|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 11 December 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
JACK THE RIPPER MYSTERY SOLVED!:
Archive through 11 December 2002
Author: Ally
Monday, 17 September 2001 - 03:11 pm |        | Hi there Jason,
I think that you will find that most of the comments on this thread were meant facetiously. We tend to be a sarcastic bunch and whenever there is a newspaper article or a new poster who decides that they have definitively solved the case, there is a general reaction of "Oh well thank you. Now I can sleep at night."  |
Author: Jason Mullins
Monday, 17 September 2001 - 03:30 pm | | Hi ya Ally -
Good, I'm glad!! I was fairly sure that was how it was meant. Thank the stars the case has been solved... I know I'll sleep better at night now hehe. Well, Thanks again. I think I'm going to peruse about the boards a bit and see what I can dig up. I suppose after all the bickering, arguing, and general "I'M RIGHT"-ness, there is still no un-disputed evidence that leads to one man or another?
Didn't think so...  How about enough evidence to where a jury of 12 of our peers would convict him if it were to happen today (Yes, I'm aware innocents are convicted on a daily basis, this is more of a "what if" type question)
I think I am just curious to see if there is enough evidence pointing to someone or someone(s) where it would be considered "safe" to say he/they did it. That's all....
Rock on ladies and gents..
Looking forward to a plethora of good responses,
Crix0r |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 23 September 2001 - 10:06 am | | | Ally, Please say it aint so. You mean that the mystery is not solved? You mean I've got to wait another 100 odd years? Damn you all that teased me. I dont want to play anymore. Im going home.....no honest....Im gone.............Ok, I'll stay but only if you promise not to keep lying to me with all this "solved" pecsh. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 23 September 2001 - 10:24 am | | Remember Monty that a solution is only as good as
the water that gives it it's full body! The particles of the mixture poured in just give it
certain charming, individual characteristics.
Jeff |
Author: Monty
Monday, 24 September 2001 - 08:41 am | | | Jeff, Yeah....like s#@t for example.And watery s#@t is diarrhoea.From what books I've read lately theres and epidemic abound. |
Author: R.J.P.
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 10:32 pm | | The plot thickens...
BLOODHOUNDS IN WHITECHAPEL
AN EXTRAORDINARY DISPLAY OF ENERGY BY THE LONDON POLICE---LOOKING FOR THE MALAY.
London, Oct. 5.--Sir Charles Warren, chief of the Metropolitan Police, has decided to employ bloodhounds in his efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders.
The police place confidence in the story of George M. Dodge, a seaman, who states that in August last he met a Malay cook named Alaska, with whom he had previously been acquainted on shipboard, in a music hall in London, and that Alaska told him he had been robbed of all he had by a woman of the town, and threatened that unless he found the woman and recovered his property, he would kill and mutilate every Whitechapel woman he met. The police are searching everywhere for the Malay.
Acting on information which has been furnished them, the police have seized and occupied several houses in the Whitechapel district.
New York Tribune, October 6, 1888 |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 09:48 pm | | Gadzooks, it was a Malay...no doubt a Strait
Chinese named Alaska...did they look for his
brothers Hawaii, Washington, and Oregon, or his
half-brothers Yukon and Northwest Territories?
Jeff |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 09:34 am | | Was he a "middle aged malaise" ???
 I kill myself !!!
Monty
|
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 11:20 pm | | Jack the Ripper identified...
"A French 'Jack the Ripper'
A less interesting criminal, whose trial is making a great sensation, for the crimes which he is accused are similar to those committed by "Jack the Ripper," is Joseph Vacher, and though Joseph Vacher's mind is evidently unbalanced, there is little doubt that he perpetrated the eight horrible murders to which he has confessed. His victims were three lads of sixteen and fourteen years of age, all shepherds, and five women, the eldest sixty-five and the youngest fifteeen, whom he murdered in the open fields while they were tending flocks. In each case he followed up the crime by a dreadful mutilation of his victim. He appears to have been wrong in his mind ever since his sweetheart broke off their engagement, which caused him to fire a revolver at her and then attempt suicide. He lodged a ball in his head which could not be extracted, and was for a time confined in a lunatic asylum, but afterward released. He then led the life of a tramp, seeking work as a shepherd, and admits having perpetrated the murders of which he is accused during this period. He considers that God had designed him to act as he did, and each crime procured him, he said, an exquisite feeling of consolation. This proves plainly that Joseph Vacher must be a madman, as indeed the original "Jack the Ripper" most undoubtedly was. In connection with this subject, I have been informed on perfectly trustworthy authority that the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders is known to the police, having been finally identified with a certain lunatic, who is now confined in a madhouse in Scotland. The murderer is an Oxford graduate, and made a certain reputation some ten years ago as a minor poet. He bears a distinguished name, which has been repeated to me, and is famous in Scottish history in connection with a young woman who saved a King's life in a heroic way. The "Ripper" had a wife who was descended from a very famous English Admiral. His latest delusion is that he is the grandson of Napolean the Great."
--New York Times, 1897. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 12:15 am | | Hi, R.J.--
Thanks for posting that. More strange and cryptic leads to elucidate! Will it never end? Nevertheless, sent scuttling to my handy copy of The Collins Encyclopedia of Scottish History, I have failed to come up with the answers to those supposed leads to the Great Victorian Mystery! 
All the best
Chris
P.S. Should I cable Patricia Cornwell with the news?  |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 03:28 am | | Good find R.J. Does the veiled reference to the poet's surname suggest a McDonald? (Alex: your help would be appreciated here).
Regards, V. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 04:38 am | | Hi V,
Yes, I wondered if we are sniffing a suspect McDonald - nasty burger!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 04:54 am | | Hi All
Last night's London Evening Standard had a letter claiming the mystery was solved, the perpetrator was Chapman, and the motive was silencing police informers. Abberline was claimed to know this, but not reveal the details because (as I understood the letter) Chapman had also been used as an executioner by the then equivalent of MI6.
Is this a new theory or an old one revived? I haven't heard it before, but then I've avoided the royal/police conspiracy end of the market.
Regards
Pete |
Author: alex chisholm
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 08:27 am | | Hi All
Given the popularity of the works of Scott and Stevenson, together with Queen Victoria’s passion for Scottish romance, I think Flora MacDonald would be the name most likely to spring to mind in the US as well as the UK at the time this article was written.
Following the Jacobite defeat at Culloden, Flora helped Prince Charles Edward Stuart escape almost certain death at the hands of Government troops by smuggling him, disguised as maid servant Betty Burke, from South Uist to Skye in June 1746.
The only problem is that, even to the most ardent Jacobite, Charles was not King at the time. So, strictly speaking, Flora MacDonald did not save “a King’s life in a heroic way.” Nevertheless, MacDonald is certainly one of the most famously distinguished names in Scottish history, and I can’t think off-hand of anyone more likely to be the “young woman” referred to in the article than Flora.
Coincidently, one MacDonald noted in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as poet and novelist, is George MacDonald (1824-1905). Ten volumes of his collected works were published in 1886, although he graduated from King’s College, Aberdeen, rather than Oxford, and there appears to be no reason to doubt his sanity.
This poetic MacDonald has previously appeared in relation to JtR, however, as the translator of “Letters from Hell,” (1884) in Tom Wescott’s An Inspiration “From Hell?” Ripper Notes Vol. 2 No. 4, April 2001.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 01:27 pm | | Peter -
I would have to say that's a new one on me! Chapman as a Special Branch executioner? What's next?
Seriously, could you contact me with details of the letter so I can add it to my files?
Cheers,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 02:42 pm | | | 'The Great Victorian Mystery', a term coined by . . .? |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 03:47 pm | | George Michael? Mikhail Gorbachev? Go on, I give up.
The scottish connection should be obvious, but perhaps you don't want it to be so.
Mc Mc Mc Mc Maybrick!
Stop.
Peter |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 06:57 pm | | Hi Peter,Howard,Monty,Harry,Jon,Tim, Carl, to name but a few.
It has been brought to my attention from various sources I might add that the boards have become stagnant ( I tend to agree ) and that a lack of interesting ripper murder related topics are the cause.With your help I thought I might address the problem by starting with a ripper murder related question I have not heard asked before.
In Mitre Square the killer took a piece of the victims apron away with him and various reasons have been given to why this action was undertaken by the killer.
One reason being is that he used the material to place the body parts in.
Why did the killer not cut a piece of Chapmans clothing away to carry her body parts away in ?
In short a change of MO took place so what was the reason for it ?
Two situations appeared to be the same but one could argue that in essence they were not and if so why not? |
Author: Howard Brown
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 08:54 pm | | | Dear Ivor: My guess,a rather simplistic one,is that at the Mitre Square murder scene,whatever he had to clean his hands off was sufficient and at Mrs. Chapman's,it wasn't....Next..... |
Author: julienonperson
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 09:20 pm | | Ivor
I know you didn't address your post to me but I
assume anyone can respond. I don't think the apron was cut off on purpose. I think it was cut
in the frenzy of the attack, and when the killer left the scene it was stuck to him, either because of blood or static electricity. In his
haste to flee he probably didn't even notice that
it was attached to him and either it dropped off
or he took it off, if he happened to discover it.
The piece of apron was not big enough to have been
of much use to him, I don't think.
just a thought.
Julie |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 09:40 pm | | | Hi Julie, All comments are most welcome including yours. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 10:15 pm | | | Howard,If JTR just wanted to clean his hands on Eddowes apron why cut it off to do so ? Or do you believe like Julie that it was cut by accident and not by design and found it's way to Goulston Street either by accident or by a freak of nature? |
Author: Howard Brown
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 10:53 pm | | | Ives...No way,Jose ! It was used to keep our man from getting messy ...Don't misunderstand me,buddy...I think JtR had that planned PRIOR( the hauling part ) and had an alternate mode..He was organized and I don't think he left anything to chance...especially a man like Stephenson...Thats why I posted what I did in that way...the dropping of the apron piece on Goulston was intentional...thats what the post above should have stated but I couldn't edit the sonofabitch...later,brother !!!!! HB |
Author: brad mcginnis
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 12:09 am | | Julie, static electricty is out because we have a weather report for that night. It was raining so static is most unlikely. The scrap has been a topic of discussion for years. Did JTR drop it there? Place it there? Did a dog or cat drag it there? Did the wind blow it there? And how did the P.C. notice it in Whitechapels filthy streets? Merely another point to ponder, as if we didnt have enough.
Yours, Brad |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 12:18 am | | Viper, Alex---Yes, I think Macdonald is the right name; yet, I think we can rule out Geore, as he does seem to have steered clear of the 'inside' and instead seems to have enjoyed his last years travelling in Italy.
At the risk of making Caroline laugh out loud, one possibility is Ronald Macdonald, Matric. Trinity College, Oxford, 1882. B.A. 1885, listed as "the novelist" and not the hamburger mogel.
There's only about six or eight others from Oxford that would ' work.'
Charles Reginald Macdonald, Queen's College, 1873.
Alexander Macdonald, Corpus Christie, 1888.
Several more that I'm too lazy to type. If anyone wishes to hunt down this 'stray dog' I can list the others at some other time.
The story's main interest to me is that it is another example [among several] of 'cage lunatic' myths that seemed to have been in circulation in the years after 1888/89. Indeed, I've seen one story that dates clear back to December, 1888, claiming the Ripper was spirited away to an asylum outside of Paris. Cheers, RJP
P.S. As most of you know, Mr. Vacher was written-up in Krafft-Ebbing.
P.P.S. All you Eddowes apron people; I'll have to profile you as 'disorganzied'.... get thee to tother board :-) |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 07:26 am | | Hi RJ,
The clown who brought us those hamburgers could never have been educated at Oxford - no staying power. I hear MacDonalds are losing revenue big-time - our daughter has announced that she will never be spending her parent's money there again.
Hi Ivor, my disorganised friend,
My guess is that because Chapman was the first victim Jack took body parts from, he therefore hadn't really thought through how best to transport them from the scene. When he saw Eddowes' large pinny, a light bulb came on in his brain and he took half of it (the pinny, not his brain), probably wiping his knife and hands on it first, then wrapped her body parts in it and made good his escape from Mitre Square. But he would have needed and wanted to discard that disgusting cloth as soon as it was practical, as it tied him to the crime. Once it had absorbed all the liquid it was going to absorb from its contents, these could be transferred to a pocket or, in the case of D'Onston, tucked beneath his MacDonald's tie.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 08:01 am | | Hi, Alex:
As posted by R. J. Palmer above:
. . . I have been informed on perfectly trustworthy authority that the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders is known to the police, having been finally identified with a certain lunatic, who is now confined in a madhouse in Scotland. The murderer is an Oxford graduate, and made a certain reputation some ten years ago as a minor poet. He bears a distinguished name, which has been repeated to me, and is famous in Scottish history in connection with a young woman who saved a King's life in a heroic way. The "Ripper" had a wife who was descended from a very famous English Admiral.
--New York Times, 1897
Alex, I think one would have to be an ardent Jacobite to term Bonnie Prince Charlie a "King" wouldn't one? I am wondering if the king could have been Robert the Bruce or some other Scottish king? The other part of this story that might be worth following up on is who the "very famous English Admiral" is from whom the "Ripper's" wife was descended. The making of a name by the "Ripper" as a minor poet "some ten years ago" would have made it, from the time of publication of the New York Times article in 1897, in the late 1880's or so. I find it fascinating that all these claims to give the solution to the Ripper mystery always say they have learned the information from a "perfectly trustworthy authority." 
Hi, Julie, Ivor, etc.--
Julie, perhaps you don't realise that the piece of apron was actually quite a large swathe of cloth, comprising about half of the apron that these women commonly wore, which went from the woman's waist to her feet. See the picture of a woman in Dorset Street in the late 19th Century here on the Casebook. The material therefore could not have stuck to the murderer. It had to have been carried away intentionally-- but for what reason? I don't think it could have been only to wipe the knife, because if so, why didn't he wipe the knife in Mitre Square and discard the piece of apron there or in a nearby street? Nor is it likely that he took it to carry organs since if he discarded it what would he use then to carry the organs? Possibly then, if we think the graffiti was by the murderer, and I do say if, he took it to signal that the message was from him. But who knows for certain? One thing we do know is that he carried the piece of apron a considerable distance, from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, a distance of around 1,100 feet as the crow flies. I do know that Ivor has theorized that the murderer had a "bolthole" where he went after the Eddowes murder. Jon Smyth has also conjectured that the killer went somewhere to deposit the organs and came back out to leave the piece of apron. Certainly, there is about an hour unaccounted for, between the murder of Eddowes around 1:30 AM and the depositing of the apron, around 2:30 AM or so (the apron and graffito were apparently not there at 2:20 AM according to PC Alfred Long but were found by him at 2:55 AM).
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 10:33 am | | All,
I've wondered if the Ripper took the apron piece with him because he knew he didn't have time to clean up in Mitre Square, so he wiped as he moved, finishing at Goulston Street. I've always thought it possible that PC Long missed the apron the first time around.
Dave |
Author: Garry Ross
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 10:53 am | | Christopher T.G,
Prince Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Silvester Maria Stuart (to give his full name, oh yes, Bonnie Maria) was a direct descendant of The Bruce.
I don't know of any other stories where a Scottish 'King' has been saved by a heroine but you're right in saying that it was only the Jacobites that saw him as King even though he had a stronger claim to the throne.
Also Ranald MacDonald was the first to join up with the rebellion...The Campbells joining up with the Government army. (Not England v Scotland as most people think)
so maybe the burger place got its inspiration from a mad MacDonald? As we all know, you have to be mad to eat in that place
take care
Garry |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 01:23 pm | | Obviously, the half-apron was taken to identify the graffito, and the kidney, later to be made into a half-kidney, to identify the Lusk letter. One hand washes the other. Doesn't anyone here know anything about logic?
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 02:45 pm | | Hi Christopher,
I asked myself the question,Why did the killer not cut a piece from Chapmans clothing to carry away her body parts ? Obviously he never needed the victim's clothing to place the items in.So
what happened in relation at the Mitre Square murder which never occurred at the Hanbury St murder which would cause the killer to change his Mo by taking a piece of the victims apron. The only difference being was that at Mitre Square the killer had left graffito. There was no graffitto left on the night of Chapmans murder that is why JTR never needed a piece of her clothing. As stated in my book the piece of apron was taken to identify the Graffitto.If the Kidney was taken to identify the Lusk letter it would make a lot of sense under the circumstances ( kill two birds with one stone ) and would fit in with the killers thought and behaviour process. I know your thoughts and Tom's on the Lusk letter and I am coming to the conclusion that you both may be on to something here. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 03:09 pm | | Hi again Alex, Garry, Ivor, R.J., Caz, et al.
Ivor, would that be to kill two birds with one kidney stone? :-)
Actually, I was wrong in that not even a died-in-the-wool Jacobite would have viewed Bonnie Prince Charlie as a "King" since his father was still alive. James Francis Edward Stuart (the "Old Chevalier"), son of James II, lived until 1766, two decades after the Battle of Culloden. The only room to think that it might be Prince Charles Stuart whom the writer thought of as "King" might be, I suppose, if that author, writing in The New York Times, was an American who was unaware of the facts of the British line of succession.
Might I bring up the fact that the Ripper did not have to have been named MacDonald to have been a descendent of Flora MacDonald, just as his wife did not have to have been named Nelson to have been a descendent of Lord Nelson, if he was the famous English admiral indicated in the NYT article?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 03:10 pm | | | Hi Caz you wimpy burger, If you had half a brain you would be dangerous as for your logic you have none.Shape up or ship out and stop behaving like a "ripperologist's play thing" and get a life.David is showing more sense than you are you silly girl. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 03:42 pm | | Hi Chris ,
It would indeed and well said. |
Author: Chris Phillips
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 03:42 pm | | Christopher T. George wrote:
Might I bring up the fact that the Ripper did not have to have been named MacDonald to have been a descendent of Flora MacDonald, just as his wife did not have to have been named Nelson to have been a descendent of Lord Nelson, if he was the famous English admiral indicated in the NYT article?
As I read it, the article was saying that the Ripper "bore the name" (whether MacDonald or whatever), but did not imply that he was descended from the woman in question.
If Nelson was the admiral intended, and if the "Ripper's wife" was his descendant in the strict sense, then she would not have been named Nelson, as the admiral left descendants only through his illegitimate daughter, known as Horatia Nelson Thompson (1802-1881), who (according to Internet sources) was married to Philip Ward, the curate of Burnham Market.
The Nelson earldom passed to the family of the admiral's elder sister Susannah, who adopted the surname Nelson. As the author of the article doesn't seem to have been very precise about such things, maybe he meant only that the "Ripper's wife" was a collateral relation of the admiral. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 04:05 pm | | Hi, Ivor:
Glad you are coming round to the view of Tom Wescott and myself that Roslyn D'Onston could well have authored both the Lusk and Openshaw letters. It is a verified fact that D'Onston communicated with the police, vide his letter to the City of London Police dated October 16, 1888, the same day the Lusk kidney was received at George Lusk's address, 1 Alderney Road, Mile End. D'Onston also met with Inspector Roots at Scotland Yard, of course, making a statement on December 28, 1888, in regard to his supposed suspicions about Dr. Morgan Davies.
As much as Patricia Cornwell insists that Walter R. Sickert wrote hundreds of Ripper letters to the authorities, there is not a modicum of evidence that he did so outside of her doubtful DNA findings and other unsupported claims, or that he tried in any other way to meddle with the police investigation into the Whitechapel murders. By contrast, both D'Onston and Neill Cream provably had dealings with the police (Cream of course about the poisonings for which he was ultimately hung, not the Ripper crimes, as far as we know)--whether or not one or the other of those men was Jack the Ripper.
"There is a kind of crazy vanity in murderers that prompts some of them to put their heads in the lion's mouth. They go out of their way to meet and talk to the investigating police, and often pose as conscientious citizens eager to assist the police enquiries. In addition, such murderers sometimes cannot resist writing taunting letters to the police or notes containing useless information."
Gordon Honeycombe, introduction to "Dr. Cream" in The Murders of the Black Museum 1870-1970, special revised edition, Mysterious Press Books, 1990, p. 96.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 04:29 pm | | Hi, Chris:
Thanks for setting me right about Nelson's offspring. In regard to the statement in the New York Times of 1897 that the supposed Ripper suspect "bears a distinguished name, which has been repeated to me, and is famous in Scottish history in connection with a young woman who saved a King's life in a heroic way" you might be right that if Flora MacDonald is meant, the syntax could be inferring that the man's name was "MacDonald." On the other hand, the writer is in essence name-dropping without citing a name, if you will. The "distinguished name" could, for example, have been someone who helped Flora and Prince Charlie, aka "Bonnie Maria" , who was dressed in a blue and white frock as "Betty Burke, an Irish girl." Or it could even have been someone related to Dr. Johnson or Boswell, who met Flora MacDonald on Skye in 1773. The possibilities are too numerous to mention.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 05:11 pm | | Ivor
Good question, but you must stop reverting to type! What has Caz done to you?
Before I go any further, Sickert wrote the Openshaw letter 'cos Patricia says so.
Right, about the piece of apron from Kate Eddows (Pat's spelling). Jack didn't need it to transport body parts. Jack wasn't primarily concerned with taking body parts away, although he may have done so at a couple of the scenes.
How can I state that Jack wasn't concerned with taking body parts away?
Easily - at the scene of MJK's murder, the one where he really went to town, he had all the time in the world to "fill his boots" as we say in Manchester. He could have ripped up sheets, taken the coat that was blocking the hole in the window - anything, but he didn't need them to hide body parts because he had nothing to hide.
He took nothing away - forget the argument about the heart for a minute, that's another strand. And even if he did take the heart, that's hardly plundering the body is it? Not when you consider what he could have got away with ...
My guess, for what it's worth, is that Jack was probably wiping his hands or knife on the rag when he heard footsteps approaching and just took it with him in his eagerness to get away, without really thinking about it. Having mixed back in with whoever was on the streets at that time of night, he dropped it at the first available opportunity.
Another important point is raised: If Jack was wiping his knife on the piece of apron, what does that say about him as a person? Calculating or disorganised? Sounds to me like he wasn't a lunatic if he had the presence of mind to clean his knife.
Off up the wooden hill to Bedfordshire.
Peter. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 07:43 pm | | Hi Folks,
1. All Scots are MacDonalds.
2. Jacobites believed in the "Divine Right" of their Kings to rule. 3. The great-great-great grandson of Flora is the Finance Minister of New Zealand.
4. The buggers are everywhere!
Mmmm...
Rosey :-) |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 09:27 pm | | No we are not Rosemary. I am a Medine.
Peace,
The Vicar of Bray |
|
|
|
|
