|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 21, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Jack The Ripper was "one of the highest in the land".:
Archive through July 21, 2001
Author: Thomas Neagle
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 07:48 pm |        | Jon
You may believe, wrongly in my opinion, that the statements and accusations made against one or more upper-class suspects by a lot of honest people are ludicrous, but these statements do not make my theory ludicrous. That is where you are mistaken. My theory stands on its own, even without the statements and accusations. My theory is that one these four upper-class suspects, Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy or Randolph Churchill was the man who committed the actual Jack the Ripper killings with the involvement of one or more look-outs/accomplices. Believe what you will about the statements and accusations, but nothing makes my theory ludicrous. My theory stands all on its own. It is a valid theory. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 08:17 pm | | Thomas
Then please explain your theory without reference to those statements.
If your theory stands by itself then you should be able to imply involvement of any or all of your suspects without reference to any one of those dubious statements.
Then you might have the undivided attention of the list.
Jon |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 12:45 am | | J.K. Stephen may or may not have been Jack the Ripper with the involvement of one or more
look-outs/accomplices. He may or may not have been an accomplice to Jack the Ripper. He may or may not have been involved in the actual Jack the Ripper crimes themselves. Regardless, J.K. Stephen wrote the "Dear Boss" letter and many other Jack the Ripper letters. Too many people automatically believe Anderson about his opinion on who the writer of the Jack the Ripper Letters was. It was just his opinion. There are no facts. He believed that newspaper men Bulling or Moore was the author. If some-one came out with some writings of Bulling or Moore then you could compare them to the Jack the Ripper Letters. Unless that happens, all you have is Anderson's opinion. Anderson said that he thought that the writer was an enterprising journalist.
J.K. Stephen was an enterprising journalist. He wrote articles for the Pall Mall Gazzette. He was the editor of the magazine 'The Reflector' that he put out. He was a good writer. He was a good poet. What better person to have wrote the Jack the Ripper letters if not also being Jack the Ripper himself. He was mentally ill. He hated women so much that in his writings he wrote violently towards women, even saying that women should be "killed or plowed". That is in the Michael Harrison Book. He was the right age, the right height and the right coloring according to the eye-witness accounts. Regardless if he was Jack the Ripper or an accomplice to Jack the Ripper or not Jack the Ripper at all, he wrote the "Dear Boss" letter and many of the other Jack the Ripper letters.
I'd like to make a comparison of the writings of J.K. Stephen and the Jack the Ripper letters. I don't have a book of J.K. Stephen's writings, so I am using the Michael Harrison book. It says in the "Dear Boss" letter; "You will soon hear of me with my funny little games". J.K. Stephen writes;
"Whatever other little game I chance to play from day to day...". J.K. Stephen writes;
"The work goes on till life be gone"
"I chance to play from day to day"
"They bought the Times; a list of crimes".
"But you should know, as time will show".
That last line I put in there is not in J.K. Stephen's writings. It is in a Jack the Ripper letter. The letter goes;
"I've no time to tell you how
I came to be a killer
But you should know, as time will show,
That I'm society's pillar".
J.K. Stephen uses the phrase;
"Who in the murky middle of the night"
Jack the Ripper uses the same phrase;
"Two little whores, shivering with fright,
Seek a cosy doorway in the middle of the night"
J.K. Stephen writes;
"To find out what you cannot do,
And then go out and do it:
There lies the golden rule: but few
I ever found above the ground,
Except myself, who knew it".
Jack the Ripper wrote in the "Dear Boss" letter;
"How can they catch me now".
They both show the same narcissistic, self-important confidence.
J.K. Stephen writes;
"Although a modest man, my friend,
I'll make you this confession:
I feel that I have got an 'end'-
A Telos,* eh? as you would say-
My metier, my profession.
Which is-: well, never mind the name;
Jack the Ripper writes in the "Dear Boss" letter;
"Don't mind me giving the trade name".
They both are talking about their profession, their trade name. In J.K. Stephen's situation, it is a secret profession.
J.K. Stephen talks about "The work goes on till life be gone"; and about his secret profession.
Jack the Ripper was always talking about his "work". J.K. Stephen was probably in and of some mental institutions the last years of his life. When he was out, he could not hold a job. He had no meaningful work. With his serious problems, I can imagine him putting his energies into Jack the Ripper's sick work or at least by writing the Jack the Ripper letters, getting a feeling of accomplishing meaningful work, however sick that sounds.
When I read the J.K. Stephen's writings and the Jack the Ripper letters I sense the same personality. I sense a young guy with serious problems, a narcissistic man with a twisted sense of humor. And possibly violent. I believe J.K. Stephen wrote the "Dear Boss" letter and many of the other Jack the Ripper letters.
In terms of the Lusk letter, J.K. Stephen may have wrote that one disguising himself better than in other Jack the Ripper letters. If he didn't write the Lusk letter, I think John Netly did. A Canadian graphologist C.M. Macloud, in talking about the Lusk Letter, stated that the author of the letter could be found among men such as cab-drivers. John Netly was a cab-driver. He went on to say; "I should have sought a-hail-fellow-well-met who liked to eat and drink; who might attract women of the class he preyed on by an overwhelming animal charm. I would say he was in fact a latent homosexual (suggested by lower-zone strokes returning on the wrong side of the letter) and passed as a 'man's man'; the roistering blade who made himself the life and soul of the pub and sneered at women as objects to be used and discarded. He would, of course, have had wits enough to stop short of explaining how he used them". This is also a good description of J.K. Stephen.
I hope people think seriously about J.K. Stephen being the writer of the "Dear Boss" letter and many other of the Jack the Ripper letters if not also being Jack the Ripper involved with one or more look-outs/accomplices or being an accomplice to Jack the Ripper. |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 03:08 am | | Jon
You don't get my point. Let me try it again. The statements and accusations made against one or more upper-class suspects are very important. You may believe, wrongly in my opinion, that the statements and accusations made against one or more upper-class suspects by a lot of honest people are ludicrous, but these statements do not make my theory ludicrous. That is where you are mistaken. My theory stands on its own, even without the statements and accusations. My theory is that one of these four upper-class suspects; Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy or Randolph Churchill was the man who committed the actual Jack the Ripper killings with the involvement of one or more look-outs/accomplices.
The statements and accusations bolster my theory.
They are true. But where you are wrong is when you say that the statements and accusations make the theory ludicrous. You may disagree with the statements and accusations but there is no way they can diminish my theory. Because even if they are wrong, which they are not, that does not change the validity of my theory. One of the four upper-class suspects could still be Jack the Ripper. What I'm saying is, you can say, wrongly in my opinion, that the statements and accusations made by a lot of honest people are ludicrous, but you shouldn't say that the statements and accusations make my theory ludicrous. Because it isn't true. My theory is valid. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 06:32 pm | | Thomas
Are you aware that speculation need only be based on a few ideas?.
Are you aware that an hypothesis is made up of a series of ideas and facts?.
Are you aware that a theory is made up entirely of a series of facts?.
What you have proposed is a series of heresay statements, none corroborated, none substantiated.
Where are the facts?
Let me pass on a little wisdom from a good friend of mine who works for NASA.
Quote:
I think it pertinent to remind everyone about how science works. A preliminary idea based at least in part on data (facts) constitutes an hypothesis. An explanation that fits "all available data (facts)" constitutes a theory. No matter how much the bulk of facts might support a theory, until proven, a theory is always a theory, as are the well established theories for evolution and plate tectonics. To become a fact, a theory requires irrefutable proof.
It should be noted, however, that only one fact is required to disprove a theory, no matter how many other facts support it.
And a disproved theory is less than an hypothesis.
Stephanie Lloyd
I will ask again, what data (facts) do you have to support your contention (theory? - hypothesis?) that any one of your four suspects were Jack the Ripper?
You have already told me you do not need those heresay statements.
Regards, Jon
I suggest you are purely in the realm of speculation, and thats fine, but please acknowledge it as such and don't try to pass off speculation as theory. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 12:08 am | | Thomas,
I have to admit I find your theory of Stephen writing some of the letters very interesting and with promise, although I'm a bit disturbed that you keep stating it as fact while dismissing Anderson's opinions as just opinions. With all due respect, he has a contemporary edge on us all. As for the men mentioned being the Ripper, let me point out a few things...Gull was 78 and had suffered from two strokes. He could not have been the Ripper...Stephen has only entered the scene because Michael Harrison needed a substitute suspect for his book when it was obvious it wasn't Eddy....It's obvious it's not Eddy because there was only one of him and court circulars prove he was nowhere near Whitechapel during some of the murders...To suggest Churchill had anything to do with it is laughable. At no point does he become involved.
Two things are obvious when I read your posts, Thomas...1. You are extrememly new to the case and have much to read and learn, and 2. You have a good eye.
I also want to mention that some of the quotes from 'Ripper letters' you list above and compare to Stephen's writings are in no way related to the 'Dear Boss' letter. Being someone very interested in the Ripper letters who is putting together a work of his own on the subject, though, I'd be interested in discussing this further with you, if you'd like. Feel free to email me at Tcwes@aol.com.
P.S. Jon really knows his stuff, so you might want to use that to your advantage and not come on so strong. Open discussion is much more fruitful than forcing opinions on people or challenging them. Just a thought. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 06:37 pm | | I'd like to put forward an interesting speculation concerning this topic.
It concerns George Hutchinson. If one examines Hutchinson's description of the man he saw with Mary Kelly at around 2am on the morning of her murder , it seems fairly clear that he is describing a well-to-do suspect ( although some might suggest he was making this description up - heaven forbid ! ).
Its my suggestion that Hutchinson DID speak at Kelly's inquest , although this is not recorded in the coroners papers or the newspapers. It has always seemed unusual to me that Hutch waited until the Monday to come forward with his testimony , over three days after the murder ; what had taken him so long ? If he was making his account up , why wait so long ? If he was in fact the guilty party , why say he saw anything at all ? ( it would also have been easy to deny he was ever in the area ). If he was telling the truth , surely he would have come forward with his evidence as soon as possible - his friend had just been killed.
My theory is that Hutchinson did speak at the inquest but it was not recorded ; this might explain why MacDonald presided and not Wynne Baxter - the latter might not have approved of such an event. Why was his testimony not recorded ? Well , because the description of the possible killer was so detailed - my suggestion is that the police may have realised who this man was.Hutchinson's evidence was kept out of the papers and inquest report so as to not alert this man that he was wanted in relation to the investigation IMHO ; there are two suggestions why this might have happened. The first is that the police wanted to swoop on this man before he could ' flee the coop ' if you like , ie nab him. The second is that this man WAS a very important and upperclass figure , and that the police tipped him off so that he could arrange an alibi for the night in question ( police corruption ? ooh ! ).
What evidence might support this theory ? The fact that Macdonald closed the inquest so fast - before Hutch's testimony had to be made public , this was highly irregular and suggests a coverup. Did the police KNOW who had done it by this point ? It also gives a reason for Hutch's supposed delay in coming forward with his information ( there was no delay ).
Also , we discussed a pamphlet ( which was written in the 1920s I think ) some while back - this pamphlet had Hutchinson speaking at the trial. We assumed this was an error on the writer's part - but what if he was correct ?
An alternative suggestion is that Hutchinson was told to ' come back on Monday ' with his evidence by the police , thus Macdonald had to close the inquest quickly to prevent Hutchinson's testimony being entered , for similar reasons as those given above.
Simon |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 04:48 am | | Thomas,
I think you may be taking Ally's advice by not engaging in conversation with me - which is a valid (if ignoble) strategy to adopt. As you have chosen not to apologise for your peremptory tone, and have made specific and concerted efforts to avoid the points of fact that both Jon and I have made regarding some of your evidence, I am assuming that you have no interest in actually discussing the evidence at hand.
So before I leave this learned 'debate', I'll answer the question I posed - as you seem to be disinclined to do so.
The "highest in the land" quote was first published in 1976. By this time, Abberline had been dead for 48 years. His comments were therefore reported probably 50 years or more later by someone who claimed to have visited him in his retirement. Again, this does not carry the same degree of weight as a first hand statement by Abberline himself. We have no written record of Abberline ever saying - or even hinting at - anything remotely like this anywhere else. All we have is a man claiming that Abberline told him this, but not coming forward to say this until 50 years had passed. Therefore, what he claimed was unverifiable, and as it is at odds with everything else that Abberline ever said about the case we treat it with caution at best. As with the Leeson evidence, we certainly don't use at as the cornerstone of a theory. It is too shaky.
If you still can't see, or won't acknowledge these important truths about your 'evidence', and choose to continue to bluster about how 'valid' your theory is without doing anything to prove that it is so, then this conversation has achieved nothing and I am truly sorry for wasting your time.
I wish you luck in your quest for the Ripper, but I would implore you to at least stop conflating the idea of an upper class suspect with that of the royal conspiracy. They aren't the same thing, and people who don't buy into the conspiracy schtick are not ruling out an upper class culprit - as you persistently suggest.
Anyway, it is clear that you don't intend to actually discuss anything with anyone, so I'll leave you to the tender ministrations of someone with more patience.
All the best,
Carps |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 06:38 am | | Simon,
Isn't it also possible that Hutchinson did not give a description as is contained in the interview statement.The statement itself was taken down by someone at the Commercial Street station,and signed by Hutchinson.
Now it is possible that during the course of Hutchinson's appearance at the station,and the interview there,certain suggestions may have been made as to what the alleged suspect was wearing.
Police do this,regardless of what may be thought otherwise,and witnesses sometimes go along with what is suggested.
Hutchinson,aware that such description though false,satisfied the polie and took suspicion from him,readily agreed to sign what was put before him.
Why did he appear at all?.Perhaps because of a Killer's vanity.Because although not wanting to confess,he wanted it known that he was there that night,and was in the company of the victim.Making fools of them just as the letters had suggested.
Just opinions,but not altogether unlikely.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 11:57 am | | Thomas (and, indeed, allcomers),
Having said that I am withdrawing from this discussion, and at the risk of making Thomas feel that I am grimly carrying out a vendetta against him and his views (perish the thought!) here are a couple of further thoughts on his peculiar - if resolutely held - line of reasoning...
"The most important statement, fact or evidence in the whole of the Jack The Ripper case is this: Inspector Abberline, in his retirement in the early 1920's, said to Nigel Moreland, publisher of 'The Criminologist; "I cannot reveal anything except this- of course we knew who he was, one of the highest in the land"."
July 06
"There is very little hard evidence and none of the evidence points strongly to either an upper-class, middle-class or lower-class person being Jack the Ripper. A person from any one of the classes could have been Jack the Ripper."
July 12
"There is very little published evidence in the Jack The Ripper case. The only evidence is the cut apron of Catharine Eddowes and the Goulston Steet Grafito. That's it."
July 07
"My theory stands on its own, even without the statements and accusations."
July 13
Now clearly, without straying into the realms of fun-poking for the sake of it, Thomas is having his cake and eating it here. Wherever it suits his chain of thought, there is strong evidence (i.e. Stowell, Leeson, Moreland etc), but where it is suggested that there is evidence to the contrary (Littlechild letter, Seaside home identification etc) he uses the blanket excuse that there is 'no real evidence' either way.
Well, it has to be one or the other. Either he thinks that some (i.e. his) evidence is strong, or he thinks that no evidence is strong. Obviously they are two blatantly contradictory positions, and only one of them can be true.
His response to this philosophical conundrum is to invoke either position as suits the prevaling tack of the debate, alternatively appearing as open-minded advocate of reason ("there is no evidence either way") or starry-eyed believer ("You may disagree with the statements and accusations but there is no way they can diminish my theory.")
An interesting sleight of hand device to be sure, but one that makes it frustratingly difficult to engage him in rational debate.
However the real reason for his sudden change of approach is, I suspect, that he has belatedly realised that there are serious holes in the 'statements and accusations' part of his theory. This is why we are now told that his "theory stands on its own, even without the statements and accusations."
And we now arrive at a dissection of various Ripper letters against some selected writings of JK Stephen. Of course, how it is that JK Stephen (or Netly, where handwriting or stylistic difficulties prove insurmountable) being involved the letters proves that Eddy or Gull must have been involved in the Ripper murders is left unexplained.
I'll read this tomorrow and see if this at least measures up as a piece of evidence, as I have run out of time for today.
Cheers
Carps |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 01:36 pm | | From what we know about Hutch he doesn't seem to be arrogant or gloating in his testimony , he doesn't state he has evidence that can clear up the case , he doesn't offer any suggestion as to how the police can clear things up.
Compare him to D'Onston for instance.
The main thing that comes across about Hutch is that he was broke , homeless and resorted with 'low life ' !!!
Its perhaps more likely that he made up his story to feel more important , but this man does not come across as a master criminal - sorry.
Simon |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 06:18 am | | It isn't suggested that Hutchinson came to gloat
or suggest ways of solving the case.He appeared and gave his story,and it was accepted.Aberline appeared to accept it as the truth,and communicated this belief to higher authority.What I have questioned,is whether the written statement
mirrors exactly what Hutchinson said,and is it a factual account of what took place that night.
Surely if Aberline accepted the truth of a meeting
as described,shoudn't this place the person Kelly is alledged to have taken to her room,at the top of the police suspect list,and Hutchinson the best witness.No one else is known to have been in her company between that time and the time she was killed.It is,to me at least,surprising that no one in later years,in memoirs or oral statements,mentions the Hutchinson testimony as being revelant.Did they too come to the conclusion
that they had been fooled,and that Hutchinson may not have been as truthful as first thought.
Hutchinson was not homeless,he had lodgings at the Victoria Home,Commercial Street.As to being penniless,we have only his word.Do'nt we all make that excuse at times.Didn't every one in Whitechapel resort with low life?.As to the Ripper
being a master criminal,I've never thought so.
Cunning,brutal,thoughtful and resourceful,
certainly,but that doesn't rule out a person of the so called lower class of labourer. |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 10:20 am | | Hi all
I'm new to this Ripper case and my connection with the history is limited. However I am about to
write a screenplay on the Ripper case and I am very interested in any information I can get.
This brings me to the two very and most likely candidates mainly James Kelly and Jill the Ripper both to me would seem to have the opportunity to commit the crimes and get away with it. Their profile would certainly indicate that these are in fact to me anyway the likely candidates as I have already written several thrillers on murders and one serial killer story
Profiling is the best way to find the killer based on background, metal history, life style etc This applies to James Kelly certainly. Any comments and suggestions? |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 04:18 pm | | Hi James,
Both James Kelly and 'Jill the Ripper' have threads under Ripper Suspects:Specific Suspects: Later Suspects. You could try reading the back posts there as well as posting your question to those boards so as not jump topic on this thread. Welcome to the Boards.
Ally |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 07:16 pm | | Simon and Harry,
I have been skimming your posts on Hutchinson and would like to throw in my two cents. To my mind, if Hutchinson had come to the police earlier, it wouldn't make sense that they would wait so long to take his statement. It's best to get a person's statement while it's still the freshest in his mind. As to why Hutchinson came forth at all, my theory is that he read the testimony in the papers of a witness (I forget her name at the moment) who described a man that must have been him standing outside of Kelly's room. Fearful that he would eventually be recognised by this description and possible sought in connection with the crime, he most likely decided to go to the police to clear himself. This would also explain his need for making up a suspect that's the polar opposite of himself, if he indeed made it up at all. Anyway, that's one way to look at it.
James,
As a fellow screenwriter I can't stress enough the importance of learning as much as possible about your subject before tackling a 'true story'. I hope you will become discouraged from persuing a 'Jill the Ripper' storyline and putting it forth as a viable theory. That idea always has been and always will be assinine. Serial sex murderers are men, and the Ripper was no exception. If you are wanting to weave a tale of fantasy around the Ripper murders and not lead viewers to believe the Ripper was actually a female, then that's another story, but that doesn't sound like it's the case. My best advice is to spend a couple of years researching the case from an investigator's point of view and not a writer's. It could only enhance your work. And please, avoid the royal conspiracy theory like the plague. It's been done to death.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 01:53 pm | | Hi
The royal theory is laughable anyway and I have never taken this theory serious. I would rule it out completely. I intend to give at least two years writing and indeed researching the story. I agree with your feelings on the Jill The Ripper plot, but I also feel that Jill the Ripper is a very strong candidate in my humble opinion. The clue, opportunity that is what all clever killers look for in their victims a helpless victim. Serial killers are generally male but also a small per cent have been women mostly in the US. However during the Ripper period 1888 onwards it is very likely that the police would have ruled out a women because of the society and attitudes to women (a serious mistake in my opinion) at that time. A woman would not be considered seriously by police at that time. Remember also that profiling did not exist at that time really. Eye witness accounts are not reliable as memory can play tricks after a certain length of time, police know this anyway. I am trying to find the weakness to all of this and here may ly the real clue. Of all the candidates, the two that sticks out like a sore thumb are indeed James Kelly and Jill the Ripper. I know this might smell of sensationalism to some degree but the truth is more often stranger then fiction. It's to do with the process of elimination in my opinion as well as other factors mainly modern detection techniques forensics etc |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 08:34 pm | | James
Well, if you have deep pockets you might chose to spring for a copy of William Stewarts 1939 book, Jack the Ripper. He proposes a 'Jill the Ripper', and Supt. Arthur Butler, 1972 also put forward a female abortionist as Jill the Ripper.
This 'idea' was even proposed at the time of the murders by a Reverend, I think.
It's a suggestion that would need a lot of work to be taken seriously.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 12:51 am | | Jon
First of all, I stand by the statements and accusations made by a lot people against one or another of the four suspects; Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy and Randolph Churchill. They are very important and true. They bolster my theory. Let me repeat to make it clear. I do not back away from the statements and accusations. I stand by the statements and accusations wholeheartedly. They bolster my theory.
All theories have a certain amount of speculation. There is the Tumblety theory. There is the Chapman theory. My theory is that one of these four upper-class men; Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy or Randolph Churchill was Jack the Ripper. There two main areas that bolster my theory. The first is the statements and accusations made by a lot of people against one or another of the four suspects. The second is the many irregularities or suspicious police actions by the police in the investigation as well as the irregularities in the Mary Jane Kelly inquest that points a strong finger at an official cover-up. I will get to the police and Mary Jane Kelly inquest irregularities at a future time. These two areas, the statements and accusations, and the police and Mary Jane Kelly inquest irregularities, point a strong finger at Jack the Ripper being an upper-class man, whom I contend was one of my four upper-class suspects.
Take Tumblety for a second. Even if someone thinks that some evidence against him is not up to par, the theory that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper is still a valid theory. He still could have been Jack the Ripper. That is the point I am making about my theory. |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 01:56 am | | | I want to clarify my theory. First, there may or may not have been some kind of Joseph Sickert/John Wilding "Royal Conspiracy". I don't have a definite opinion on that as of now. This is my theory and it is straight-forward. That one of these four upper-class suspects; Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy or Randolph Churchill, was the man who committed the actual Jack the Ripper killings, with the involvement of one or more look-outs/accomplices. |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 04:17 am | | Thomas,
If Jon and I both report a family tradition that names Queen Victoria as the Ripper, and I can sample her writings and find echoes of the Ripper's speech there, and if I can dig up a doddery old bloke from somewhere who reckons that he was Swanson's mate in the early years of the 20th century and he says that he clearly remembers Swanson saying that the Ripper was "a very important woman with a crown", do we have a valid theory, or just a plain old vanilla 'theory'?
The main contention levelled against your evidence isn't that it doesn't exist, or can be dismissed out of hand, merely that it isn't the best kind of evidence. As we (or possibly just Jon and I) discussed earlier, Leeson - to take an example - is not the best source of information for various reasons which I don't propose to re-rehearse here. The same is true both of Stowell and Moreland, and for those reasons, most serious Ripperologists have elected to declare the case against the Royals as highly questionable at best.
In addition to the shaky nature of a lot of the evidence against them, there is still evidence that runs directly counter to your theory that you (or any other proponent of the Royal theory) have conspicuously failed to address. Eddy, according to court records, personal journals and all available documentation, wasn't in London on the night of any one of the murders. Gull was 71 years old, and very likely frail due to his stroke of the previous year. Now this, to most observers, makes the case against Tumblety look a lot more serious(and this is only an example, I have no favoured candidate). As well as actually being named as a suspect in a private letter from one of the principle investigators of the case, he was a known mysoginist with a frankly weird collection of uterii, and it seems Scotland Yard suspected him enough to send a detective to America to follow him closely.
I don't want you to feel that I am hectoring you without good reason, but I really do want you to address all of these points. It would be helpful, and possibly instructive - especially to casual readers who aren't fully conversant with the ins and outs of the Royal Conspiracy theory.
Cheers,
Carps |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 04:59 am | | BTW - I do look forward to your discussion of the irregularities in the MJK inquest. Hopefully there will be something here for us to get our teeth into, and that the scope of the theory will progress beyond rumours and innuendoes.
Cheers,
Carps |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 06:52 am | | Tom,
The idea that Hutchinson came forward because he feared the description given by Sarah Lewis might identify him,is possibly correct.That idea has been aired before.
I have always been of the opinion that either he did not tell the truth,or that he followed suggestions at the police interview,and as a consequence the description given is valueless.Perhaps some of both,but there is a lot about the statement that does not appear to be believable.To see her safely home is one thing,but then to hang around for forty five minutes,on a cold,wet November night doesn't seem credible.Neither does the fact that no police patrol seems to have passed,or if they did,did not notice him.He was quite visible to Lewis.
If he concocted the story to cover his presence,he made one bad mistake.For Kelly to take a male to her room,as she was said to have done,would imply that there would be no other male there.But the information is that a male was taken there at about 1145P.M.and was not reported to have left.How was Hutchinson to know this unless he was stalking Kelly that night.Sure he might have guessed at the situation,but a man who wished to convince the police,who was putting himself in a precarious position,who had ample time and information at his disposal,might be expected to consider every angle,and not just guess.
If he was telling the truth,if the police really did believe him,it is incredible that in later years,persons such as Mcnaghten,Anderson,Aberline and various other police officials,fail to convey this impression. |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 08:07 am | | Hi
I have enjoyed all the above comments on the Ripper theory and who am I to say otherwise.
The victims sustained violent attacks which is the work of a mad person either temporarily or otherwise. Schizofrenia is an illness which might not have been know well at the time, except when it was hinted at by the Jackal and Hyde theory. But non the less all theories must be looked at if anyone is ever going to find out the real killer. I am certain we have our man in Kelly or indeed woman Jill, time will tell. I would certainly not be so arrogant not to learn from the rest of the group here, or indeed directly from the police in time. Secondary and primary research methods should bring out the truth in time. Killers are and were in the rippers time clever, shrewd and cunning people. There is no doubt that the ripper was a psycho killer type. This kind of killer comes from a low back ground (Not always mind you) sometimes a mother fixation, poor level of education, poverty(a good clue)motives money, revenge, obsessions, many kind in fact. If anyone has any more information you could contact me directly at the email address terrys@gofree.indigo.ie |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 05:17 pm | | What would be the purpose or reason that one of the royals would kill these prostitutes? What would it do for them? What would they gain?
Mark |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 04:45 am | | Mark,
To paraphrase John Omlor elsewhere: "I love you and your questions"...
I'm sure someone will leap in with a massively incoherent account with more detail, but my understanding of the conspiracy is thus... please bear in mind that there are more variations on the royal conspiracy theme than you can shake a big conspiratorial stick at, so no doubt someone will be pointing out that it "wasn't that" and "actually this" and so on, but into the breach...
Eddy was involved in sex sessions with various prostitutes at an address somewhere adjacent to Whitechapel. During these sessions he is supposed to have got Mary Jane Kelly pregnant. Her and some of her friends got together to extort and blackmail the prince. Who were these friends? Why! Catherine Eddowes, Polly Nichols, Elizabeth Stride etc... (the evidence proffered for their friendship is that they all lived within a short distance of each other during the Autumn of Terror).
Now the ensuing scandal that this would have caused - an heir to throne consorting with low women at a sordid address would have been shattering to the monarchy - so of course, such lower class scheming had to be dealt with ruthlessly. Eddy, or one of his cohorts, dealt with this in the only way they knew how - murdering them in the open streets, causing massive media interest and alerting other members of the prostitute's little gang to the danger that they were in.
You may feel entitled to ask why this course of action was taken instead of, say, poisoning them or abducting them to be murdered elsewhere - especially given that none of them was very liekly to have been missed much. You may also wonder why one of the prostitutes didn't go public as soon as one of their number was disembowelled on the streets of Whitechapel.
Those are other questions, which those who cleave to this theory would be better served to answer.
Other theories include Eddy being muderously insane due to syphilis that he contracted during the sex sessions, and that the conspiracy was just his freinds risking their lives to protect the crown from scandal (although you might want to ask why Gull didn't simply diagnose Eddy as troubled, and send him on "vacation" where he couldn't do any harm - after all, even a King had been incarcerated in an asylum before this time).
There are many more variations, some of which will be forthcoming from believers shortly I would imagine.
Either way, the conspiracy involved:
1) A potential heir to the throne who was mad, but able to slip out of Buckingham Palace unattended on a night for some light-hearted slaying of prostitutes, or in order to act as lookout for some other madman.
2) A 71 year old recovering stroke victim who was either chosen as an able accomplice or actually committed the murders himself.
3) JK Stephen, whom it appears was actually insane during the latter years of his life, whose job was apparently to write letters to the press and the police, and create as much interest in the case as possible. Or maybe do the murders. We can't decide.
4) Some other toff (take your pick), dragged in at random because he might be said to resemble someone's eyewitness decription. In this case, Randolph Churchill.
5) All the polics officials in the case, who depsite going to some lengths to bolster the cover-up, left the case open without even trying to fit up any old madman to 'solve' the case, and leave Eddy in the clear forever. Or couldn't even get their story straight about which madman they were fitting up.
A future king, a mad author, an old doctor and a straighforward toff. Sounds like a late 19th century Village People, doesn't it? 
Anyway, this is making my brain hurt - even without all the finer details of the conspiracy theory being dragged up, which they will be. Did
Did I mention the masons?
Cheers,
Carps
|
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 05:09 am | | Hi Carps,
And now we are saddled with yet another royal conspiracy. You know the one - the Royale Family, that cheeky group of scousers, who pulled off a right royal ripper diary hoax, and are making my brain hurt!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 11:29 am | | Hi Caz,
We can always rope in Jon to check the diary for scouse inflections such as:
"Costly intercourse my arse"
"Eerr... I ripped her like a ripe peach, la"
Or anything else stereotypically Scouse. It'd certainly simplify things...
Carps |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 11:39 am | | | Er, sorry, but apart from Jim, the Royle family are all Mancs, actually. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 07:07 pm | | OK
One of two things have gone awry here, either Paul has me confused with Chris G. (the original) or Paul thinks all Northerners are scousers.....
Paul, I suggest we meet out back at playtime, 'cause one of us deserves a good thrashing.
Regards, Jon
(Yorkshire White Rose - Forever)http://www.warsoftheroses.com/ |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 10:00 pm | | James,
You mention that there have been a small percentage of female serial killers. To a certain degree this is true, but what you are overlooking is that NONE of them were SEXUAL serial killers. Jack was. James Kelly, while at least having the shred of credibility that the 'Jill' theory lacks, isn't likely, either. You could drive a Mac truck through the holes in these theories. You really need to leave Jack alone for a while and learn more about serial killers in general. I wish you good luck on your screenplay, though.
Harry,
Hutchinson standing outside of Mary's place makes perfect sense if he genuinely had feelings for her. As you probably well know, jealousy over a woman can do funny things to a man. As to why the police seemed later to have completely forgotten or discarded his testimony has always puzzled me as well. Abberline took the statement and the drawing made from it is dead on to Abberline's prefered suspect, George Chapman, so perhaps he really did believe Hutchinson as he had claimed.
Thomas and all 'royalists',
I haven't really been following the posts, because it's a lame topic, but I will add that with very few exceptions (only one comes to mind) the very wealthy do not a serial killer make. And if they were trying to cover something up or silence the women by killing them, they simply would have vanished and not have been fileted for all the world to ponder and question. Spending energy on the idea that a 78 year old man, a Prince, a Lord, or a poet were Jack the Ripper is like doing drugs...it's a waste of a good mind. The many royal theories were entertaining for a time, but are now simply annoying and bordering on insulting. Pursuing J.K. (good poet, bad suspect) Stephen as a possible hoaxer of some of the Ripper letters may be worthwhile, but let Gull and Churchill rest in peace. They should be remembered for other things. Eddy was a joke. I'm not trying to be harsh, you seem pretty cool, but come on, If you keep beating that horse you'll be walking on glue. And I don't see how someone pointing out that Gull was a 78 year old stroke victim could possibly bolster your theory. Keep those good eyes, just turn them in a different direction.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S Chris George...What's the deal with your email address? Please email me with whichever one you're using now. Thanks. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 05:36 am | | Tom , the Royalist theory is deeper than you yet know...I agree with you about the books by Knight , Harrison , Spiering , Fairclough et al though , discard them. They try too hard to push their particular theory.
The truth is in this case however that NO suspect is particularly convincing , so the upperclass ones are as good a bet as any. We should never discard any suspect or any theory as yet , because new evidence may yet turn up to convict one of them.
In discussing these men as theoretical suspects , obviously no personal slight on them is intended.
Simon ( the last ' Royalist ' ? )
PS : JK Stephen = bad poet , good suspect , not insane. |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 05:38 am | | Tom,
Again I agree with what you say although I may put a different interpretation on the situation.Perhaps Hutchinson was a rejected admirer,that too could invoke intense feelings,though not of a loving kind.
As I have said,the description of the male alleged to have met Kelly,could have been the result of suggestions fostered by the police,and not the result of Hutchinson's memory.Were that so,then it was an image already in the minds of the police,and of Aberline also,and might well match the description of a suspect later named by Aberline.
As to the Royals,I am entirely in agreement with you. |
Author: Grailfinder
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 07:16 am | | Tom
You really do surprise me! How can you possibly hope to solve this case when you discard a theory so completely?
I agree with Simons comments Re the Knight/Fairclough etc books, they are a good read but should be taken with a large dollop of salt, but this is no reason to dismiss an upper class or even Royal suspect/conspiracy. You have no proof that there was not an involvement or cover-up, so why make such a foolish statement?
Until we can positively prove it was a lone nutter or any other suspect we must be open to ALL avenues of research regardless of how absurd they may appear to us. If Police forces were to follow your example, I for one, would be very concerned about there competence in solving crimes. Take the recent Jill Dando case for example, although the killer turned out to be a loner, their was a possibility that a professional hit-man was involved and they had to check this out regardless of the absurdity of it.
And as for your comments about the use of Drugs? surly you are aware that some of our finest works of Art have been written/painted/composed etc, by people that spent most of there waking hours smashed off there tits.
Are you really this shallow? or was your brain just having a day off?
your 'very' open minded friend GF |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 08:52 am | | | Yes, I have a lot of work ahead of me and possible there are a few holes in the theories as well, but none the less these are the two candidates that I will be looking at. Of course I need to look at the whole picture as well. It's not my intention to write a screenplay with just a watered down version in mind. I take my research always very serious and even this ripper one more so. The last thing I also want to do is to be a amateur slute or private eye scouring the old rooms and documents looking for every piece of dust and file. I think often times a writer can see more from another angle and from a different view of point. Certainly crime is not something we want to glorify in any way and I don't want to be a eccentric Miss Marple to make it even worse. Yes there are holes in all theories. Serial killers, kill for many reasons deep rooted and to complicated to go into here, but Kelly and Jill are my suspects limited as it my be. Kelly had the opportunity. The Ripper did more then likely live in the area. Who was the lodger? Often times in the district. Okay maybe it was a Jew it's highly unlikely. No our villain is more than likely a low life character rather then an English gentleman in a top hat roaming the street of whitechapel in 1888. The district was also a Place for protection rackets, hoods of all kind and last but not least our Ripper character. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 09:20 am | | G.F.
To be honest, I think Tom is more focused than you give him credit for.
How long are we to consider a suspect list made up of healthy males with access to London between the ages of 16 and 60?
If thats the only type of suspect list you are prepared to consider then you have created a lot of work for yourself my friend
Thats the only list you will find these 'Royal' suspects on, and even that excludes Gull.
Tom was commenting on the 'theory' of Thomas and how impractical it is, now, in your response you appear to offer caution against denouncing Thomas's 'theory', I won't suggest you actually support it, but if all issues were either black or white, I think you may fall on the 'Royal' side of things, judging by your comment.
Lest we jump to the wrong conclusion, maybe you might offer your tuppence on the 'Highest in the land' proposal.
There are degrees of probability in this case, as in all mysteries, but even on a Police suspect list they will separate the likely from the unlikely . Their job requires they check them all out, Tom is ahead of that, he is more concerned with viable suspects, as are most of us.
Regards, Jon
(Nice to see you back, G.F.) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 10:10 am | | Dear Grailfinder,
The issue of police competence...oh dear, oh dear.
Mine is one of utter d-r-i-p-p-i-n-g contempt!
Hic rhodus, hic saltus.
Rosey:-) |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 12:14 pm | | I'm coming in late to this discussion, and have yet to read the 40 archived posts on this subject. I've only a couple of things to add in re: Thomas' theory.
Thomas - Almost any theory is worth study, but beginning by saying "JK Stephen was the Ripper" without adding "because I have such-and-such a confession or such-and-such an HO or MEPO file" isn't going to garner you the careful consideration your theory might warrant. Those of us who are long-time students of the Whitechapel Murders (and many who are newcomers) have been down this road before. We do not slap at you willy-nilly to shut you up, but we do ask for proof, not feelings and not supposition and not theories based on suspect evidence.
In any event, two of the quotes you have used in your July 14 post in order to "compare" JTR and JKS are not true bill.
1. The "I've no time to tell you how / I came to be a killer" phrase has never yet been found in an authentic (if there can be such a thing!) Ripper letter or in the extand writings of JKS. Its provenance is shaky, at best.
2. The "two little whores / shivering with fright" couplet is also suspect. This jingle has no traceable evidence beyond author Donald McCormick, and is highly unlikely to have been written by JTR or JKS. Melvin Harris' writings go into this in further detail.
Simon - the "1920s pamphlet" you refer to is "The Whitechapel Horrors" by Tom Robinson, and he quotes inquest testimony by George Hutchinson on pp. 30-31. The interesting thing here is that much of what Robinson relates can be found in the "Telegraph" and the "Times," and so can be corroborated. It is thus possible (only just) that Hutchinson did testify in camera at the MJK inquest, but one would like to know how Robinson came by his words, and inevitably, one suspects Robinson took Hutchinson's published statement and tricked it up by making it appear Hutchinson had testified. It is an avenue that deserves some research.
Paul - the version of the "conspiracy" you posted sounds much like that in Pamela Cory's dreadful "An Eye to the Future." Despite the fact that Cory provides absolutely no proof for any of her accusations, it should be noted that the evidence we have to hand speaks more of a lack of sexual ardour in Eddy's case than an urge to couple with disease-ridden Whitechapel drabs.
But we shall be watching this page with great interest, we of the Mystic Knights of Whitechapel who have sworn to conceal the true story. . .
As ever,
CMD |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 01:38 pm | | Theories? Well as I am only new to his group I will refrain from getting my foot caught in someone's mouth. Pity it wasn't the Rippers. Anyway, I think that the Ripper was a serial killer who was well organized according to the recent developments in serial killers profiling techniques. Granted no system is fool proof, but it's the best we got so far, plus add to this the gut feeling of a cood cop or bobby on the beat and we have a good path way to the killer.
Proof is only what the police want and I except this. Theories then only add to the problem. Eyewitness accounts can be troublesome in many cases tricks of eye etc even most of the Rippers letters are considered fake, except one or two, anyway the answer lies somewhere in the victims themselves and the kind of clues like blood, dirt and the manner they were killed is the obvious clue etc. But I feel there is still something been over looked. Often times the clue/ answer stares us in the face. I hope that I can honestly answer some of these theories in time. I suppose we will at his stage never really know? Still Kelly and Jill are my favorite suspects time will tell. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 02:46 pm | | In all this discussion of the "High Class Toff/
Aristocrat/Royalist" Theory, I frequently find
myself asking how much in the theory owes itself
to attracting people who like or dislike the
upper classes. To me, they don't matter that
much, but I keep wondering how much they mattered
to Knight or to Stowell.
I should add that (except for the ridiculous size
of the proposed conspiracies) a conspiracy involving upper class types is not to be totally
dismissed. Roy Jenkins wrote a biography about
Sir Charles Dilke, whose promising political
career was destroyed in 1885 due to his involvement in the Crawford Divorce Case. Jenkins
mentioned the theories (in an afterword) that
either Joseph Chamberlain or Lord Roseberry (both
rivals of Dilke for political advancement) may
have been involved in his destruction. Similarly,
when the Times went after Charles Parnell in 1887
the Tory government seemed to wink at possible
connivances between the newspaper and the police
(which may have gone as far as the expeditious
fleeing of the forger Richard Pigott, after his
exposure at the Commission against Parnell - as
well as Pigott's suicide in Madrid). But in both
these matters, politics were at the base of the
possible collusions.
As for the Royal Family, while the figure of
the Duke of Clarence is too vague (my own research
documented another romance - this time heterosexual - with a commoner who was a married
Roman Catholic woman from India) that does not
dismiss Royal involvement altogether. It could
be there. The Royal Family had other murder
scandals in its long past [Edward II, Richard II,
Henry VI, Edward V and his brother - all dynastic;
Thomas a' Becket, Amy Robsart, Thomas Overbury,
Count Koenigmarck, De Sellis and the Duke of
Cumberland]. It could have another in its closet,
although it never had a serial series. But the
choice of the Duke of Clarence is too questionable
due to his personality flaws.
And I have to admit, having read some of Stephen's
poems, I am less than enchanted. His early death
did not deprive the world of a major talent.
A final question: Does anyone know what George
Hutchinson did for a living? Was he, by any chance, an artist?
Jeff |
Author: Grailfinder
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 02:58 pm | | Hi Jon
Firstly, thank you for your welcome back.
I have been tuning in for the last few weeks, but I seem to have missed quite a bit on some of the topics, I have a lot of back-reading to do, which is cool! its kind of like that feeling one gets having just purchased a new book about JtR, and knowing that your next few days will be blissfully filled with new thoughts and musings/dumbarsed theories of this Victorian saga.
As to me being a Royalist/conspiracy'ist or any other ist,? Sorry to disappoint you my friend but I am neither. Nor am I a Barnettist/Druitist etc, truth is I believe one has to be open to all ideas and theories until some evidence comes to light to either dismiss or place a suspect firmly in the frame.
As for research? not my cup of tea. I leave that to the (so called) experts.
Sorry if you thought I was having a pop at Tom, but IMHO he did ask for it. I stick by my words in the post above. Until Tom or someone else shows me 100% proof that JtR was a lone nutter, I cannot ignore the possibility that some kind of cover-up/conspiracy occurred. All theories are valid until proven otherwise is my un-blinkered approach to the case, all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, nobody is innocent based on there status, class, race, or religion. I think the logic in Tom's post above, is the same logic that allowed The Yorkshire Ripper to remain at large for so long as he did! The hoax Tape from TYR proved that he was a Geordy didn't it? So the Police were correct to discount all Jock's, Cockneys, Welshmen, Yorkshiremen, were they? of cause not!
My logic would be, Never put all your eggs in one basket, and not to allow your basket to have holes in it. The behavior of Man throughout the ages never fails to amaze me, as a species we are an evil lot of bastards, Henry VIII, Pol Pot, Hitler, Fred West, what's in a name eh? or class. Nobody should be ruled out until proven innocent, or another proven guilty.
Rosey
Ill show you mine if, as they say?
PS
"You decide":-)
LnH GF |
|
|
|
|
