PDA

View Full Version : I read somewhere..


Jason
09-06-2010, 11:10 PM
I read somewhere,( i am not sure whether it was on casebook), that the idea that the crimes were being perpetrated by/on behalf of a Royal family member were discussed at the time of the murders by people in Whitechapel. Does anyone have any info on this ? it would be very interesting to know if that were true, and if so to know where that particular story originated from at the time ?

packers stem
09-07-2010, 02:09 AM
Hi Jason
Paul Feldman in the final chapter mentions Freda Thompson who contacted him to say that her great grandfather was a detective sergeant with the city police at the time of the murders.According to Freda he was called to Mitre Square in the early hours and in the square there were 3 toffs already there well known as belonging to the royal household.
Freda's son said he has known of the story since the fifties and both were interviewed by keith skinner.

Bob Hinton
09-07-2010, 08:56 AM
Hi Jason
Paul Feldman in the final chapter mentions Freda Thompson who contacted him to say that her great grandfather was a detective sergeant with the city police at the time of the murders.According to Freda he was called to Mitre Square in the early hours and in the square there were 3 toffs already there well known as belonging to the royal household.
Freda's son said he has known of the story since the fifties and both were interviewed by keith skinner.

The problem with stories like that is believability. How would a lowly Detective Sergeant in the City force know who comprised the Royal Household?

I think the people he saw were probably senior police officers either from the Met or the City force.

Jason
09-07-2010, 09:32 AM
The problem with stories like that is believability. How would a lowly Detective Sergeant in the City force know who comprised the Royal Household?

I think the people he saw were probably senior police officers either from the Met or the City force.

Fair comment, unless they were all wearing crowns and gowns ! i would love to know if this were true though, there is something about this theory that just gives off a smell of something and this aspect about people at the time discussing it is something which fascinates me. Interesting ......

Jason
09-07-2010, 09:34 AM
Hi Jason
Paul Feldman in the final chapter mentions Freda Thompson who contacted him to say that her great grandfather was a detective sergeant with the city police at the time of the murders.According to Freda he was called to Mitre Square in the early hours and in the square there were 3 toffs already there well known as belonging to the royal household.
Freda's son said he has known of the story since the fifties and both were interviewed by keith skinner.

thanks for that PS, i will have a look for this.

Rubyretro
09-07-2010, 10:13 AM
thanks for that PS, i will have a look for this.

Jason - although Bob may be right, you have have to be very careful of oral histories in families..and even in communities in general, since they are like 'chinese whispers'.

"my Dad used to joke that IF..", "my Granddad used to joke..", " my Grandad used to say that his father recounted..", "My Dad said that he was told..",
"Apparently it is said in the family that..", "It is true that my ancestor.."
Get the picture ?

So Freda might be sincere, but without checking, we don't know that her Great Grandfather went to Mitre Square that night, nor that the three men were there at all, let alone from the Royal Household.

I expect that loads of families have oral histories which link them to a famous person or event or something a bit 'glamourous'...but when they're forensically checked, the links are tenuous at best (in my experience).

Jason
09-07-2010, 11:09 AM
know what you mean, my grandad said that he was on a grassy knoll in November 63 and that he saw everything !

Rubyretro
09-07-2010, 01:18 PM
know what you mean, my grandad said that he was on a grassy knoll in November 63 and that he saw everything !Yes..I was brought up on the Family History of my Mother's Father's family
being descended from Admiral Hardy and there being 'proof' for this with "everything written in a Family Bible somewhere in Wales".

Since, as a teenager, I loved the writing of Thomas Hardy (and I think that he was a branch of the Hardys -maybe even that's not true ?) -I recounted it to everyone.

Also, we have very olive skin and dark hair on my mother's side, and the Family explanation was a shipwrecked sailor from the Spanish Armada was a distant ancestor
(very popular this, with my Mother, on why she needed a second home in Spain !).

Needless to say, the whole lot turned out to be 'shite' :
My Mother's maiden name is Scadden which is unusual enough to be able to trace easily, and when family members started being interested in geneology they could trace the Family way back..since they got in touch with other branches of the Family, also doing research, who exchanged information and research -the whole thing is pretty complete: and sadly no Hardys !

The mysterious 'Bible in Wales' story was true ( I was even noted in it -although I'd never seen or heard of those people -but no Hardys).

Supported by prosaic things like blood groups and physical signs, the dark skin would appear to originate from a Lascar sailor marooned near Cardiff (the family were all Sailors).

Only minor excitement was Russell Crowe on the 'Tree'..and that as a distant branch.

The 'chinese whispers' would appear to originate with the 'sailor' connection..but that's all they were -'chinese whispers'.

This anecdote just proves that a) people will tell you things convincingly believing them to be true, and b) even long held family( or collective) traditions may be
totally false...so we have to take any people talking about JtR after the events with a pinch of salt.

Jason
09-07-2010, 02:58 PM
Did i read that Russell Crowe has his family history in Wales ? I know Kylie Minogue does !! must be an antipodean thing !.....my grandfather's family were from Germany, Bavaria i believe, and i was told as a child that they came to the east end of London when they arrived in the UK. Apparently they were butchers or slaughtermen by trade and thats what they did when they came here. I was also told that one of them was interviewed regarding the Whitechapel murders due to his trade, and also that the fact he was Jewish.....possibly as a result of the Leather Apron event ??? .....but then again the actual truth may be very different as you say....

Graham
09-07-2010, 03:21 PM
Unless I'm totally up the creek, I've long had the impression that all this Royal Conspiracy stuff started with Dr Thomas Stowell who claimed to have seen Sir William Gull's papers early in the 20th century. In these, according to Stowell, Gull claimed that Prince Eddy didn't die of influenza in 1892, but was carted off suffering from syphilis and ended his days shut away in a sanatorium (or a tower in Glamis Castle - who knows?) By some twisted logic Stowell reckoned that this 'proved' that Eddy was the Ripper, doing the murders with Gull in tow. I think Colin Wilson wrote something about Stowe's theory, which Frank Spiering picked up on with Prince Jack. And of course Stephen Knight got on the bandwagon too.

I would seriously doubt if any member of the Royal Family was ever consciously suggested as a Ripper Suspect at the time of the murders - but of course you never know.

Graham

Jason
09-07-2010, 03:34 PM
i know what you mean Graham but i have definitely heard from somewhere that at the time it was being whispered in corners that it was something involving a royal ...if i could find where i saw it then i will definitely post such a link. I dont know if people were as obsessed with conspiracy theories as they are today but it may be the birth of CT's in 1888. The one thing i will always believe is that if there were any semblance of truth in this theory then the Royal Household would have always tried to cover it up, whether they would have gone to the extremes of having those in the knowledge killed to cover it up totally is another matter. But then again, if something is worth doing its worth doing well !!

bolo
09-07-2010, 04:10 PM
Hello Jason, all,

Thomas Stowell's article in the periodical The Criminologist from 1970 most probably was the starting point of the "core mythos" of the Royal Conspiracy with Prince Albert Victor, Gull, etc., but in my opinion, there were some precursors that paved its way, namely Leonard Matters' book The Mystery of Jack the Ripper from 1929. In his book, Matters came up with a certain Dr Stanley who went on a killing spree after his son caught syphilis from one of the victims. As far as I know, Matters did not mention any involvement of the Royals in the case but as Stowell followed a similar approach (just with a different doc and a Royal patient), Matters may have inspired him to do some more research in this direction.

Regards,

Boris

Jason
09-07-2010, 04:17 PM
Thanks Boris, thats more than possible to be a source.

Graham
09-07-2010, 04:43 PM
Hi Jason & Boris,

1] I should think people in the LVP loved conspiracy theories as much as we do - Lincoln's Assassination attracted such theories (and still does) almost from the start. And then of course in the JtR Case there was Queen Victoria's supposedly unprecendented plea to the authorities to catch the swine, this before the Canonical 5 had all been bumped off, I believe, starting rumours there and then that she knew something about what was going on in Whitechapel....

Other Historical Happenings which had tongues wagging at the time must include:

- Death of King William Rufus
- The Princes In The Tower
- The Gunpowder Plot.

I'm a sucker for conspiracy theories, me!

2] I once read Leonard Matters' book (and wish I had copy) and found it rather a good read, even though not terribly plausible. From what I gather about Stowell he was highly suspect even as far as known historical facts were concerned.

Graham

bolo
09-07-2010, 05:12 PM
Hi Graham,

1] I should think people in the LVP loved conspiracy theories as much as we do - Lincoln's Assassination attracted such theories (and still does) almost from the start. And then of course in the JtR Case there was Queen Victoria's supposedly unprecendented plea to the authorities to catch the swine, this before the Canonical 5 had all been bumped off, I believe, starting rumours there and then that she knew something about what was going on in Whitechapel....

yes, I'm also convinced that certain rumours started to spread in the LVP already, especially in light of the political climate of the time. For some of the radicals and socialists of the LVP, the murders must have come in handy as proof for the "nemesis of neglect", caused by the apparent indifference of those in power towards the living conditions of the working class and the poor. It's just a small step from blaming the state leaders and Royals for the squalid living conditions of many East Enders to actually suspecting a member or confidant of the Royal family of the murders, all the more because people already thought lowly of some members of the Royal family like Prince Albert Victor or his father.

This, coupled with the sensationalism of the yellow press (The Star, etc.), must have offered fertile ground for conspiracy theorists of all kinds and classes.

Regards,

Boris

Jason
09-07-2010, 06:14 PM
we have uncovered at least 3 conspiracy theorists from this thread !! i was sure there was at one in here so to get a further two as well as myself is a result !!

bolo
09-07-2010, 06:47 PM
Hi Jason,

I'm interested in the mechanics and and inner workings of conspiracy theories but only from a sociological or maybe even philosophical angle, I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself. :)

Regards,

Boris

Simon Wood
09-07-2010, 09:46 PM
Hi Boris,

Conspiracies are intricate mechanisms and very different from cover-ups which are official arse-covering exercises rushed into effect when things go awry. Conspiracies set out to deceive. Amongst other things they involve a game plan, a strict hierarchical compartmentalization of information [those in the know vs. those not in the know], an official policy of "no comment", careful news management plus the spread of misinformation [a.k.a. disinformation]. Conspiracies are also evolutionary, changing shape and form as day-to-day circumstances dictate. It's an effective formula. All the while nobody outside the information loop is aware of what is really going on and just believes what they're told. And then there's human nature. Conspiracies work so well because in general people cannot bring themselves to believe in them.

In our particular sphere of interest a fact that cannot be ignored is that, in many different ways, shapes and forms, the Whitechapel murders feature all these conspiratorial ingredients. For the open-minded they're all there for the looking. Perhaps if we put them all together we'll discover the game plan. It sure beats trying to identify someone who never existed in the first place.

Regards,

Simon

bolo
09-08-2010, 01:15 AM
Hi Simon,

In our particular sphere of interest a fact that cannot be ignored is that, in many different ways, shapes and forms, the Whitechapel murders feature all these conspiratorial ingredients. For the open-minded they're all there for the looking. Perhaps if we put them all together we'll discover the game plan. It sure beats trying to identify someone who never existed in the first place.

well put, that's right why I'm interested in possible "Ripper" conspiracies and the theories surrounding them. A conspiracy is a meta-puzzle where the single tiles consist of puzzles of their own, solving a puzzle-in-a-puzzle like that needs more than just adding one tile to another, it's all about the viewpoint. If you stand too close or look at it from the wrong angle, you will only see a thin line or nothing at all, if you stand too far, the details will be blurred and you'll only get an abstract picture.

Standing too close also involves the danger of getting sucked into a conspiracy. It's a slow but steady process and some people won't notice it until it's too late, that's why a reality check every now and then is essential.

Years ago, I read Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications (1997) by L. Douglas Kiel and Euel Elliot. After initial problems with its quite heavy mathematical background, I became fascinated by the topic and started to apply what I had read to various fields of interests, among them the conspiracy theories surrounding the East End murders. I sat up a theory that someone who is not a member of the inner circle of a conspiracy (someone not in-the-know) always takes up the position of an interested but basically clueless bystander. The events that take place before his eyes mostly seem random to him, and this is the point where certain aspects of chaos theory could help to reverse-engineer the game plan as you call it.

For example, if we view the Royal Conspiracy (or any other conspiracy theory for that matter) as a complex system of events and strange attractors within the phase space (a mathematical spatial complex where all possible states of a system are represented), it would be possible to logically describe certain events and even "predict in retrospect" possible outcomes and motivations...

...alright, I'll stop now.

Who knows, maybe the key to the case lies in advanced mathematics. :)

Regards,

Boris

curious
09-11-2010, 07:15 PM
Hello Jason, all,

Thomas Stowell's article in the periodical The Criminologist from 1970 most probably was the starting point of the "core mythos" of the Royal Conspiracy with Prince Albert Victor, Gull, etc.

Boris

Hello,
Tracing that old chestnut must be very difficult, but the theory existed before 1970.

I know this because: I graduated from high school in 1967 (in Tennessee in the USA).

In junior high school, say 1960, '61 or 1962, I had a history teacher Miss Brown (I believe Betty was her first name, but am at the moment no completely remembering). Well, Miss Brown was fascinated by the British royal family.

The claim that Queen Victoria's grandson was really Jack the Ripper was one of her stories.

Naturally, I have no idea what her sources were, but I do know the theory pre-dated 1970. Beyond that, I know nothing.

just my two cents.

curious

Rubyretro
09-11-2010, 07:30 PM
QUOTE] Lincoln's Assassination attracted such theories (and still does) almost from the start. [/QUOTE]

I thought that had been established beyond doubt, that it was a Male Model
who'd done it ?

Mayerling
09-11-2010, 09:37 PM
Hi Graham,

Let us not forget these chestnuts too:

JFK's Assassination (take your pick:lol: )
Martin Luther King's Assassination
Malcolm X's Assassination (were the right people "caught" and sent to prison).
The Lindbergh Kidnap - Murder (Was Hauptmann involved at all or a fall guy; if involved who else helped him (i.e.:who was Isidor Fisch?); if not him, who then?)
The Mountain Meadows Massacre (Did John Lee and his associates do it alone, or were they under orders from Salt Lake City?).
The Assassination of King Gustavus III of Sweden (Verdi's "THE MASKED BALL" plot).
The Murder of Sir Edmundberry Godfrey (by Catholics, by Protestants, or by the mad Earl of Pembroke).

As for the death of King William Rufus in 1100, as Conan Doyle might have made Professor Moriarty say, "Deer me, Mr. Holmes, Deer me!"

Jeff

Robert
09-12-2010, 01:06 PM
"Apparently, Watson, an arrow glanced off a tree and struck Rufus dead."

"What kind of tree, Holmes?"

"A lemon tree, my dear Watson."

Graham
09-12-2010, 11:54 PM
Hi Graham,

Let us not forget these chestnuts too:

JFK's Assassination (take your pick:lol: )
Martin Luther King's Assassination
Malcolm X's Assassination (were the right people "caught" and sent to prison).
The Lindbergh Kidnap - Murder (Was Hauptmann involved at all or a fall guy; if involved who else helped him (i.e.:who was Isidor Fisch?); if not him, who then?)
The Mountain Meadows Massacre (Did John Lee and his associates do it alone, or were they under orders from Salt Lake City?).
The Assassination of King Gustavus III of Sweden (Verdi's "THE MASKED BALL" plot).
The Murder of Sir Edmundberry Godfrey (by Catholics, by Protestants, or by the mad Earl of Pembroke).

As for the death of King William Rufus in 1100, as Conan Doyle might have made Professor Moriarty say, "Deer me, Mr. Holmes, Deer me!"

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

JFK and MLK have been done to death, but I still have a passing interest in the Lindbergh Kidnap, and these days I'm more or less convinced that Hauptmann was the man.

Sir Edmundberry Godfrey? Never heard of him! Great name, great plot!

Best,

Graham

Graham
09-12-2010, 11:56 PM
"Apparently, Watson, an arrow glanced off a tree and struck Rufus dead."

"What kind of tree, Holmes?"

"A lemon tree, my dear Watson."

"It seems, Holmes, that the man who should've been guarding William was high on the 11th century equivalent of a spliff".

"A mellow sentry, Watson".

Graham

Mayerling
09-13-2010, 06:38 AM
Hi Graham,

The Popish Plot of 1676 was brought out by the totally untrustworthy Titus Oates, a defrocked Catholic clergyman (he claimed - he probably lied: he usually lied). Oates was working for Lord Shaftesbury and the Whigs to replace Charles II's brother James, Duke of York with his so-called illegitimate sone James, Duke of Monmouth and Bucclueth. Charles was determined to keep his brother (a legitimate Stuart) as heir. Charles II was a pretty smart guy. He questioned Oates and other informers of the plot, and realized they were lying (Charles had secretly practiced Catholicism for years, and knew the crap that Oates was spreading for what it was). But to quiet Shaftesbury
and Monmouth he had the papers that Oates and his fellow informers signed as their testimony given to a leading magistrate: Sir Edmundberry Godfrey. Godfrey began studying his papers, but suddenly he began acting very scared. He did not say why. They he vanished. His corpse was found with a sword through his body and signs of wax on his clothing as well as evidence of being beaten - even kicked. The body was found on Greenberry Hill. Eventually Charles decided to let the Whigs go to far. They started an anti Catholic movement that led to the trials of three men named Green, Berry, and Hill (yes really), who were executed for treason and killing Justice Godfrey. For two years Sharftesbury and his men ran amuck, until the public began to question the truthfulness of Oates and his pals. Charles was wise - the public turned on them and Shaftesbury.

The reason that it remains a great mystery was because we don't know if Sir Edmundberry was killed by Catholics he was investigating, Protestants (led by Oates), or a personal enemy. John Dickson Carr did a study of the murder, and he found that Godfrey had served on a trial as magistrate, and saw it was fair. The perpetrator was a violent alcoholic, the Earl of Pembroke, who was probably responsible for beating to death five men. He had a personal signature, known as the "Pembroke Kick", where he would walk over and kick the victims he killed to death. The marks on Godfrey's body were identical to Pembroke's typical work.

That is the story of this tragedy.

Jeff

Mayerling
09-13-2010, 06:40 AM
Some time after the mourning period for King William Rufus passed, did they throw a stag party?