PDA

View Full Version : Annie and Alice Crook photographs.


avvie
12-13-2015, 01:28 PM
Hope this hasn't already been mentioned. I have searched but couldn't find anything!

I'm currently reading Stephen Knight's Jack the Ripper. The Final Solution.
2 photographs have been included which are apparently of Annie Crook and Alice Crook! I have never seen these before. Found the one of supposed Alice online but searching online i cannot find anywhere anything to do with this supposed photo.

Here is the supposed one of Annie and Eddy's daughter, Alice

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yeahIv7-tUA/T6_itjiGRpI/AAAAAAAAEUc/Akl8_FKJCRc/s1600/untitled.JPG

This is a photo i took using my phone of Annie taken around 1886 (sorry no scanner)

http://i67.tinypic.com/23vep82.jpg

Both photo's as seen in the book

http://i66.tinypic.com/34oczzs.jpg

It does say both photo's are from Sickerts Family Photograph collection.

What are people's thoughts on these?

packers stem
01-05-2016, 11:16 PM
Hi Avvie,welcome to casebook.
Both photos were provided by Joseph Sickert I believe.
Despite many peoples distrust of old hobo I can't see a reason to doubt they were who he said they were.
He had nothing to gain by making it up, nor knight.
However I've seen many argue that because he was officially a Gorman he's made up all of the background.....because, of course, infidelity has never happened in society and if it's Gorman on the birth certificate then it's carved in stone regardless of his own claims...
In truth, we've no way of knowing. We either take his word for it or we don't but Annie Crook and Alice did exist. May not have lived where knight claimed nor followed the life map he claimed but they did exist

Rosella
01-05-2016, 11:48 PM
Joe was quite a fantasist. Who knows if these photos are of Annie and Alice, they could be but coming from such a liar everything is tainted. It's years since I read Knight. Did Joseph also not say that he had a photo of John Netley, the coachman who according to Knight's theory, drove Gull around on his killing spree?

Vanillaman
07-22-2017, 07:51 AM
A liar and a fantasist, really Rosella? And what do you base such a ludicrous assumption on? Oh, I get it. You've been listening to these so-called experts who perpetuate the imperialist xenophobic view of Sir Robert Anderson that "No Englishman could have done it". I have been investigating this case since I was 15. I'm now 53 and these alleged experts have stifled any connection to the British royal family ever since. They viciously attacked Stephen Knight after he died so that he couldn't defend himself. What they also distract you from is that the `only' reason why Joseph Sickert retracted his story to Stephen Knight was because Knight questioned how his father, Walter Sickert knew so much, thereby implicating Sickert himself. Stephen Knight himself was an avid researcher and worked for the BBC. He came across the Sickert story when he was approached by an ex policeman. So, if Joseph Sickert wanted to gain anything by fabricating the whole story, why didn't he present himself voluntarily before he even met Stephen Knight? Have you even read Knights book? Be honest!

I have been attacked on this site for being a dissenting voice away from their silly lunatic theory. They bullied and harassed Melvyn Fairclough for his book, "The Ripper and the Royals" and destroyed his career for making an error. They waited until Knight was in his grave to attack him, all because they believe their royal family are squeaky clean and perfect, when they are renowned for the sexual deviance and they won't even speak about Prince Eddy. They denounced and him and wanted him erased from history.

Ally
07-22-2017, 08:31 AM
I have been attacked on this site for being a dissenting voice away from their silly lunatic theory.

I'm sorry.. you've been attacked on this site? I just looked over your posting history and it appears to be mostly you insulting people for not agreeing with you including one gem which is just you calling someone else an idiot just because they say Fairclough your idol shouldn't be taken seriously.

Now clearly you are a tad unhinged, but I'm feeling generous so I'll just pat you on the head and recommend you go back on your meds. I think they were helping.

Sam Flynn
07-22-2017, 08:40 AM
Stephen Knight himself was an avid researcher and worked for the BBC
He was a journalist who worked on a handful of local newspapers. He did write a couple of books on Jack the Ripper and the Freemasons, which sold extremely well. He appeared in one BBC Horizon documentary which was, I believe, the full extent to which he "worked for the BBC". He was not an ace investigative journalist by any stretch of the imagination.

I might observe that Henry Lincoln and Michael Baigent were avid researchers who worked for the BBC (Lincoln did so frequently), but that doesn't mean that their Holy Blood, Holy Grail was anything other than speculative, albeit fascinating, twaddle.

I've nothing against Knight, Lincoln or Baigent - on the contrary, I loved reading their books and still do. I'm just pointing out that "researchers" and "people who work for the BBC" come in different shapes and sizes, and are as capable of peddling rubbish theories as anyone else.

PaulB
07-22-2017, 09:44 AM
I'm not aware that Stephen Knight was attacked visciously after his death, nor that Melvyn Fairclough, who I spoke to only a couple of weeks ago, had his career destroyed. And I think Joseph is too readilly dismissed as a liar and a fabricator as far as his claim to be related to Walter Sickert is concerned, but then I rather liked Joseph and his family.

Ally
07-22-2017, 09:56 AM
Now Paul, don't go letting facts get in the way of a good outraged victim scenario. Where's your appreciating for a good dramatic story of the downtrodden underdog rising up against the oppressive masses and the nefarious cabals out to silence them through any means necessary? I mean we haven't had one of those since ... yesterday.

Sam Flynn
07-22-2017, 11:34 AM
I wasn't aware that he had an unsuccessful career at the BBC. Can you direct me to the evidence of this please?
You might check out Stephen Knight's credits on IMDB (the Internet Movie Database), online "tributes" and Wikipedia entries. Between them, the only reference to a BBC connection I could find was the one Horizon programme, in which he was a participant. Far from being a "BBC man", he seems to have spent most of his career on the staff of local newspapers in Ilford and Hornchurch, with a brief stint at the London Evening Standard.

PaulB
07-22-2017, 11:38 AM
I'm sorry, Ally. I wasn't thinking.

Vanillaman
07-22-2017, 05:26 PM
Hmm! Interesting that nobody has actually addressed what was said. So much for constructive criticism and the hope of learning something. Instead, all I get is the usual deviations to insults and abuse, which speaks for itself (not to mention what it says about the integrity of this site) so I won't waste my time on trolls. However, I am grateful for the reference to Stephen Knight, although his career at the BBC or the BBC itself is irrelevant. I wasn't aware that he was not an ace investigative journalist "by any stretch of the imagination".... Can you direct me to the evidence of this please?

As for the attacks on Knight and Fairclough... believing that just because you aren't aware of it makes it untrue is defined as `arrogance'. I would suggest doing some research yourself.

Simon Wood
07-22-2017, 05:48 PM
Hi Vanillaman,

I had a face-to-face meeting with Stephen Knight about a year or so after the publication of his book.

His story wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

I knew it, and he knew it.

But that hadn't stopped him from earning a colossal amount of money from a gullible public, always ready and willing to believe the latest old cobblers about Jack the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

PaulB
07-22-2017, 10:37 PM
Hmm! Interesting that nobody has actually addressed what was said. So much for constructive criticism and the hope of learning something. Instead, all I get is the usual deviations to insults and abuse, which speaks for itself (not to mention what it says about the integrity of this site) so I won't waste my time on trolls. However, I am grateful for the reference to Stephen Knight, although his career at the BBC or the BBC itself is irrelevant. I wasn't aware that he was not an ace investigative journalist "by any stretch of the imagination".... Can you direct me to the evidence of this please?

As for the attacks on Knight and Fairclough... believing that just because you aren't aware of it makes it untrue is defined as `arrogance'. I would suggest doing some research yourself.

Your claim to have been ‘attacked’ on this site was investigated and disputed by admin; your assertion that Stephen Knight was ‘viciously attacked’ and that Melvyn Fairclough’s career was ‘destroyed’ were questioned; it was made clear that Stephen was not an investigative journalist for the BBC, as you sort of implied; and I agreed that Joseph’s story shouldn’t be too readily dismissed. All in all, that seems to have been addressing what you said in your post.

I see that you were not aware that Stephen wasn’t an ace investigative journalist. I suppose that unawareness defines you as being arrogant, which is a conclusion some may already have reached from reading your posts.

I regret that I never had the opportunity to meet and talk with Stephen Knight, but I have met and talked with several people who did and knew him reasonably well, such as Richard Whittington-Egan and Donald Rumbelow, and also with people like Simon Wood, whose researches and article in Bloodhound were the first to treat Knight’s story seriously and actually investigate it. I have read Stephen’s book many times since it was published and I have been through his surviving research papers. I met Melvyn Fairclough and discussed The Ripper and the Royals with him before it was published and had the pleasure of working with him on another project for about a year. And I have met and talked with Joseph Sickert and his family on numerous occasions, in fact Joseph phoned me for a chat several times. I think that qualifies as ‘doing some research’.

miss marple
07-23-2017, 01:22 AM
I agree with Simon Wood.
I knew a very close friend of Stephen Knight's who knew him for many years and Stephen did not believe in his own theory.
The more one examines the theory, it fall apart anyway.Annie Crook was not a Catholic.
Gull was over seventy and had suffered strokes, and much much more as most ripperologists know.

Miss Marple

Sam Flynn
07-23-2017, 01:38 AM
I wasn't aware that he was not an ace investigative journalist "by any stretch of the imagination".... Can you direct me to the evidence of this please?
His CV alone is evidence enough - a little over a decade working on local newspapers doesn't elevate anyone into the same bracket as, say, a John Pilger or a Carl Bernstein.

Vanillaman
07-23-2017, 01:47 AM
Really Simon? You really consider yourself to be that important? No, you did not meet Stephen Knight. Your vitriolic anger towards him speaks for itself, so dream on.

harry
07-23-2017, 02:12 AM
I do know of a family,descendents of a person born Crook, who spoke of a royal connection.While no connection could be established with Annie Crook,a search did not find evidence that eliminated the possibility.

miss marple
07-23-2017, 02:31 AM
A royal 'connection' is as loose as working in the kitchens of a royal house.
Not all' royal' connections go anywhere near royalty. Just saying.

Miss Marple

Vanillaman
07-23-2017, 02:36 AM
My gawd, for people who claim to be "researchers" you really show that you do not bother reading. Not one of you has even bothered to reference my link and address the questions it raises. Says a lot for being `objective'. So you consider yourself to be a researcher, do you? In quoting me about Knight not being aware that he wasn’t an ace investigative journalist, you completely ignored the rest of the quote, i.e. requesting the evidence to substantiate this. Nor, have any of you addressed the original post. You are clearly upset that your credentials have been challenged. I responded to a comment calling Stephen Knight a `liar' and a `fantasist' since it sums up the general approach of this site. Stephen Knight died shortly after his book was published and was immediately attacked by the likes of the deluded egomaniacs on this forum who laughably consider themselves `experts' and make wild claims about knowing him or his family. I was defending a man who cannot defend himself against the vultures who are so rigorously opposed to a `royal' connection to the ripper murders. I referred a link to my blog in the hope of stimulating further information. If you had bothered to read it, you would see that it was the ripper murders that started me off in my quest of investigating conspiracies objectively when I was just 15 years old. I am now 53 and when supporters ask why I haven't wrote my book on the ripper murders yet, I tell them that it is utterly pointless since almost every book written so far advocates that some `lunatic' (foreign) was able to outwit the mighty British Empire, two of the worlds leading police forces and generations of history since. It is also because being an "objective" researcher, I cannot commit to writing my books until I am convinced I have `all' the information to substantiate my findings. And, if you as a `researcher' had bothered to follow the link you would see that my blog, website and films produce evidence, with an approach of `ongoing' investigation. That is what "Objective" research is. I respect Donald Rumbelow, but nobody ever offers anything tantalising worthy of further investigation. It is stagnant. Instead this cabal who are fiercely defensive of the British royals erect walls to oppose any dissenters.

Any new JTR researcher/investigator hoping to find honest or credible `information' on the ripper murders on this site doesn't stand a chance.

PaulB
07-23-2017, 02:56 AM
That post simply reeks of objectivity.

Sam Flynn
07-23-2017, 02:56 AM
I am now 53 and when supporters ask why I haven't wrote my book on the ripper murders yet, I tell them that it is utterly pointless since almost every book written so far advocates that some `lunatic' (foreign) was able to outwit the mighty British Empire, two of the worlds leading police forces and generations of history since.
Your assertion that almost every book about the Ripper advocates a (foreign) lunatic is simply untrue, as even a cursory search of the literature should make clear. If anything, most of the suspect-based books I can reacall argue in favour of British suspects, by no means all of them lunatics either.

Whatever his ethnicity and state of mental health, the idea that the killer was able to outwit the British Empire and two of the world's leading police forces is hardly unique to the Ripper case. There were a significant number of crimes, murders among them, that went undetected, then as now. Are we to posit a royal conspiracy to account for those?Instead this cabal who are fiercely defensive of the British royalsNo danger of that from me. I'm a republican.

Herlock Sholmes
07-23-2017, 03:21 AM
After reading Vanillamans post I can only congratulate him for managing to cram so much drivel into such a tight space. Very impressive!

Vanillaman what the hell are you talking about?! Is the extent of your 'reasoned approach' just saying "no you haven't," when Simon Wood says that he met "Stephen Knight?" How the hell can you know who Simon has or has not met? Everything you say reeks of the delusional conspiracy theorist. You are the perpetual 'heroic victim.' "Oh woe is me! I'm bravely speaking out honestly when all around are trying to damage me! Boo-hoo!" We are all aware of the type of person that you so obviously are. You hint that you have knowledge that the rest of us don't but you keep coming out with excuses why you haven't 'revealed' them. And you know what? You never will and we all know it. And why? Because you have nothing. Zero. And because you are just one of those people who feel that you are superior to everyone else and that the rest of the world doesn't give you a sufficient level of respect. I suspect that you spend quite a lot of your life angry or outraged at perceived injustices. Strangely enough, in that respect, you have something in common with Lee Harvey Oswald. Ironic eh?

The 'Royal Conspiracy' theory has been exposed by proper researchers. People who 'quietly' search through records and follow the evidence wherever it takes them. They don't look to find some way of discrediting the 'evil' British Empire or the Government. They do not have an agenda. A blind man could see that you do!

Herlock

Elamarna
07-23-2017, 06:10 AM
Really Simon? You really consider yourself to be that important? No, you did not meet Stephen Knight. Your vitriolic anger towards him speaks for itself, so dream on.

Such a comment is to deny an historically established fact.
On what evidence do you base the claim Simon never met Mr Knight?
All I see is a series of posts showing no objectivity at all with regards to anything. Just a somewhat amusing obsession with the Royal connection and cover up.

Steve

David Orsam
07-23-2017, 06:35 AM
Mind you, Simon says in his post that he met Stephen Knight "a year or so" after publication of Knight's book (in 1976) whereas, in the introduction to his book, he says the meeting occurred "A few years later".

That's precisely the type of inconsistency that Simon loves to find in newspapers about events from 1888 and then leave the implication hanging that someone wasn't telling the truth.

I have no doubt that Simon did meet Knight as he claims but I'm rather more dubious about his claim that Knight knew that his story "wasn't worth the paper it was written on", i.e. Simon says in his above post: "I knew it, and he knew it."

Here is what Simon said about his encounter with Knight in a post on JTR Forums (in thread 'The Final Solution') on 27 March 2009:

"Don also introduced me to Stephen Knight. Despite having read my research he didn't back off one inch, firmly maintaining that he was right and I was wrong. There was little point in arguing, so we shook hands and declared a draw. He was a very sociable chap."

For me, the ultimate irony is that Simon ended up publishing his own load of old cobblers about Jack the Ripper, as I have demonstrated elsewhere.

Herlock Sholmes
07-23-2017, 08:20 AM
Do we think that it's at least true that Joseph was actually Walter's son? Cornwell, if I recall correctly, seemed to show that Joseph was receiving royalties of some kind for the Sickert estate?

Regards
Herlock

harry
07-23-2017, 05:50 PM
The conection I wrote of, was by family connection,not someone working in a palace kitchen.Because this family was never the subject of investigation,they were never approached,they could never be eliminated as related,in some way,to Annie Crook.
Thereis only one member of that branch of the family left.He lives in Cornwall.
I have his address.

miss marple
07-24-2017, 07:29 AM
There is no evidence for the Royal Conspiracy, it is made up of lies, gossip and fake history. It collapses like a house of cards when examined properly.

harry
07-24-2017, 05:33 PM
Miss Marple,
And you have examined it properly,investigated every possibility,talked to every Crook family member that may be related to Annie Crook,listened to every rumour?
Now I do not believe in the conspiracy as far as the Ripper murders,but belief is not knowledge of.

Simon Wood
07-24-2017, 06:06 PM
Hi Harry,

The Prince Eddy/Annie Elizabeth Crook/Walter Sickert/Joseph Sickert story is complete and utter horsefeathers.

Sunday Times, 18th June 1978.

Regards,

Simon

Henry Flower
07-25-2017, 12:36 AM
I think it's time for some honesty here. Vanillaman is right.

Every month the the chief researchers and theorists who contribute here have a secret Skype conference during which they trawl through the site to determine whether anyone is saying things that could imperil the survival of the royal family, the establishment, and the British Empire. Covering up the royal connection is the chief and underlying principle of all their efforts. It is the raison d'etre of this site.

Paul Begg communicates weekly with Her Majesty's Chief Equerry to update him on the latest developments in Ripperology's ongoing cover-up, and to receive news of the latest serial killings and sex attacks carried out by Andrew, William, and Harry.

Keep up your brave struggle for the truth, Vanillaman. You're onto them, and they're scared.

GUT
07-25-2017, 12:52 AM
I think it's time for some honesty here. Vanillaman is right.

Every month the the chief researchers and theorists who contribute here have a secret Skype conference during which they trawl through the site to determine whether anyone is saying things that could imperil the survival of the royal family, the establishment, and the British Empire. Covering up the royal connection is the chief and underlying principle of all their efforts. It is the raison d'etre of this site.

Paul Begg communicates weekly with Her Majesty's Chief Equerry to update him on the latest developments in Ripperology's ongoing cover-up, and to receive news of the latest serial killings and sex attacks carried out by Andrew, William, and Harry.

Keep up your brave struggle for the truth, Vanillaman. You're onto them, and they're scared.

Actually Harry I think you'll find Paul on speaks directly to Phil, who is tasked with protecting such secrets.

And you forgot George's escapades.

Herlock Sholmes
07-25-2017, 01:45 AM
I think it's time for some honesty here. Vanillaman is right.

Every month the the chief researchers and theorists who contribute here have a secret Skype conference during which they trawl through the site to determine whether anyone is saying things that could imperil the survival of the royal family, the establishment, and the British Empire. Covering up the royal connection is the chief and underlying principle of all their efforts. It is the raison d'etre of this site.

Paul Begg communicates weekly with Her Majesty's Chief Equerry to update him on the latest developments in Ripperology's ongoing cover-up, and to receive news of the latest serial killings and sex attacks carried out by Andrew, William, and Harry.

Keep up your brave struggle for the truth, Vanillaman. You're onto them, and they're scared.

I knew it Henry ! :scratchchin:

Herlock

harry
07-25-2017, 01:46 AM
Simon,
I would say so too,except that the rumors predate Knight's investigations by many years,and did not originate with Joseph Gorman,but a person named Crook.Coincidence maybe,but 1939 was the year I first heard the rumours,jokingly given I believed at the time,and then more convincingly later, by another person relative to that family,and from a much earlier period.
In later times I was given another piece of information,not incriminating,but more suggestive,that may be a pointer to that family's connection to Gorman/Sickert/Annie Crook.
To all the humourists I will say this.I have the address of the,I believe,last survivor of that Crook Family.I know he came into possession of belongings when the eldest and last daughter of that Crook family died.
I will give that address,in Corwall,England,to any serious member of these boards willing to visit and talk with this person.
How about you,Simon?

Robert
07-25-2017, 08:11 AM
Actually, the root of the cover-up is the proprietor of these boards. I have researched Mr Ryder's family tree, and I find that he is descended from Lord Darcy Ryder, of Barking Creek. I understand that Mr Ryder has in his possession a very long scroll (twelve metres when fully unrolled) which details his royal lineage. I also understand that Mr Ryder intends to travel to London to proclaim himself the rightful King. In this he is being egged on by his wife, who wants to become Queen in order to ban black pudding.

Sam Flynn
07-25-2017, 09:17 AM
In this he is being egged on by his wife, who wants to become Queen in order to ban black pudding.
Queen Mean the First

Henry Flower
07-25-2017, 09:56 AM
Actually, the root of the cover-up is the proprietor of these boards. I have researched Mr Ryder's family tree, and I find that he is descended from Lord Darcy Ryder, of Barking Creek. I understand that Mr Ryder has in his possession a very long scroll (twelve metres when fully unrolled) which details his royal lineage. I also understand that Mr Ryder intends to travel to London to proclaim himself the rightful King. In this he is being egged on by his wife, who wants to become Queen in order to ban black pudding.

My God, but this is diabolical! Truly Shakespearean!