How far they could have gone?!

[Sasha]

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here. If Gull - on behalf of the Royal family - is not the killer, why is he depicted as the ripper in both Michael Caine's "Jack the Ripper" in 1988 and in Johnny Depp's "From Hell" more recently? If there are better, more viable, suspects then why not frame these films around them? Sure you can argue that these films are not documentaries but still why not choose a "better" suspect as the main character?

[Dan Norder]

Some-one noticed this was how FreeMasons spelled it.

There's never been any evidence that the Freemasons used the word Juwes (or Jewes for that matter). It appears to be something Stephen Knight made up for his book.

Sure you can argue that these films are not documentaries but still why not choose a "better" suspect as the main character?

"Better" as judged by historians and people concerned with reality isn't the same yardstick as used by fiction writers and film directors. People making and watching entertainment general aren't concerned with what actually happened and what is it all even remotely plausible. That's too much work. They want to have fun, not use their brains.

This, incidentally, is the reason why Patricia Cornwell's theory about the Ripper, along with many other authors in this field, are so ridiculous. They approach writing from a fantasy fulfillment mindset ("What would be most dramatic to happen here?" or "How do I get things moving toward the ending I already have in mind?").

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Dan!

I might add:

"And the lab, I paid for, confirmed my results!"

All the best
Jukka

[joelhall]

the two biggest problems with a conspiracy of this nature as i see it are...

why would they other with these murders? its pointless sending out a 'message' when noone knows youre doing it. theyd just have made them disappear.

if it was this high-level wed probably never have heard of it in the first place.

plus theres no evidence anyway...

joel

[Jeff Leahy]

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here. If Gull - on behalf of the Royal family - is not the killer, why is he depicted as the ripper in both Michael Caine's "Jack the Ripper" in 1988 and in Johnny Depp's "From Hell" more recently? If there are better, more viable, suspects then why not frame these films around them? Sure you can argue that these films are not documentaries but still why not choose a "better" suspect as the main character?

Hi Sasha

If I were you i'd leave conspiracy theories..they usually crumble on the grounds that those in authority are incompident..rather than capable of maintaining deceit...so, 911, princess dianna, kennedy...forget it.

However there is sometimes smoke, with the odd tender of fire.

We should be careful of dismissing every detail without question.

Prince Eddy for instance did have an affair in india, and an illegitimate son. Whom the royal family never recognised and denied existed. He was cut out and died broke.

So there may be some truth, entwined in the smoke screen...

The problem is seeing it.

Yours Jeff

[Iain Wilson]

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here. If Gull - on behalf of the Royal family - is not the killer, why is he depicted as the ripper in both Michael Caine's "Jack the Ripper" in 1988 and in Johnny Depp's "From Hell" more recently?

Because, as someone said earlier, it makes for a good STORY. Some of the other suspects, whilst more plausible, don't have the same draw and dramatic potential as a conspiracy that includes the very highest movers and shakers in the land! What's going to be more appealing to an audience (especially an audience that knows NOTHING about the crimes) - secret societies, a royal baby, clandestine marriages, a monarchy on the brink of revolution, shadowy police officers and a murderous doctor; or a local with mental problems murdering women for his own twisted reasons?

For the facts we read stuff like Sugden's Complete History. For enterainment Allan Moore's From Hell makes a good read!

[nancyrowina]

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here. If Gull - on behalf of the Royal family - is not the killer, why is he depicted as the ripper in both Michael Caine's "Jack the Ripper" in 1988 and in Johnny Depp's "From Hell" more recently?

Sorry to contradict but in "From Hell" didn't they go with it was a free mason surgeon who was developing a degenerative nerve disease that was making him shake so he wouldn't be able to do surgery anymore so he went mad and killed loads of prostitutes under the supervision of other free masons? I don't actually remember the Prince being involved in that movie.
I may be wrong please correct me if I am, I was so horrified by Johnny Depp's shockingly bad cockney accent in that movie I had to keep averting my eye's and groaning so I may have missed something.
I remember he (the ripper) gave one of the women grapes and there was coach involved but are you absolutely sure the prince was involved as I only remember the surgeon.

[Dan Norder]

Hi Nancy,

The part you remember is right, but the impetus for the Freesmason surgeon you refer to (same as the Dr. Gull referred to earlier) to start the killings in the first place was to silence some women who knew about the fact that the prince had a quickie marriage and a child with a poor East End girl.

[Christine1932]

The whole theory is rubbish. 1988 TV series has wonderful costumes, sets and photography and atmosphere could be cut with Jack´s knife. But the Psycho-logy and theory of Gull as the Ripper belong in the Whitechapel sewers.

[RavenDarkendale]

How far could they have gone? There is no upper limit on how far people will go to cover the tiniest suggestion of scandal. However...

Let us assume that Prince Eddy did, indeed have a child by a prostitute. He would hardly be the first Royal to do so. His own father had mistresses and children by them. Despite the Wiki entry that states Edward never acknowledged any illegitimate children, I have read that "Bertie" was unusual in that he doted on all his children, bastards included. I have also read that when "Bertie" lay dying, Queen Alexandra sent for his mistresses and kids to say goodbye.

Arrangements were usually made for Royal bastards to be given the means to live comfortably but not extravagantly, education provided, etc. with the warning to say nothing of their Royal parent. Eddy's health and simple mind were a far greater worry to the Royal family than if he entered an unwanted marriage and had bastard children.

Would they have gone so far as the bloody terror of 1888? Yes. But it was not necessary and therefore unlikely to have taken place. Was Eddy "offed" by the Royal Family because they felt him unfit for the throne? Certainly possible, but there was an influenza pandemic at the time of his death, and pictures shot of him close to his death show him looking gaunt and ill. I think it unlikely that the Royals would seek a wife for someone they had no intention of allowing to ascend the throne.

God bless

Raven

[Smoking Joe]

Not that Im subscribing to the Royalty theory...Im not ,but If a member of the Royals WAS the Ripper ,the public would never be allowed to know,and an alibi would of course be in place to prove it was not so.....I mean being at sandringham ,or on a cruise at the time of any of the murders would be a cast iron defence.The alibi would be easy to construct ,giving the circles royalty moves in,and almost impossible to disprove. You pays yer money,and you takes yer choice.

[Cogidubnus]

Erm...no!

If the court minutes (published in the newspapers) said that Prince Eddie was at Balmoral for a social do (8 hours train ride away from London plus local travel) for one of the murders, then there were probably countless servants, guests etc who could've testified otherwise if it wasn't true...how are you on grassy knolls?

All the best

Dave

[London Fog]

To all of you with such great secret knowledge, can you tell us, with irrefutable proof, who JTR was? I mean, if you know for sure who he WASN'T, then you must know who he WAS. At least Stephen Knight gave reasons why he believed what he said, unlike many here who's favorite word is "rubbish." The truth is, you don't know who Jack the ripper was, and you don't know who he wasn't. Otherwise you would show your proof.

[GUT]

To all of you with such great secret knowledge, can you tell us, with irrefutable proof, who JTR was? I mean, if you know for sure who he WASN'T, then you must know who he WAS. At least Stephen Knight gave reasons why he believed what he said, unlike many here who's favorite word is "rubbish." The truth is, you don't know who Jack the ripper was, and you don't know who he wasn't. Otherwise you would show your proof.

Did you even read Dave's post above yours.

Knight's little idea has been rejected because the evidence doesn't support it.

Applying your logic, "You don't know who it was, so you don't know who it wasn't" is simple faulty logic, many people can be excluded, those who weren't alive, those who can be shown to have not been in London on relevant dates, those who can be proven to have been in prison or asylums at the times, you see many people can be said with great confidence "Not him".

[London Fog]

Did you even read Dave's post above yours.

Knight's little idea has been rejected because the evidence doesn't support it.

Applying your logic, "You don't know who it was, so you don't know who it wasn't" is simple faulty logic, many people can be excluded, those who weren't alive, those who can be shown to have not been in London on relevant dates, those who can be proven to have been in prison or asylums at the times, you see many people can be said with great confidence "Not him".

I agree with you. So show me where Gull was in prison, or in an asylum, or on a voyage at the times of the murders. Show me the same for Nettley or Sickert.