About the where-abouts of Prince Eddy, read my posts of July 22 2:25 pm; July 24 12:35 am; July 25 9:09 pm and July 26 11:26 pm for my full answer, but yes, the royalty or the government lied when they wrote that Prince Eddy was here on this day and there on that day. Of course they lied when they wrote that. He was second in line to the throne. Also, if he was where they said he was on one or more days, he could still have got to the East End and returned back to where he was. He would have left early at night, and returned early the next day. Also, the court circulars could have been written earlier, as a schedule of Prince Eddy's future activities. Where he was sceduled to be in the future. But he was not there, he was in Whitechapel. As I said, of course the royalty or government lied when they wrote that he was here this day or there that day. He was second in line to the throne. You people are being much to naive if you don't think that the royalty or government would have lied and wrote that Prince Eddy was here this day and there that day. He was second in line to the throne. I repeat, you people are being much to naive.
John
The Goulston Street Graffito was written in a good school-boy hand. That is not an opinion. That is what the authorities who saw it have stated. It was also written with poetic indentation of the third and fifth lines( there were five lines). It was copied over carefully by the police, even trying to get the person's handwriting style down. That is not speculation. J.K. Stephen wrote the double negative and phonetically misspelled the word Jews as Juwes on purpose, to appear as a semi-literate person, like he did when he phonetically misspelled words on purpose, and tried to appear as a semi-literate person, when he wrote many of his Jack The Ripper Letters.
If Dr. William Gull was the ripper, he would have been in a carriage. There would have benn no witness description of him on the streets. I don't believe he was Jack the Ripper, but was Jack he Ripper's physician, who was Prince Eddy. Dr. Thomas Stowell said that Dr. William Gull was seen in Whitechapel on more than one night that a murder was committed. I believe Dr. William Gull, and his carriage, were there to apprehend Prince Eddy. The police probably saw Dr. William Gull and his carriage in Whitechapel, and hushed it up.
In the Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article of April 28, 1895, none of the facts of the case are wrong. They are all stated correctly. There is no proof, whatsoever, that Robert James Lees account is untrue. When his account was put in the papers, he never denied it. His daughter said that he many times told friends the same account.
J.K. Stephen does match the physical descriptions of many of the eyewitnesses. Packer, Marshall, Brown, and Schwartz may or may not have been describing him. In my opinion, Long, PC Smith, Lawende, Hutchinson and Thomas Bowyer were definitely describing Prince Eddy.
Besides the tremendous similarity between the writings and poems of J. K. Stephen, and the Jack the Ripper Letters and poems, his handwriting is very similar to the Jack the Ripper Letters. Read Michael Harrison and Abrahamsen. I have made a very good comparison between the writings and poems of J.K. Stephen and the 'Dear Boss' letter and two poems that have been attributed to Jack the Ripper. This can be found in my post of July 14 12:45 am in this section.
Prince Eddy was under the unremitting care of Dr. William Gull. Any public appearances of his were short and to the point. At any public appearance he attended, he spoke very little. Also, in my opinion, in a weakened condition, he slipped away from his constant supervision, to kill twice more; Alice McKenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, and Frances Coles on the 13th of Febuary, 1891. The Jack the Ripper case files were closed in 1892, after his death on the 14th of January, 1892.
Philip
As I stated above, there is no proof, whatsoever, that the account of Robert James Less is untrue. When his account was put in the papers, he never denied it. His daughter said that he many times told friends the same account.
Your quote from The A-Z is incomplete, missleading and worthless. The paragrath actually starts: " Wilson's memory( or Stowell's geriatric account contained the following manifest errors...". The errors were probably Colin Wilson's. In the above paragraph in The A-Z, it says: "The meeting is important as the first definitely recorded occasion when Albert Victor was proposed as the Ripper, though as Wilson has willingly admitted, his memory of the details is uncertain and includes inacurracies". The errors were probably Colin Wilson's. Also, the errors are unimportant, and not one of them are in Dr. Thomas Stowell's 'Criminologist' article in November 1970. As I said, the errors were probably Colin Wilson's. Going over the errors: Dr. Thomas Stowell probably told Colin Wilson that Dr. William Gull died in 1890, and he read Dr. William Gull's papers in the early 1920's. Colin Wilson probably got it wrong. He asked Caroline Acland's permission to read her father's papers. Later on, after the death of Theodore Dyke Acland in 1931( Caroline Acland died in 1929 ), he did not need any permission to go through the papers of Theodore Dyke Acland, not Dr. William Gull's papers. Colin Wilson got it wrong again. In the 'Criminologist' article, Dr. Thomas Stowell says that Prince Eddy died in the officially published way, from Broncho-pneumonia. In the above paragrath in The A-Z, it says that Colin Wilson said that Dr. Thomas Stowell told him that Prince Eddy died in a mental home near Sandringham of 'softening of the brain' caused by syphilis. This may or may not be true. Maybe Dr. Stowell only said that was his opinion. If Dr. Stowell really had that information, maybe he got it from the papers of Dr. Theordore Dyke Acland. If I'm not mistaken, Dr. Theordore Dyke Acland's father was the Physician of Prince Eddy's father, Albert Edward, the Prince of Wales. Dr. Theodore Dyke Acland may have had this information in his papers. In terms of Dr. William Gull being seen in Whitechapel( in my opinion, to apprehend Prince Eddy ), Dr. Stowell was probably told this by Caroline Acland or Dr. Theodore Dyke Acland. The police probably saw Dr. William Gull and his carriage in Whitechapel, but hushed it up.
You see Philip, the errors you quoted are unimportant, and probably the errors of Colin Wilson. Dr. Thomas Stowell, an eminent surgeon and good friend of Caroline Acland, the daughter of Dr. William Gull, asked, and was allowed, to read the paspers of Caroline's father. The conclusion he came to was that Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper. That is the right conclusion. As I have shown, what you quoted was incomplete, missleading, and of no worth. There is no proof whatsoever, that Dr. Thomas Stowell lied or was a liar.
One other thing Philip, if what you quoted is supposed to have rebutted the corroborative story that Dr. Thomas Stowell said Caroline Acland, the daughter of Dr. William Gull told him, the same story that both the Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article of April 28, 1895, and the account of Robert James Lees tell, then you have failed. You have not proved that Dr. Thomas Stowell lied or was a liar. There probably is no proof that Dr. Thomas Stowell lied or was a liar. He was probably a good, honest man.
Repeating myself, I'm asking people to rebutt the two points of evidence at the beginning of this post, one point at a time. If these two points of evidence are not successfully rebutted, it puts Dr. William Gull right in the middle of the Jack the Ripper crimes( in my opinion, as the physician of Jack the Ripper, who was Prince Eddy ). These two points of evidence are important evidence. I ask again, will any people rebutt these important two points of evidence? |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 08:14 am | | But Thomas...we are tired of rebutting. We have rebutted in posts, we have rebutted in the chatroom. We rebutt and rebut and yet you just keep posting the same things over and over and over as if repetition will make them true. Tired now, going to play with fun people. Good luck on proving your theory, however, take care to avoid spamming.
Best Wishes,
Ally |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 08:52 am | | Hello Thomas,
Would you care to quote us the sources you mention in full so that we can make some kind of meaningful deliberation on them?
In the meantime, here is my initial response to the second of your points:
(The physician had been a student at Guy's Hospital and was an ardent and enthusiastic vivisectionist... these two points describe in all likelyhood, if not in all certainty, Dr. William Gull, and no other person.)
1) In 1888, there must be have been thousands of ex-students of Guy's hospital alive. Probably the majority of students from the last 40 years might be expected to still be around.
2) Amongst those several thousand ex-students, there can be little doubt that there must have been many in favour of vivisection. After popular agitation, the royal commission of 1875 had recommended that vivisectioners must be licensed and consider alternatives, but then - as now - the issue remained a heated subject of debate. Like most professional disputes in any field, there would have been little consensus, so it would not be suprising to find 'ardent' views on the subject amongst any medical practitioners.
What these two points demonstrate is that the statement that the Chicago Tribune article could only be referring to Gull is essentially a fallacy.
"Jack the Ripper was an ex-student of Guy's and an ardent vivisectionist"
"But Gull was an ex-student of Guy's and an ardent vivisectionist, therefore Gull was the Ripper"
This is analogous to saying:
"If it rains, the pavement will be wet."
"But the pavement is wet - therefore it must have rained."
Now, even if the evidence as presented actually passed this test (i.e. if we could demonstrably prove that the article could only have referred to Gull alone) it still does not give us any indication as to how an American Newspaper came by the knowledge of the Ripper's identity and his accomplices.
In other words, this phrase in a newspaper has no more credence on its own than the various claims put forth by various papers that the Ripper was 'Leather Apron' or Tumblety. Some people like to think that because there was a great rumour against Tumblety that he must have been the Ripper. Of course, the same rules apply there - quite often the old saying "no smoke without fire" is palpably false!
Cheers,
Carps |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 09:40 am | | Hi, Carps:
You make a good point that there were actually rumors about a host of people being Jack the Ripper which merely reflects the ardor of the people of the day to try to find a solution to the mystery and not that any of these suspects were the killer. The problem with Thomas's argument and that of other Royal conspiracists, similar to Peter Wood and Paul Feldman's arguments for Maybrick, is that wishing does not make it so. Both the Royalists and the Maybrickites trot out so-called evidence as if their "evidence" is based on provable facts, which it is not.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 09:52 am | | Hi Thomas,
1) The Lees story is reported in two newspapers (Chicago in 1895 and Daily Express in 1931). There is no mention of it in Lees diary. He only mentions the three times he went to the police to offer his help (2nd, 3rd and 4th of October 1888). He was sent home. Why not mention his personal highlight? There is no mention of the whole episode in the official files. Why not? Because it did not happen! There is more to Lees. He claims to have the Queens medium, which he wasn't. The whole story was made up by Lees to enhance his reputation as a clairvoyant!
2) Stowell claimed to have been told certain things by Caroline Acland. Ok. This must have been between 1888 and 1929. Ok. Why wait up to 31 years (he told it to Colin Wilson in 1960)?
3) There were no rumours concerning Gull in 1888. He was brought into the story by Stowell in 1970. 82 years later. Gull was half dead in 1888 and in no state to commit the murders - he had suffered a stroke!
4) Eddy was in Yorkshire on the 31st of August and the 8th of September, in Scotland on the 30th of September and in Sandringham on the 9th of November. We are talking of hundreds of witnesses.
Yours,
Philip |
Author: Thomas Bayer
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 03:36 am | | Mmh, just caught up on this thread here. Though it is slightly repetetive on occasion I think it is very interesting.
By the way - what exactly was Winslow Forbes up to during these days? Was he doing philantrophic work in some asylum or other? |
Author: Paul Boothby
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 07:30 am | | Hi people,
.....but surely everyone knows that Eddy wasn't out of town for the murders. It was really MJ Druitt who had been trained to 'stand in' for Eddy whilst Eddy was out ripping whores who was in SCotland (see the resemblance in Rumbelows Complete JTR). He was later drowned in the Thames by the royal family to hide his part in the conspiracy. Or was JFK drowned and MJD shot from the grassy Knoll ???
Paul :-) |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 07:43 am | | Hi Paul - absolutely right. They still keep his body in Area 51, frozen in liquid nitrogen in case the reputation of the crown is ever brought into question again. Reports that he was seen in a Paris underpass sometime before Diana's myserious death can't be refuted...
Carps
 |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 01:18 pm | | Hi Paul,
he was kept frozern in liquid nitrogen until a couple of years ago and now makes music under the name of Marilyn Manson.
Philip |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 02:29 am | | Are you sure Druitt stood in for Eddy and his
corpse is in Area 51? I had heard rumors that
Druitt or Eddy was responsible for the disappearance of the steamship Waratah and the
U.S.S. Cyclops!
Jeff |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 03:15 pm | | Those Area 51 rumours are totally unfounded ! 
Theres really no doubt about Eddy being nowhere near any of the murder sites at the time of the killings - but what about Druitt ? The first two murders probably not , for reasons explained elsewhere , but what about the ' double event ' ?
Simon |
Author: Michael Conlon
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 03:07 pm | | I was just now reading "The Boxer Rebellion" by Oxford-trained historian, Diana Preston, and came across this passage wherein she discusses the British minister in Peking, Sir Claude MacDonald: "He was a professional soldier who had fought in Egypt, and his elevation to head the legation in Peking puzzled many...However, it was whispered jokingly around the legation that Sir Claude had been appointed minister in Peking only because he possessed irrefutable evidence that 'Lord Salisbury and Jack the Ripper are the same person'!"
There we have it...mystery solved! |
Author: jennifer pegg
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 02:15 pm | | | lord salisbury???????? |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 02:54 pm | | Robert Cecil , Marquis of Salisbury , Prime Minister of HM Government at the time of the Ripper murders.
Is the man who orders the murders or the man who wields the knife guilty ? If the former , well then the Ripper could have been Salisbury. Salisbury certainly had knowledge of the murders , although I'm inclined to believe the orders came from Edward Prince of Wales first of all and Cecil had to tow the line.
Simon |
Author: jennifer pegg
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 01:34 pm | | yeah i know who he is and i thought the fbi profile suggested a w/c man?
yeah i know it doesnt been i take it as gospel |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 07:33 am | | Dr. William Gull had been a student at Guy's Hospital and was an ardent and enthusiastic vivisectionist. It is obvious that the Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article of April 28, 1895 is talking about him. Adding two more points proves this. The article said that the man was a physician to the highest class of society and lived in an imposing West End mansion. The article also says that the physician was committed to an asylum after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. Dr. William Gull was the only physician to either have been put in an asylum or died within two years of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly( this is in the Stephen Knight book). What you have is:
1. The physician had been a student at Guy's Hospital.
2. He had been an ardent and enthusiastic vivisectionist.
3. He was a physician to the highest class of society and lived in an imposing West End mansion.
4. He was committed to an asylum after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly( no physician, other than Dr. William Gull, was either committed to an asylum or died within two years of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly ).
No other physician fulfills these four points. This proves that the article is talking about Dr. William Gull.
Also, the information in the article came from Dr. Benjamin Howard, one of the twelve London physicians who sat as a court of medical inquiry and as a commission on lunacy over Dr. William Gull.
A few people have tried and have failed to successfully rebut the two points of evidence I wrote in my post of January 15, 7:16 am( Dr. Thomas Stowell's corrobration and the certainty that the Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article of April 28, 1895 is talking about Dr. William Gull ).
I repeat, if these two points of evidence are not successfully rebutted, then it puts Dr. William Gull right in the middle of the Jack the Ripper crimes( in my opinion, as the physician of Jack the Ripper, who was Prince Eddy ).
Philip
Robert James Lees promised not to go public about it, and the diary of a famous medium would eventualy become public, I would say. Also:
" ; indeed, Cynthia Legh, who knew Lees from 1912, reported in Light, the Journal of the College of Psychic Studies( Autumn 1970 ), that she had heard him tell a varient half a dozen times. A-Z pg. 243.
" Lees' daughter Eva, both before and after his death, showed her father's clients and admirers 'documentary evidence' that he received a pension for his contribution to solving the Whitechapel murders ". A-Z pg. 243-4.
Dr. Thomas Stowell probably didn't feel comfortable going public and charging a man who was second in line to the throne. After Colin Wilson, in 1960, wrote a series of articles on Jack the Ripper, he made an appointment with him, and discussed his theory. Colin Wilson, not being sworn to secrecy by Stowell, told Richard Whittington-Egan, the journalist Kenneth Allsop, and Nigel Morland. None of them felt comfortable enough to publish it either. It was not untill ten years later, in 1970, that Nigel Morland, when putting out his new magazine 'The Criminologist', printed a guarded version of Dr. Thomas Stowell's story.
Before Dr. Thomas Stowell, there were rumours of Dr. William Gull's involvement in the Jack the Ripper crimes( in my opinion, as the physician of Jack the Ripper, who was Prince Eddy ). There is the Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article of April 28, 1895, which is almost certainly talking about Dr. William Gull, as well as the old oral traditions concerning Dr. William Gull, given by the residents of Thorpe-le-Soken, the home town of Dr. William Gull.
One important question. If Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper, would the royalty and government lie and cover it up? There is only one honest answer to that question. Yes.
Even if the court circulars are true, they were only a schedule of his future activities. Where he was scheduled to be. But he wasn't there. He was in Whitechapel.
Philip, you say there were hundreds of witnesses. That is an ignorant and naive statement. There is no proof, whatsoever, that there were hundreds of witnesses. There is not one signed affidavit, much less hundreds, putting Prince Eddy anywhere other than where he was, in Whitechapel. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 08:31 am | | Thomas,
it is because of people like you, that I have stopped posting here. If my statement is ignorant and naive, then what the *&%$ is yours! Where is the proof that the Duke of Clarence was in Whitechapel? WHERE? Better researchers tha you (and me for that fact) have found diaries, Court Circulars and journals which state the following facts: At the time of murders he was in Yorkshire (Nichols), York (Chapman), Abergeldie (Stride / Eddowes) and Sandringham (Kelly)!
Stop behaving like a little kid and face it that the Duke of Clarence had nothing to do with the murders.
Philip |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 02:44 pm | | Philip,
Your back. You missed my birthday party, victory in the first test and Thomas's post above....no wait, I see you got that.
Cant you see that JtR had a huge mansion, and that was the reason for the murders ?
The Chicago times was obviously talking about Gull, but they never mentioned his name for fear of liable.
Who says dead men cant sue.
And the oral traditions, definate proof of the poor mans guilt.
Right, thats Gull done, which poor bugger shall we do next....where are you Lewis Carroll ??
Monty
|
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 04:19 am | | Monty,
yes I am back from the land of the dead (four weeks in hospital without a computer) and was online yesterday for the first time. And what do I see? My friend Thomas rehashing his story for the upteenth time.
Lewis Carroll? Yes Alice does resemble MJ Kelly in some ways. But I prefer Thomas Barnado - he studied at London Hospital and fits the bill like a glove....
Philip |
Author: Monty
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 08:32 am | | Philip,
Banardo it is then.
Hospital ?? I hope all well.
Monty
|
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 10:54 am | | Monty,
yes, I can walk and write again!
Philip
PS How abaout D'Onston? |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 02:40 pm | | I have two questions of my own regarding the
"evidence" that Mr. Neagle keeps repeating.
We all know by this time that Dr. Sir William
Gull spent his last years in an asylum after a
series of strokes....Has anyone (especially
Mr. Neagle) made a thorough study of the entire
London medical world from 1885 - 1895, to see
if Gull was the only doctor from London who
went into an insane asylum in this period. I know
I never did, but I find it hard to believe London
had only one mad doctor in that ten year period.
I can actually think of one other likely candidate
for an insane asylum in the 1880s, who was a London doctor, but I have no proof of what happened to him.
My second question is this: that article in the
Chicago Sunday Times-Herald, of April 28, 1895.
I have never read it. I am curious about what
was the reason it was published in a Chicago
newspaper in late April 1895. Does anybody know
the answer to this? It couldn't be, perhaps,
that there were other rumors circulating in
Chicago in April 1895, about another possible
candidate for the role of "Jack the Ripper"?
Some local figure - such as Dr. Neill Cream
(who had committed several killings in Chicago
in the late 1870s - early 1880s, and served time
in Joliet before going to London and poisoning
four prostitutes in 1891-2) or "Dr." "Harry
Howard Holmes"/Herman Webster Mudgett? Holmes/
Mudgett had murdered scores of unknown people in
a rooming house he had specially constructed in
Chicago, during the 1893 World's Fair. He was
tried for another murder in Philadelphia, Pa., in
1895, and he would be hanged in May 1895. It would be instructive to double check the Chicago
Sunday Times-Herald for the period before or after
that report about the London Doctor appeared,
to see if there were columns about other Ripper
suspects, including Holmes/Mudgett or Cream.
Jeff |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 08:31 pm | | Philip
I repeat an important question:
If Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper, being second in line to the throne, would the royalty and government lie and cover it up? There is only one honest answer to that question. Yes.
You are being foolish and naive not to believe that the royalty and government would have covered up for Prince Eddy if he was Jack the Ripper.
Looking at the nights of the five murders:
1. Polly Nichols was murdered on August 31st.
Prince Eddy was scheduled to visit Viscount Down at Danby Lodge between August 29 and September 7. In actuality, he may never have kept that scheduled visit. Or if he did, he may have got there either the 27th, 28th, or 29th, and left on the 30th. After he murdered Polly Nichols, he may or may not have returned to Danby Lodge. Or, he may have got to Danby Lodge on August 31st or September 1st, after he murdered Polly Nichols. If there is a journal, I don't know if there is, that says Prince Eddy was at Danby Lodge, he would either have visited Danby Lodge for a few days before leaving, then after murdering Polly Nichols, he may or may not have returned to Danby Lodge, or he would have got to Danby Lodge on August 31st or September 1st, after murdering Polly Nichols, as I've shown above. If Prince Eddy was't at Danby Lodge for his scheduled visit, the journal was faked.
2. Annie Chapman was murdered on September 8th.
Prince Eddy was supposed to be at the Cavalry Barracks in York between September 7th and September 10th. If he was there , he would have left the night of September 7th, he would have murdered Annie Chapman, and have returned later on September 8th. Then again, maybe he was scheduled to be at the Cavalry Barracks on those dates, but never actually got there. If he never actually got there, and there is a journal that says he was there, then the journal is a fake.
3. Elizabeth Stride and Catharine Eddowes were murdered on September 30th.
Prince Eddy was scheduled to be at Abergeldie, Scotland, between September 27th and September 30th. If he was there, he would have left by train in the late afternoon or early evening of September 29th, went to Whitechapel, committed the murders, and have returned by train in the early morning hours of September 30th. There is a mention in the Queen's Diary that she had lunch with him on September 30th. If Prince Eddy was't at Abergeldie, Scotland, for that scheduled visit on those dates, then the mention in the Queen's Diary was faked. Prince Eddy had been second in line to the throne. Over the past one hundred years, the royalty or government would have faked that mention of the lunch in the Queen's Diary.
4. Mary Jane Kelly was murdered on November 9th.
Prince Eddy was scheduled to be at Sandringham, Norfolk, between November 2nd and November 12th. If he was there, he would have left in the late afternoon or early evening of November 8th, went to Whitechapel, murdered Mary Jane Kelly, and have returned early on November 9th. If he was't there, then all you have is a court circular saying that he was scheduled to be there.
I believe Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper. If he was Jack the Ripper, the royalty and government would have lied and covered it up. |
Author: ASEGERDAL
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 04:29 am | | Thomas Neagle forgets one fact in stating that Prince Eddie was the Ripper: Eddie was not smart enough or strong enough to be the Ripper. To use the knife the way the Ripper did would call for a great deal of strength and thrusting power. Eddie had none of these attributes--he was weak and a bit of drip. I spoke to Joseph (Hobo) Sickert back in the 70s., and he was most evasive, more or less admitting that the story he gave to Stephen Knight was fake. Knight's book was, in fact, shown to be fabricated, although some of the stuff he uncovered and researched was very good.
With best regards, Alastair Segerdal |
Author: jennifer pegg
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 01:37 pm | | jeff,
ihave read the highly amussing chicago sarticle in several places, its in JTR thre bloody truth by harris with critic and its also on line if im not mistaken in full on my mate/fellow lees researcher stephen butts website under articles(thats at www.rjlees.co.uk)
it does not state which doctor it is but indicates that they were of high staus (knight)
jennifer |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 04:17 pm | | Dear Jennifer,
I'll try to catch the article, but my point is that the timing of the article's appearance in
that Chicago newspaper has rarely been (if ever)
commented on. In April 1895 Chicago (and all
America) was talking about "Dr. Holmes" and his
murder castle. Holmes/Mudgett was suggested as
a suspect for possibly being Jack the Ripper
(like Cream before him, or Deeming, or Chapman
after him). I'm just wondering if in the issues
of that Chicago newspaper prior to the appearance
of the article on the unnamed London doctor, some
article about the Ripper and either Holmes or Cream or someone else could have appeared.
And I repeat, I can think of one other doctor in
London, who had problems with the law in the 1880s, who might have ended up in an asylum - not
Dr. Gull. However finding information about this
doctor is not very easy.
Jeff |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 11:14 am | | Hi Thomas,
I am not as naive as you think because of course I would think that the royal family would cover up the heir to the throne (other things have been covered up in the past.
BUT in the way you are going at it, we could build a case against anybody. With "may" or "maybe" or "could have". Now I know none of us will know the truth and every theory is full of "mays" and I am sure all the authors who have written on The Duke of Clarence being JtR would applause you. I have read the major books on the whole scenario (Gull, J.K and the Duke) and find them more than ludicrous. Spiering has nothing in hand, Knight fabricated proof, Fairclough rehashes mistakes and Wilding is outright daft. Their theories are based on the presumption, that there was a royal cover-up. Brilliant! Sells books!
And I will repeat the important question: Where is the grain of proof to link any of these three with Jack?
All you have is Lee's story, Sickert's ramblings and an interpretation of newspaper article published in 1895. Oh, and of course a belief in a cover-up.....
Philip |
Author: jennifer pegg
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 02:12 pm | | Hi thomas Neagle,
please email me i would like to see if i can help re lees
jennifer |
|
|
|
|
