|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
William Gull/Royal Conspiracy
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
William Gull/Royal Conspiracy
Author: paul merryman
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 10:53 am |        | Hi All,
I have been reading books for about 7-9 years regarding our cold hearted friend and I have read some very interesting theories. With regards to the above theory, has anyone proved this not to be a valuable theory or is it that people just find it too absurd.
Thanks Paul
 |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 01:25 pm | | Hi Paul.
The theories involving various 'Gull' conspiracies are similar in one respect, they are all nonsence.
Sorry Paul.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 01:39 pm | | Hello Paul, re Gull and Royal Conspiracy.
We spent over 5 years looking into research for our book. The conclusions we drew was, there was more than just a madman out there, there seemed to be a hidden agenda as to why these 5 poor women were picked out.
We do not say with 100% certainty that we are right but if there was a conspiracy, based on our researches the Royal/Gull scenario was the most likely one.
It is less work for writers to do if they base their theories on a single killer.
We presented a theory, which all authors on the subject would do well to remember, because thats what it is, their theory, and not rubbish others. We must respect that we are all entitled to our own opinions, and no-one is ever going to know for sure what was behind those murders in 1888.
As we say at the end of our book. We are only spinning a yarn, the scene outlined is plausible and possible. There is a wealth of circumstantial evidence to support it. Research must go on, and our assessment will alter and shift with any new results. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 02:22 pm | | Dear Andy & Sue.
(First, Please allow me to smile to myself)
Pure fiction is often "plausible and possible" (good grief, we could include the 'Diary', in that remark) but does that mean it deserves to be considered along with factual data?, does your 'yarn' fit ALL the known facts?
If, as you eventually say, "we are only spinning a yarn" then it seems you have nothing more than an hypothesis, which is an idea that is supported, at best by some facts and possibly some circumstantial evidence. But for the most part is unsubstantiated speculation. For that hypothesis to evolve into a 'theory' then every aspect of this 'idea' must fit ALL the known facts.
Sorry if I touched on a nerve.
Regards, Jon |
Author: paul merryman
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 02:35 am | | Dear Andy&Sue,
Thanks for your reply, And I too feel that if there was a conspiracy the Gull/Royal theory is very plausible.
Ps I have read the book and found it a very good read.
Paul |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 05:36 am | | Jon. Don't worry about touching a nerve, after the things that I have been involved in during my life, and the places I have lived,the people I have mixed with, nerves don't worry me. I have always considered myself a natural bullsh...er! But I do like listen to an expert like you sometimes.
You are quite right about spinning a yarn. The only problem with that is, that no one else is prepared to admit that their stories are a yarn too.
As I said 'IF' there was a conspiracy then this could be the 'LIKELY'scenario.
I don't know whether you have a copy of our book or not, but, there is information which up to now had not been published before, most nothing to do with any particular theory, just good old fashioned research.
Keep smiling Jon.
Andy P. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 07:38 am | | Hi Andy and Sue,
Where can I find your book?(What's the title?) It's one of the few I've not had the pleasure of reading.
Hi All,
Now I myself am not a big believer in the Royal Conspiracy. However, I can see no major flaws in it asides for a few minor points. One being the coach.
Yes a Coach could go along Whitechapel Road, or Commerical Road and Commercial Street. However, it could not have gone down Hanbury, Buck's Row, Dorset, Mitre Square, or Berner Street, without attracting Massive amounts of attention. Now if the coach is a rather nice coach(as some have surmised it's a royal coach), even then it could not park for long on the main streets without people becoming suspicious. Proof of this problem can be seen 20 years later when Jack London went to the East End for his 'research'. People followed the cab he was in for blocks, simply because it was way out of place. And this was just a city cab. What would one do if they saw a Royal Coach sitting in the middle of Whitechapel in the middle of the night?
The second problem is when involving the 'Masonic Theory'. This of course will not be a problem if you just believe in the Royal's and Gull's involvement and not the Masons. The problems with the Masons are threefold:
1.) If Gull is killing the victims according to Masonic Ritual, then he's screwing it up bigtime. For one he's placing intestines on the wrong side. Plus he's not removing the rest of the viscera and leaving it alongside the intestines. Also the tongues were never cut out, and in only one case was the heart removed(Mary Kelly, but in her case organs were spread out all throughout the room, and not in the correct position.)
2.) The Juwes Message. The start of the Masonic Theory was based upon this message. However the word Juwes was never used by the Mason's until the 1920's. Up until this date the murderers of Hiram Abiff were known as 'The Three Ruffians'.
3.) The Master Mason's Oath. Many have tried to use the oath as proof that the Mason's would cover-up these murders because it is part of their oath to cover-up a Mason's secrets.("Furthermore do I promise and swear that a Master Mason's secrets, given to me in charge as such, and I knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own, when communicated to me, . . ." Master Mason's Oath\3rd Degree of Obligation Oath circa. 1864 and in the revised version of 1887.) However, they fail to display how this sentence ends with stating that Murder and Treason shall not be covered-up.(" . . .murder and treason excepted." Master Mason's Oath\3rd Degree of Obligation Oath circa. 1864 and in the revised version of 1887.) Those theories I've seen have the cover-up being orchestrated by either Sir Charles Warren, Sir Robert Anderson, or both. Both of these men have been linked as Master Masons so they both would have had to take this oath. So if they did cover-up for the purposes of the Masons, then they broke their oath to that order.(So hence the point to the whole thing is moot.)
Lastly is the bit about the prostitutes knowing one another. No conclusive proof has ever been brought up about it. As well as none of those people that knew the victims when interviewed by the press or speaking at the inquests ever stated that any of the victims knew any of the others. I think this one detail would have eventually saw air, especially since so many other rumors were aired at the time.
Anyways, these are the problems I've found to the theory. I believe there are several other problems some of our more esteemed Ripperologists have found with the theory, unfortunately I can not think of them at this time.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 09:29 am | | Ah but, Chris:
The objection there is that apparently, the third degree so-called Master Mason is really just a minion with a posh title, and that very select few who make it past the (I think) 16th degree take a different version of the oath, which does not exclude murder or treason from the acts of a fellow Mason which must be concealed. If I recall correctly, this argument comes from Fairclough's The Ripper and the Royals, so there's one big pinch of salt to go with it.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 09:51 am | | Hello all,
I simply cannot imagine why anybody would persue and waste time and money researching a royal conspiracy theory that has a 72 year old stroke victim commiting the murders.It is laughable.
The idea that the queen's top surgeon was chosen to perform the butchery is equally silly.
This has to be the messiest,most complicated and unworkable theory of them all.
Why would the whole operation have been made so complicated,risky and "high profile",when a younger,fitter,quicker more discrete "Hit man" could have been employed to simply make the victims "Dissapear".
Im sure believers in this and other theories based on "Royal Rippers",would find the truth unbearably dull. For them,the posibility the the murderer was an ordinary member of the public,who quietly passed away shortly after the murders,just holds no interest.
The same is true for those who believe in a super-natural or an "Aliens did it" solution.
Regards,
Mick. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 10:04 am | | Hi Guy,
Yes but you also forget that the oaths they are taken are for life, as well as when they take the higher order oaths, they also state that all their previous oaths still bind them.
So again, they are still bounded by the Murder/Treason parts of the 3rd Degree Oath.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: David Knott
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 01:43 pm | | Hi all,
I have a friend (no, really - I have!) who is currently researching the possibility that the Whitechapel Murders were part of some Jacobite / Knight Templar plot aimed at removing Sir C Warren from office and discrediting Prince Eddy.
The reason for me posting in this thread is that he is (or was, the last time I knew) of the opinion that the rumours about Gull and the Duke of Clarence were started deliberately right back at the time of the murders.
Does anyone think that this is likely, or are the rumours all of more recent origin?
David |
Author: Ally
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 03:29 pm | | David,
If there is one thing I think is likely, it is the fact that politicians have ever been willing to sling mud to discredit their opponents. And while I do not think that they would have organized a serial killing, I do think they might have seized on the opportunity to discredit their enemies. I would be more willing to credit it as a propagandistic crime of opportunity than a calculated attempt to bring about the downfall of "whomever". However, if it had been a serious attempt, I would think that their would have been a lot more propoganda floating around. Major articles and editorials, satiric pictures galore being posted about the streets. If it was a plot, they executed the executions brilliantly but then failed to carryout the portion of the attacks that would have made their goal a success.
Cheers,
Ally |
Author: David Knott
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 04:22 pm | | Hi Ally,
I think that if the plot only involved a couple of extremists then it would have been difficult to be too high profile with the propoganda without attracting attention.
Let's not forget though that there were shedloads of anti-Warren articles about, and that there were no more canonical murders after his resignation was announced, so that part of the plan (if there was one) could be deemed a 'success'. It would doubtless have been more difficult to get anti Hanover stories in print.
I was just wondering if there is really any evidence to suggest that the rumours surrounding Price Eddy and/or Gull were contemporary .. but reading Martin Fido's post in another thread it seems perhaps not!
The reason that I am particularly interested is that Sickert's mentor Whistler was evidently a member of the same secret Jacobite society that was supposedly connected with the plot.
Regards
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 06:12 pm | | Look for the artist in his work though - a normal man could not have painted Guernica or the Mona Lisa , similarly a normal man could not have concieved of , or perpetrated the Ripper crimes.
The knife was the Ripper's paintbrush in a way.
As for the Conspiracy , the shadows haven't yielded the killer up to us yet , so there are more secrets to be learnt...
Cryptic Simon  |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 07:38 am | | I guess I just don't have the conspiracy theory personality. I can't seem to fathom complicated plots without direct ties to targets. There was absolutely no way to predict that Warren would resign.. I just can't see it.
And while there actually was a study just published that shows that really creative people do suffer from mental illness, the illness was more manic-depressive than homicidal.
Cheers and happy hunting,
Ally |
Author: Kelly Vaters
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 11:23 pm | | | Perhaps Sickert was part of a different conspiracy, one which might tie him to people like Francis Thompson and other artist-types? Patricia Cornwell seems convinced of Sickert's guilt, though she admits she only has Sickert's paintings to go by. |
Author: brad mcginnis
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 12:54 am | | | Still waters run deep Kelly Vaters needs to read more. Welcome newbe! |
Author: Glyn James Lusk
Thursday, 29 August 2002 - 08:39 am | | Hi
I am new to the board, so please forgive me if I post in the wrong place, Im sure someone will redirect me.
Despite what Ive read on this site, (Ive been a follower of Jack for 10yrs but never been aware of this site), I am still a confirmed 'Gullible'.
I think It was Michael caine's fault.
i recently read that Patricia Cornwell had Sickert's DNA tested in her quest to prove he was JTR.
I am wondering if anyone has tested of Gull's, if indeed any survived?
Thanks
Glynn |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 29 August 2002 - 12:34 pm | | LUSK! Are you related to Mr. George Akin Lusk, Chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee of 1888? If so, we have a number of pertinent questions to ask you.
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 30 August 2002 - 12:49 am | | Glynn (or Glyn?),
From what I've read, Cornwell doesn't have any DNA from Sickert. There's a letter that he wrote that the specialists found mixed strands of DNA on with no way of separating who was who, or even if any of that DNA was in fact Sickert's.
Of course she has a good opportunity to test DNA from Sickert's son, except for the strange irrational belief she has that he had no children. I guess she feels that acknowledging his son pokes a hole in her odd theory for the motive for the crimes.
The problem is that even after hypothetically finding DNA is what to compare it to. There's nothing left of any crime scenes to test for DNA testing. Comparing samples to letters from people who claimed to be the killer is a far cry from linking anyone to the real killer.
Dan |
Author: Glyn James Lusk
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 07:58 am | | Hi Dan,
Thanks for this. I heard that she had a real obsession and ripped his paintings up for clues.
Most of the letters from those claiming to be Jack have been heat-sealed anyway, but there's one or two that havent.
I just thought that it would have been easier to obtain Gull's, but as you say, what to compare it to?
David - No I am not related to George, but he's a fascinating character. Would like to learn more about him.
Glyn |
|
|
|
|
