Archive through 20 January 2002

** 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 20 January 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Clarence, Duke of (Prince Albert Victor): Archive through 20 January 2002

Author: Rod McWade Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:55 pm
My family had connections to the royal family back then, in fact I have in my possession, my great great grandfather, along with then Duke, who later became Edward the V11. Amongst the family gossip over the years, I have put together some items that need further investigation. The duke of clarence Prince Albert Victor, was mentioned as a suspect. He was engaged to be married to Mary of Tek. Due to his sudden death, which previous family members believe was instructed by the then Queen Victoria. Why? Because he had attempted to slash the throat of Mary of Tek, his fianc�! Note that the date of his death corresponds to cease of murders, plus, Mary of tek was the chosen person as next Queen, by none other than Queen Victoria. So, after the death (murder) of Prince Albert, why did Mary of Tek wait so long before the marriage to his brother, as instructed by Queen Victoria. Could it be she had to recover from the horrendous throat wound! Also note that she never had any photograph taken unless she wore extremely high collars to cover her neckline. This gossip has circulated in my family for over a hundred years, and they always believed that due to the royal connections, the truth was successfully hidden. Further family gossip about Prince Albert and Mary of Tek. The Queen had him killed because of his attempt to murder Mary of Tek in the Palace, and he was caught red handed by various staff. At the time, Mary of Tek was believed to be pregnant to him! Knowing records can be doctored, I still wonder why Mary of Tek waited so long before marrying Prince George (Duke of York). Could it be she had a baby first? What records can be found about this theory? Hospital records, The birth certificate may be corrupted! When Queen Victoria summonsed the Duke of York to return to England upon the death of his brother, he was serving a commission on a Royal Navy ship in the Mediterranean sea. Can the admiralty message be recorded somewhere? what did it say? Who was it from? Bear in mind that the Royal Physician, Lord Dawson, administered a lethal injection to King George V to hasten his death. Could the same have been done to Prince Albert who was only 42 years old when he died? These clues followed through may lead to identifying Jack the Ripper, although as a layman, I suspect there were more than one person involved.
Author: A.M. Phypers Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:56 pm
A few years ago I was discussing Jack The Ripper with an old lady whom I knew socially. Her maternal grandfather was a beat policeman in Whitechapel in 1888. She told me that to his dying day her grandfather thought that the Prince Eddy, Duke Of Clarence was The Ripper. He also claimed that most of his former colleagues agreed with him. This conversation set me thinking, and I believe that I have the explanation� The man was not a senior officer, just a normal PC. As a result he was not in possession of sensitive information about the case. Had the killer�s identity been divulged to all serving police officers at the time, it would long since have been in the public domain. Therefore the belief that Eddy was the murderer must have been an unofficial consensus among the ordinary policemen. Something, in other words, which they arrived at by discussing the case amongst themselves off-duty. Their conclusions would have been influenced by their personal stories of involvement with the case and by tiny, garbled snippets of information which may well have leaked down from more senior officers. It is the latter which probably holds the key to why Clarence was suspected. In 1889, just months after the Ripper scare, a house in Cleveland Street in the West End was identified as being a male brothel. It was watched and was shown to be patronised by some of the most powerful homosexuals in the land. The papers of the case show that these included Lord Arthur Somerset (Equerry to the Prince Of Wales), Lord Euston and a character identified only as P.A.V. There is absolutely no doubt that P.A.V. was Price Albert Victor � the Duke Of Clarence. Eventually the house was busted, but not before the owner had escaped to France, complete with his furniture, from under the nose of the authorities. Prison sentences were imposed on some of the rent boys and procurers at the bottom of the chain. Needless to say, those at the pinnacle of society who bought their favours managed to escape justice by various means. The officer in charge of this case was none other than Frederick Abberline, he of Jack The Ripper fame. The Cleveland Street affair involved a cover up. However, you can be sure that policemen involved with the case divulged little bits of information to fellow officers whether wittingly or unwittingly. As these became absorbed into police �canteen culture� they became exaggerated and distorted. The names Abberline and Clarence were already linked. People discussing the Whitechapel Murders added two and two and they got five! It is my contention that this is where the link between the Duke Of Clarence and Jack The Ripper came from. It originated with the police, not in 1888 but in the years shortly afterwards. It would be very interesting to know from which sources Stowell originally unearthed his information when he championed Eddy's cause in 1970.
Author: Yazoo Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:57 pm
Sounds extremely plausible to me, A. M. Phypers. Just as a long-chance, would you happen to remember any inside gossip from the old lady about the PC who was on duty the night Eddowes was killed in Mitre Square? Sugden mentions he was later expelled from the force and even he could trace no reason. I don't insinuate the homosexual angle, but I wonder if that PC was guilty of another "indiscretion" you bring up here...that of talking too much...and possibly to the wrong kind of people, such as the press. Like I say, a long-shot, but it never hurts to try. Yaz
Author: A.M. Phypers Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:58 pm
Thanks for your response to my comments on Prince Eddy, Yazoo. Which policeman do you mean? If the officer you refer to is PC 254A Alfred Long, of Metropolitan Police A Division (Westminster), he was dismissed for being drunk on duty in July 1889. But if you mean PC 964 James Harvey, City Of London Police, then unfortunately I know nothing. Some of the City Of London records were destroyed by bombing during the war.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:58 pm
The Cleveland Street Scandal was a cause celebre at the time and there are two books about the case: "The Cleveland Street Affair" by Lewis Chester, David Leitch and Colin Simpson (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1976)and "The Cleveland Street Scandal" by H. Montgomery Hyde (Londn: W.H. Allen, 1976). The latter is the best, though the former is perhaps an easier read.
Author: Yazoo Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:58 pm
Unfortunately, it was Harvey to whom Sugden refers. Thanks anyway.
Author: Stephen P. Ryder Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 12:49 pm
Prince Eddy, circa 1870.
Author: janice pinch Wednesday, 29 September 1999 - 07:28 pm
I Have read that P.A.V. did not die January 1892, that he is roumered to have lived and died in Osborne House on the Isle of Wight in 1930? is there any truth to this? where is Osborne House in relation to the Whitechaple area? I am new to this but I am intruiged by the suggestion he lived in hiding? if this were so, then maybe to hide from punnishment? anyone with any info on the royal conspiracy please e-mail it to me as i am writing a paper on it. thanks very much ! Janice
Author: ChrisGeorge Wednesday, 29 September 1999 - 09:30 pm
Hello, Janice: Yes, and JFK lived on a Greek isle after the assassination with Jackie and Aristotle, and King Arthur and his knights still live below a green hill in England's countryside waiting to ride out in splendour. . . . Which fable do you choose to believe? One of the latest books to pursue the "Royal Conspiracy theory" is "The Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Murders" by Kevin O'Donnell based on the researches of Andy and Sue Parlour (Ten Bells Publishing, 1997) but they implicate J. K. Stephen as the Ripper rather than Prince Albert Victor ("Eddy") himself. This is what those authors say about Eddy's candidacy as Jack the Ripper and his death and rumors of his survival: "Court circulars of the time reveal that Eddy was not in London during the murders. When Nichols was killed, he was at Danby Lodge in Yorkshire. When Chapman was killed, he was at the Cavalry Barracks at York. When Stride and Eddowes were murdered, he was at Abergeldie, Scotland, and even the Queen recorded in her journal that he luched with her on the 30th [September 30, 1888, the day of the 'Double Event']. When Kelly was killed, he was at Sandringham." (p. 130) "Eddy was made the Duke of Clarence and Avondale in 1891, and engaged to Princess Mary of Teck in December of that year. He died the following January of pneumonia which complicated an earlier influenza. Some suggested it was the dreaded syphilis, but there is no evidence to warrant this. . . . Other rumours circulated that he had been murdered to clear the throne for someone more suitable. Reports circulated that his finger nails had blackened before he died, indicating poisoning. Another, curious legend stems from Osborne House on the Isle of Wight. This suggests that a story has been passed down by staff that Eddy did not die in 1892, but was hopelessly insane. He was then hidden away at the House where he died in 1930 and his grave is marked by a plain, marble tablet. Interesting tales, and while not inconceivable, they are without any evidence to seriously back them up. . . ." (pp. 16-17) Chris George
Author: Jill Wednesday, 29 September 1999 - 11:11 pm
Chris George - King Arthur and his pantheon will come back. How dare you say otherwise! (grin, grin) Peace and cheers, Jill
Author: janice Thursday, 30 September 1999 - 11:28 am
Chris thanks for the insight, I am working on a paper for Niagara College, I do truley believe that the ripper's identity was known and covered up, but why? I felt it had to be someone of importance so..... I am looking into people of "stature" to see where this leads me. any suggestions? My actual e-mail address is pinchme@iaw.on.ca for anyone wishing to put me on the right track. thanks janice
Author: ChrisGeorge Thursday, 30 September 1999 - 11:55 am
Hi, Janice: While you may truly believe as you say "that the ripper's identity was known and covered up," I have to tell you that the leading authorities on the Whitechapel murders, writers such as Paul Begg, Stewart P. Evans, Melvin Harris, and Philip Sugden, do not believe that there was such a cover-up. The Royal conspiracy theory has been pretty much discredited. As I noted earlier, there are still some researchers, such as the Parlours, who accept a variation of it, but they are very much in the minority. For my own part, I believe as do others of my colleagues in Casebook Productions, Inc., that the Whitechapel murderer was a serial killer plain and simple--a man who committed the murders for his own sexual gratification. Thus, he was in all likelihood a loner, and one factor in his possibly not being caught was that the police of the day did not understand such a killer. He was the first of a kind, a murderer of a type that we have come to know all too well in our century. For the most part, the police of 1888 seem to have been looking for a lunatic not a methodical killer who was murdering for his own sexual needs. The mysteries in the case exist because that solitary individual was never identified and also because of missing files on the crimes, not because of any attempt by the authorities or anyone else to cover up the facts of who did the murders. The upcoming conference that Casebook Productions will hold in Park Ridge, New Jersey, on April 8-9, 2000, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth" will be partly to show the fallacies of the Royal conspiracy and Maybrick Diary theories and to show Jack for what and who he was--a Victorian serial killer. Best regards Christopher T. George Casebook Productions, Inc. jacktripper@fcmail.com http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/cp_conference_on_jtr/
Author: janice Thursday, 30 September 1999 - 08:27 pm
Christopher, thanks for your input , as you said yourself- there are missing files. where did they go? i do not believe that the police in those days were that unorganized. i honestly believe that it is possible that SOMEONE took vital information from the files. it may not have been much... but a little piece here and a little piece there would be enough to stop the police from adding 2+2=4. i don't mean to say that it had to be a royal, i just didn't want to rule them out. it could have been someone on the police force...they would be able to follow the investigation well enough. it's not like we don't have that type of crime happening in this day and age. besides, from what i gather there were more murders after the 5 attributed to JTR, with same or similar MO. as well as copycat types here in the US, shortly after the whitechapel affair. whose to say that the killer actually stopped? maybe he was killed, died, or moved on. I wonder about his loner status as some "reports" say there was 2 men? how would i go about finding evidence the police had in thier files besides for what is here on-line? is there a solid book or fax # i could try to obtain factual proof? i would like to thank you for all your help though.. i really do appreciate it. i guess that you started out like me at some point questioning everything. janice
Author: Larry Thursday, 30 September 1999 - 10:41 pm
After many, many years of researching Jack the Ripper, one of the few facts I've learned is that the police, as a body, did not know the murderer's name. By as a body I mean that the officers involved in the case did not look at each other and say, "Yes, so-and-so was Jack the Ripper, but we lack the evidence for a prosecution." The same can be said for a cover-up, perhaps even more so. If there had been a cover-up the high ranking officers sure went out of their way to botch their own efforts. Almost every officer advocated a different suspect, and did so openly in many cases. This has been one of the things that has kept interest alive in the case for so long. If I had tried to cover-up the case back then, I and my co-onspirators would have claimed that we failed in trying to capture him - "Well, it hurts my professional pride to admit it, but old Jack beat us as we never did solve that series of murders." See, such an answer leads inquirers no where to go. This did not happen in the Ripper case; indeed, attention was drawn to it by some of the back biting that took place between some of the men involved in the case. Abberline knocking MacNaghten's suicide solution or Smith's indignation over Anderson's claims concerning who the Ripper was. As for the missing files, there are several reasons as to why they no longer exist. Those belonging to the City of London Police were destroyed during the war because of bombing. The Metropolitan Police files were ransacked by souvenir hunters, both then and now - at least until the early 1980s - of which some were returned. Apparently it was not a serious offense for Officers to keep or obtain files on cases they worked on back then, which included the Ripper files since Abberline had a lot of them with him after he had left the Met many years earlier. A reporter noticed them in Abberline's home when he went there to interview the former inspector in connection with the Chapman/Klosowski murders. And, former City of London policeman Donald Rumbelow suggests that the files may have been destroyed quite innocently due to more space needed for current investigation files. Larry S. Barbee
Author: royal? Friday, 08 October 1999 - 12:32 am
evidence suggest that the murders took place on dates that are "saints" days. I suggest Francis Thompson was involved, because the visting royals to the east end whore houses would reveal their morality and undermine their political positions. Since the riots at this time between catholics-protestants it is easy to blame these two suspects. Why threaten one's politcal power by killing and leaving religious graffti in blood? Why reveal themselves if they were trying to hide the fact they were residing in homosexual brothels? No , I don't buy this one, just because they were seen in the area. SEE Francis t.
Author: John Kenrick Thursday, 21 October 1999 - 10:52 am
Those looking for an intelligent and well-researched book on P.A.V. would do well to dig up a copy of PRINCE EDDY AND THE HOMOSEXUAL UNDERWORLD by Theo Aronson. Despite the lurid itle, it takes a rational look at the Prince's possible connections to the Cleveland Street scandal as well as the Ripper case. It makes for fascinating reading and debunks alot that has been previously published. The Prince had many serious flaws, but Aronson clarifies that there is no plausible reason to believe serial killing was among them.
Author: Andrew Morton Sunday, 07 November 1999 - 07:19 am
Hi, I've just noticed your site and thought I'd add a couple of things... Firstly, if "Jack the Ripper" was just an ordinary serial killer, then why are we still talking about him after more than 100 years and why does this site exist? Why was the Scotland Yard file closed for 100 years and how many other files of this type received similar treatment? It can't have been because of the horrifying nature of the crimes as there were many other such crimes taking place in the same area at that period. Were the files on them closed for 100 years? Everyone seems to have their own pet theory and unfortunately this seems to produce an urge to completely rubbish all other theories. In fact, not just the theories but the evidence which tends to support them. However, they also seem to overlook evidence which is inconvenient. One example is the statement that Queen Victoria wrote to the Prime Minister just after the first murder in terms which suggested that she knew it was the first of a series. Apparently she wrote no other letters about any other murders. This is contained in Stephen Knight's book and seems to support his theory that the royal family were involved in some way. However in the rush to pooh pooh Stephen Knight's book nobody seems to have questioned this? Did she or didn't she write the letter? If not then why has nobody mentioned this? If she did write it, does not that support the 'Royal' theory? No doubt sombody will come back on this...
Author: Andrew Morton Sunday, 07 November 1999 - 07:29 am
Just another thought... This whole subject is plagued by people who say things like 'my grandfather once knew a policemen who told him that...' but never actually name names. A. M. Phypers wrote on November 4 1998 that he/she had some information from an old lady, but does not name the dame. Come on A. M. Phypers, who was she? By the way, I notice that there are a lot of people writing to this site IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS WHICH MUST BE THE NET EQUIVALENT OF GREEN INK. Can I ask you to stick to lower case? It's less noisy. Better still, go away. Just because there may be a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that ordinary people want to hear from conspiracy theorists,
Author: Christopher-Michael Sunday, 07 November 1999 - 11:01 am
Andrew - The letter that Victoria penned to Lord Salisbury was actually written on November 10, after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, and not after the death of Polly Nichols on August 31. Knight notes that the letter was written after Kelly's death, but includes the damning statement "you promised me when the first murder took place to consult your colleagues about it," and interprets this to refer to the Nichols killing. However, this really is not supportable. An entry in Her Majesty's private journal for October 4, 1888 makes mention of "six" murders, with "horrible mutilations." Written as this was before the Kelly killing, it shows that Victoria was concerned about the Whitechapel Murders as far back as the April slaughter of Emma Smith, and was concerned not so much with hiding the killer's identity but rather that the lighting, sanitary and police conditions in Whitechapel were contributing to the ease of the Ripper's escapes. To believe that the Queen realised Nichols' murder was the first "Ripper" killing is to give her a perspicacity that almost all of her contemporaries lacked; the general consensus among the public and much (though not all) of the uniformed force was that both Smith and Tabram had been struck down by the same hand as that which slew Nichols, et al. Victoria was merely repeating common presumption. Additionally, while Knight makes much of Victoria's letter to Salisbury, he does not mention her letter to Home Secretary Henry Matthews on November 13, asking "Have the cattle-boats and passenger boats been examined? Has any investigation been made as to the number of single men occupying rooms to themselves? The murderer's clothes must be saturated with blood and must be kept somewhere. Is there sufficient surveillance at night?" Now, unless one wishes to make the argument that the Queen is engaged in a diabolic conspiracy to throw the police off the scent with her queries, this letter makes it clear that she had no more knowledge of the Ripper's identity than any of her subjects. Knight cleverly tries to plant doubt in his readers' minds by insinuating that violent death was so common in the East End of 1888 that for a person of quality to notice it is tantamount to complicity in it (this argument is also used against Sir Charles Warren by those who see his arrival at Goulston Street suspicious). This is simply not true, as a reading of Joseph Loane's "Annual Report on the Sanitary Conditions of Whitechapel" shows, and a fuller description than I can provide here will be found on pp. 70-71 of the paperback version of Bruce Paley's "JTR: The Simple Truth." And as a final note, we might also point out that in the same chapter Knight imputes guilty knowledge to Queen Victoria, he states that the murder of Emma Smith was "so much a part of life, . .the newspapers did not bother to report it." Again, this is simply not true; her murder was reported by the "Illustrated Police News," "Daily Telegraph," "The Star" and the "Daily News" as well as other papers. Knight tells a lovely story, but when he ventures away from known, checkable fact, he simply cannot be trusted. Christopher-Michael
Author: Jeff D Sunday, 07 November 1999 - 11:02 am
Hello Andrew (and Everybody), I welcome your posts, and although I haven't really posted myself here for quite some time, wish you a warm welcome to the Casebook Message boards. There have been some excellent observations posted here in the past, then obviously, there are the few who would interrupt with a great deal of rubbish, wishing only to spoil decent human communication with those of similar interests. Having spent many hours reading and geting involved in discussions in the past, I would like to say how I have had a great deal of pleasure, and have learned a great deal along the way, of the mystery of the Whitechapel murders, and life in general, in Victorian times. Study of this incredibly unique story of Jack the Ripper, is not just about 1-man and his crimes, although we may strive to put a name to the beast. It is also abbout the many facets of life in inner city London, during a period where England, and it's Monarch, ruled the most vast Empire the world had known, and it was considered a great priviledge to be an Englishman. Bob Hinton, in his book, (I believe) sets the scene brilliantly, where upon a background of England being one of the most powerful, richest nations in he world, we have an inner city cancer, of slums, depravation, and poverty causing decent, honest God-fearing people, to sink to the very lowest level of society. Amongst this, we have a brutal, sick fiend, who inadvertantly caused a spotlight to be shone upon the places and people who were forced to live such lives as we could never imagine, from the comfort of our armchairs in our gadget-filled, warm, dry homes. Each of the victims stories, tell of a life that was once megre, but honest, circumstances then force them ever lower into the mean, cruel bowels of this rich Empire, to meet the ultimate fate. We consider the immigrants. Forced from their homelands through famine, and persecution. We learn of the lives of the mighty, and the poor. There are many aspects that make study of "Jack the Ripper" very rewarding, and informative. There have been many suspects put forward over the years. Many with truly honest intentions, with an attempt to remain true to the facts, putting forth their own sincere opinion. There have been others, that are none more than a great farce, with the goal to earn money from a gullible public, nothing more. The deeper I consider this mystery, and with the knowledge that I posess at this time, I am reminded of the many suspects that are actually in the frame. Could I consider (as the mystery writer Agatha Christie, in her Murder on the Orient Express), that there are so few real clues, yet suspicion falling upon so many, that so many are actually involved in the crimes, and there just might very well be a conspiracy in there somewhere ? ....... hhhmmmmmm me thinx ! Jeff D
Author: The Viper Sunday, 07 November 1999 - 11:28 am
Welcome to the Casebook, Andrew. In Victorian times, as today, prime ministers had regular audiences with the sovereign to discuss matters of the day. I find it quite feasible that Queen Victoria asked about, or was briefed about the Whitechapel Murders following the killing of Polly Nichols. This is particularly likely at a time when the newspapers were starting to run riot with their coverage of the story, linking Polly's death back to those of Martha Tabram (only three weeks earlier) and Emma Smith. When subsequently informed of developments, the Queen may very well have been told that the police were treating Smith, Tabram and Nichols as victims as separate killers. Thus when referring to the 'first murder' she meant the first one by Jack The Ripper, (Nichols), who was by now separated from the first of the Whitechapel Murder victims (Smith). In that scenario, there would be nothing suspicious about her comments at all. Regards.
Author: PATRICIA ELIZABETH MAMO Sunday, 02 January 2000 - 04:43 am
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO TELL ME THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE DUKE OF CLARENCE FROM LATE 1887 TO EARLY 1888
Author: PATRICIA Monday, 03 January 2000 - 05:42 am
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE DUKE OF CLARENCE IN LATE 1887 TO EARLY 1888
Author: D. Radka Monday, 03 January 2000 - 11:19 pm
Patricia, Detailed records of his activities were kept by his secretaries. He was basically visiting relatives, attending shipyard openings, and otherwise acting like a prince. These records are available to the public, and most of the good writers of the case have accessed them and incorporated the information into their books. You might consult the bibliographies of Sugden, Begg, or another such writer for the citation. David
Author: ChrisGeorge Tuesday, 04 January 2000 - 06:12 pm
Hi, Patricia Elizabeth Mamo: A detailed rundown of the planned engagements of the British Royal family are listed in the Court Circulars. These details are also printed in the newspapers, then, as they are still to this day, e.g., in The Times, and of course the newspapers also publish articles on the Royal personages' appearances. I would urge you then if you want to trace Prince Albert Victor's movements in late 1887 to early 1888, as you say, to consult The Times, which should be available on microfilm at a good library near to you. Michael Harrison's biography of Prince Albert Victor, "Clarence: The Live of H.R.H. The Duke of Clarence and Avondale 1864-1892," W. H. Allen, London, 1972, published in the United States under the title of "Clarence -- Was He Jack the Ripper?" Drake Publishing Inc., New York, 1974, might also be helpful, but probably would not give you the detail that the Court circulars and news reports would provide. Best regards Chris George
Author: Tom Dacre Wednesday, 02 February 2000 - 10:17 pm
In addition to the above mentioned resources for tracking the whereabouts of the royal family, can anyone give me any clues as to the comings and goings of Prince George (future George V) during the Whitechapel murders? (I don't mean to implicate Bertie's "good son." Just curious.)
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 11 February 2000 - 06:29 am
Hello to everybody on the message board , being at college has given me e-mail access and I thought I would like to contribute to this discussion. I have been a student of Victorian history for over 15 years and been interested in Jack since I read a book as a child talking about the murder of various ' streetwalkers ' who apparently went to pubs and got men to buy them drinks. Ah , the innocent days of youth ! I think we are interested in the murders because it is a real-life Sherlock Holmes case for us to solve , plus no-one who has seen the photos of the victims can remain unaffected ; by uncovering the culprit I feel we can obtain a belated form of justice for these poor girls - the killer(s) will get the infamy they deserve. Anyway , back to Bertie. Is it only me or does anyone else feel that there is some truth in the Joseph Sickert story , I mean the version in Fairclough's book rather than in Stephen Knight ? Is it really all a fantasy ? If anyone has any evidence that Bertie was the father of Joseph's mother could they please send it in , I just can't help feeling that there may be something more in this and that we have overlooked it.Best regards and wishes to you all.
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 11 February 2000 - 10:28 am
Re : My last message (oops). When I said 'Bertie' I of course meant 'Eddy' , i.e. Clarence. Sorry for the mistake and any confusion caused , internet nerves I'm afraid !
Author: susan jessica vickers Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 10:31 pm
hi i am new to this so please bear with me my interest at the moment is how the ripper letters was written,a few show that they were written by someone of good education that can spell and yet some of them are written by someone of very low class that has not got a clue how to spell but there was one i noticed that was written by someone of good education but pretending that they were common and could not spell. one being one trying to write like an east end cockney that did not know how to spell me but spelt it mi but new there was a silent u in guess and one would have thought that a low class person would not know there was a silent u in guess but would spell it gess also in the letter at the top they spelt kidney as kidny and yet at the bottom of the letter they spelt it right can u shine any light on this for me please..... thanks sue
Author: Jade Bakys Monday, 19 February 2001 - 10:37 am
Hi Susan This is covered in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper briefly under 'Disputed Texts', page 106 I think the letter you are referring to is one that was similar in style to the 'Dear Boss, in that it contains phrases from the 'dear Boss' letter. I will quote the book it will make more sense: 'The illiteracy here is starined and unnatural; 'an' for 'and' is a phonetic error, familair to readers of 'Just William'. It is not an error made by a man who writes 'forever,' for example, as one word. 'lern' for 'learn' and 'rite' for right' are substitutions which might be expected in fraud, in that the intended words are irregularly spelled. Experience indicates, however, that such irregularities are ususally remembered and essayed by genuine illiterates'. Although the above doesn't answer your question about the letter you are referring to it might give you an idea of which letters were purposefully mis-spelled, and which were genuinely illiterate. Jade
Author: susan jessica vickers Monday, 19 February 2001 - 06:17 pm
Dear Jade thanks for getting back to me on this matter , i will read the book u suggested and see for myself. It does seem odd though at the spelling mistakes, and i would like to learn more. Once again thank you:-)
Author: Jade Bakys Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 11:44 am
You are most welcome Susan, and Welcome to the casebook. Jade
Author: Jeff Bloomfield Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 10:40 pm
I do have some other information regarding the Duke of Clarence and Avondale, which I had hoped to publish ten years ago, but never did. The problem is I do not know how true it is (although I am willing to accept it as true). However, it does not show him as a homosexual (which much of the innuendo about him suggests him), but as a home wrecker. Jeff Bloomfield
Author: susan jessica vickers Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 06:15 pm
Dear jeff I would be interested in what u did discover about the Prince, I discovered something the other day but not sure whether its a coincidence or not. I went onto the PRO web page and found a document that had writing on it in Prince Albert hand writing in 1849 it was on their exhibition museum and looking at his hand writing and then looking at the writing on the jack the ripper letter it was identical, long curves on the J and Y and the N and R was all the same I think it was the first letter. Sue
Author: Edward A Heselton Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 08:38 pm
As a new member I have a different perspective I hope you all can help me explore. It starts with a genealogical inquiry of my family and led me to the Duke of whom I knew nothing. My father at my request wrote a short narrative about the family and he started with his grandfather, Edward Heselton. Edward was a master mariner and adventurer. He lived in Scarborough, Yorkshire all his life but traveled extensively. According to the narrative he was a great friend of the Duke of Clarence and Avondale and in fact skippered his yacht. The two of them plus Capt.Webb, the first man to swim the English Channel, use to swim in the North Sea and many folks came out to see them. This was the only reference to "Eddy" who as I said meant nothing to me for some time until I did a Google search for him. Quite a search result it was! I am hoping that somewhere I can find a reference tieing the two men together besides my father's writing. Any information would be very much appreciated.
Author: Jeff Bloomfield Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 09:38 pm
To Susan Vickers: I am not an expert in handwriting, so I can't help you with the matter of Prince Albert's signature and Jack's. The matter that I have investigated involved Eddy and a married lady (who was not imprisoned or slaughtered). I hope to eventually publish it. To Edward Heselton: The only thing that I know regarding Captain Matthew Webb (besides his being the first man to successfully swim the English Channel) is that he drowned trying to swim the rapids of Niagara Falls in 1883. Good luck on your research. Jeff Bloomfield
Author: Martin Fido Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 03:53 pm
H'mm... Rod McWade's family traditions seem a little odd since they start by renaming Princess May of Teck 'Princess Mary of Tek'. May didn't become Mary until she was firmly destined to be Queen. Given the necessary proprieties and the urgent need not to suggest the truth - that Princess May was rather desperate to become wife of the heir-apparent to the English throne and not remain one of the daughters of a minor German princeling - I don't think there's any need to fantasise an illicit pregnancy to explain why she didn't marry his younger brother the minute her betrothed died. And since Prince Albert Victor died over three years after the last Ripper murder, his death hardly coincides with the crimes' ending. If Queen Mary's high collars suggest covering up her fiance's monstrous attacks on her throat, would anyone like to suggest that some attempted Ripperian matricide, rather than the traditional explanation, accounts for the neckbands Queen Alexandra always wore to cover a blemish? On the other hand, Mr Phyper's suggestion that suspicion of Prince Albert Victor started among ordinary coppers who were vaguely aware of the cover-up going on in relation to the Cleveland Street male brothel is very promising. Janice - if you ever look back here: speaking as one who has seen the files, they are usually contained in brown folders with printed columns and lines on the front for officers to date and initial when they had them out. And they really moved around, sometimes going over to the Home Office; sometimes circulating among interested investigating officers or other people in the Commissioner's Office. Anybody working on the case could probably hold them for as long as he wanted and take them home to work on, and I'm sure there were police officers and civil servants disorganized enough to get piles of files stuck in their houses and forget to return several. In addition we know that certain important Ripper papers including the 'Dear Boss letter' and the autopsy report on Mary Jane Kelly were taken, along with some Crippen murder papers, presumably as a souvenir - (they don't contain any cover-up data) - and returned anonymously to Scotland Yard in 1987. We suspect that the souvenir hunter was Sir Melville Macnaghten. Around the same time, a former senior officer whom I could name died, and his family returned to Scotland Yard an album of photographs he ahd been using for lecture purposes which turned out to include previously unknown mortuary photographs of three of the Ripper victims. So mising files may point to a poor sense of meum and tuum among some senior police officers, but they aren't evidence of a cover-up. Excellent sense from Larry Barbee. Wish we saw you more on the boards these days. Andrew Morton, if you're still around: the files weren't closed for 100 years (though we didn't learn this until the late 1980s or early 1990s). In the 1950s, somebody noticed that as a technical sub-division of the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police (unlike every other English force) had no right to retain its own dead archives, which should be deposited in the Public Records Office. It was at that point - 1952, I think, - that archivists went throught the files deciding which were sensitive or sensational and putting 50, 75 or 100 year closure dates on the files they thought should not be opened immediately, taking their starting point from the date of the last active paper on the files. In fact the Ripper file was still nominally open: the case has not been solved, and there is no paper decreeing 'No Further Action'. To this day, if a chance like the return of the Dear Boss letter carries the files over to Scotland Yard, detectives with time on their hands - (ha! ha!) - are welcome to have a go at solving the case and closing the file. More excellent letters from familiar names.... Indeed, another board that was a pleasure to read; my complete conviction that Clarence has been convincingly and finally cleared having stopped me from ever looking at it before. Martin F
Author: Janice pinch Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 09:46 pm
Hi Everyone.......I'm Back..... been awhile and I guess I still have some of the same quirks, okay so maybe it wasn't so much a cover up after all.....but since alot of info has resurfaced it leaves alot of unanswered questions still. I often wonder how much more documentation....real or fake will surface. and will any of it provide us with real clues? Someone , somewhere, at some time had to have known who he was. serial killers leave clues so that they can be found eventually. They want someone to know that they have control, therefor they talk, or keep a journal, or a collection of artifacts from thier victims. With all the door to door searches- something might have been found then, that would have been recognized now as just such a collection. Has anyone uncovered any info in this respect?
Author: Ally Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 02:26 pm
Not sure how this message fits in with Prince Ed thread?
Author: Janice pinch Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 06:06 pm
A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO I BELIEVED THAT THE JTR thing was a royal cover up...and you will find notes of the like from the archives....... but with all the info that has surfaced, that is truley questionable now. But as an afterthought, i had been wondering with all the searches, if anything out of the ordinary had been found?