The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“If I'm not mistaken, what you have offered is your opinion. You "don't think" it was a factor, mainly because it undermines your pet theory.”

You’re mistaken on two levels.

1) In concluding that Bond’s time of death was accepted without question as accurate, even if meant ignoring or discarding the evidence of Phillips, Lewis and Prater, who all indicated different times.

2) With your reference to a “pet theory” that I’m supposed to have.

Presumably you mean the theory that has been around for a considerable length of time before I even started researching the ripper case, and which receives wider support than yours? I’m not saying this to have a dig. I’m just stating a reality. Please don’t make "my" theories out to be in any sort of minority when yours are in a considerably smaller one (…is today’s polite request!).

“My opinion of what the Echo wrote has not changed.
Certainly they obtained their information primarily off the streets. Whether it was from witnesses, or talking to an obliging medical man, or by following the detectives around.”

This is all so dreadfully wrong, and very disappointing to read in light of the recent thread you started, in which you encouraged us all to support the conclusions of the Echo in their supposed “disagreement” with the Star (that bit’s wrong too, but less worryingly so than the above). What was all that about, then? Either you endorse what they wrote, or you do your usual – which I’d hoped you’d progressed from – and claim that the police never told them anything, prompting them to fill in the blanks with weird, irrational lies. For the record (again), the Echo may well have obtained some of their information “off the streets” or by following “obliging” medics or coppers (etc), but we know for an indisputable fact that on this particular occasion, they obtained their information “upon inquiry at Commercial Street Police Station”. We also know that it is ludicrously unimaginative to claim that the police never share case-related information to the press. In a perfect world, perhaps.

I respectfully submit that you’re just annoyed that the actual stated reason for Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance” is one that reflects poorly on his credibility, so you come up with an unconvincing excuse for dismissing it as fiction and replacing it with your own “reason” that doesn’t appear in any evidence, anywhere, ever.

“Dr Phillips was never given the opportunity to share his opinion on Kelly's time of death.”

Yes, he was.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881112.html

"Against these statements is the opinion of Dr. George Bagster Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, that when he was called to the deceased (at a quarter to 11) she had been dead some five or six hours."

So much for the suggestion that Phillips was never given a chance to offer his own “opinion” on the time of death. His estimate was between 5.00am and 6.00am, i.e. considerably later than Bond’s. This disparity was recognised and set down in print by Philip Sugden, and one can only wonder at your excuse for claiming that Bond and Phillips agreed on the likely time of death for Kelly, which they unquestionably did not.

“How many other journalists were similarly impressed by the detail?”

The journalist in question was clearly not “impressed” by the detail. On the contrary, he was expressing obvious scepticism about it. Did any other journalist share that opinion? We don’t know, because very few of them expressed an opinion either way, electing instead to churn out the reports from the Central News Agency and Press (“could do better”) Association.

“So long as he had no problem with it then neither should we.”

An appropriate turn of phrase – “so long as he had no problem”.

Unfortunately for your conclusions, as soon as Abberline did start to "have a problem" with the statement (i.e. from the 13th November onwards), it suffered a “very reduced importance” and was thereafter “considerably discounted” and “discredited”. Hence, if you wish to support Hutchinson for the same length of time that (“so long as”) Abberline et al supported him, you’re looking at a few hours, tops.

“The police (apparently) told them "from the same source". Without actually naming the source.”

Impossible.

The police cannot have avoided “naming the source” if they were specifically asked if the “George Hutchinson” named as the author of the account that appeared in various morning newspapers on the 14th was the same “witness” alluded to in the unattributed press account from a day earlier. The police did not sanction the interview conducted with Hutchinson himself, as it provided his name (which the police were evidently keen to suppress) and included numerous embellishments that contradicted and compromised his initial police statement. They would not, therefore, have been anxious to have it published abroad that this version "proceeded from the same source" as their own police-sanctioned release on the 13th November.

The revelation that the 13th and 14th November press reports had a common origin irrefutably qualifies as case-related “inside” information" and it was the type of information that only the police could have provided.

“On the conclusion of their encounter, Kelly may have innocently told Astrakhan that she was "off to get some fish & potato pie, I'm starving".
Once Astrakhan shared that passing comment with Abberline he would have realized, this isn't the killer. The contents of Kelly stomach had not been made public.”

You can’t seriously be suggesting that knowledge of Kelly’s last meal would prove Astrakhan man innocent in the frighteningly unlikely event that he was tracked down and identified. Please talk me through how that would work. How would they have “realized this isn’t the killer”? Because he said so? What if he'd bought the fish and chips himself for Kelly to eat (probably not in “pie” form!) and killed her afterwards, lying thereafter about the circumstances surrounding her last meal?

“You "believe" Hutchinson may have lied - that's more like it.”

I utterly stand by the assertion that Hutchinson’s statement can’t possibly be true and accurate precisely as he related it, but I also acknowledge that while lying is by far the most obvious and likely explanation for this, I can’t conclusively rule out (kan inte uteslutas!) other crap reasons like “confabulation” and “false memory” and other remote possibilities.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

So, Ben!

You have nothing to add, as usual. Well, nothing new or interesting, that is.
No reason for me to reply, thus - I have said what I wanted to say, and it stands.

There is however one very typical and useful example of how you argue, that goes to highlight your debating technique. This is it:

It still wouldn’t have bled enough – once liberated from the body – to create torrents of slippery "awfulness" on the floor.

Here is how you worded the same argument in your former post:

"It would make a mess of the table, but once liberated from the body, was unlikely to create rivulets of gore."

Now, anybody who reads these posts of yours (for whatever reason), will conclude that I have stated that the flesh on the table would have created either "torrents of slippery awfulness" or " rivulets of gore" on the floor.

Which - of course - I have not.

You exagerrate and misrepresent, I´m afraid, as you have done so many times before.

Here is what I have said, word for word, in my posts on the subject, three of them:

1. One of the things that Dew is accused of - for example - is lying about slipping in the gore as he entered the Millers Court room.
It is said that the blood ran down and formed a pool under the bed, and so Dew could not have slipped in it.
But what about the flesh on the table that stood up against the door? Would it not have dripped onto the floor? And is blood not slippery?

2. Why would a great chunk of meat with heaps of blood vessels in it, freshly cut from a body, not drip blood. Explain, please!

3. The flesh is practically hanging over the edge of the table, Ben. Ever heard of Isaac Newton? Yes? Ever spilled a cup of coffee on a table - without having it run over the edge?

In no single post do I stipulate that there were "rivulets of gore" or "torrents of slippery awfulness" on the floor. I simply state that there would have dripped blood onto the floor, making Dews statement that he slipped and fell when he entered Kelly´s room perfectly plausible. I say not a iot about the amounts of blood. Nothing. The excursions into la-la-land are all courtesy of you. Apparently, you have decided to try and wring my completely viable argument from my hands by answering something I have never said.

Does Dew himself say that there were rivulets of gore or torrents of slippery awfulness on the floor? No, he does not. He simply states : "All these things I saw after I had slipped and fallen on the awfulness of that floor."

So he slipped - arguably on blood - and he fell on "the awfulness" of that floor.

Does "the awfulness" have to translate into three pints of blood? Of course not. It could just as well have been comparatively little blood, just enough to make him slip and fall. That doesn´t take much. And THAT could easily have come from the flesh on the table. And when you fall on the blood of a freshly killed woman, you fall on awfullness.

This, Ben, is one example of things that I would like to see way off the agenda if there is to be any useful discussion. Putting things in my mouth does not amount to any fair discussion, constantly exaggerating and misrepresenting hinders any sane discussion and adding intimidation to it along the lines of "if somebody dares to reply, I will grind them down, no matter how long they try to gainsay me" only creates scepticism about your will to discuss matters intelligibly.

Before you live up to these very modest and basic requests, I see no reason to discuss further with you. Fair is fair!!!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
You’re mistaken on two levels.

1) In concluding that Bond’s time of death was accepted without question as accurate,

Never made such a claim.
In fact the police are well aware that medical opinion is rarely a 100% certainty.

2) With your reference to a “pet theory” that I’m supposed to have.

Well, so long as I am only talking with you, it is your theory, not mine.

We also know that it is ludicrously unimaginative to claim that the police never share case-related information to the press. In a perfect world, perhaps.

All from the Echo, concerning the Kelly murder.

So reticent are the police in the matter,...

In spite of the extraordinary precautions taken by the police authorities to keep secret the facts connected with the dreadful mutilation,....

The police gave peremptory instructions to everyone not to allude to the circumstances in the faintest way. Dr. Phillips was especially emphatic in his desire that the investigations should not to be made known.
Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information.

In spite of the Echo, themselves, in print, openly complaining that the police refuse to tell them anything worthwhile, you still choose to maintain that you know different.

Yes, he was.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881112.html

"Against these statements is the opinion of Dr. George Bagster Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, that when he was called to the deceased (at a quarter to 11) she had been dead some five or six hours."

You are joking, right?
You are telling me that Dr Phillips offered his opinion on Kelly's time of death, "before" the Friday post mortem, "before" the official autopsy on Saturday, and "before" he and Dr Bond had been given sufficient time to calculate a reasonable medically based time of death?
In fact "before" he knew anything reliable about the murdered woman?

How would you describe such a reckless comment? - guesswork?

How about me borrowing one of your often used phrases, lets call it "lies & fabrication".

Really Ben, if you choose to use the words of a surgeon to support your theory, have the forethought to use an opinion given "after" an autopsy was performed, not "before".

Let me remind you of the words used by the Echo.
"Dr. Phillips was especially emphatic in his desire that the investigations should not to be made known."

The police cannot have avoided “naming the source” if they were specifically asked if the “George Hutchinson” named as the author of the account that appeared in various morning newspapers on the 14th was the same “witness” alluded to in the unattributed press account from a day earlier.

Ben, his name was already out there.
The police don't need to name him to confirm what is already public knowledge.
All they need to say was "yes".
Is that your confirmation that the Echo gained access to inside knowledge on an active murder case? - a simple "yes"?

The revelation that the 13th and 14th November press reports had a common origin irrefutably qualifies as case-related “inside” information" and it was the type of information that only the police could have provided.

No, it most certainly does not, and was not.

What if he'd bought the fish and chips himself for Kelly to eat (probably not in “pie” form!) and killed her afterwards, lying thereafter about the circumstances surrounding her last meal?

Why would he think it was significant?

I utterly stand by the assertion that Hutchinson’s statement can’t possibly be true and accurate precisely as he related it, but I also acknowledge that while lying is by far the most obvious and likely explanation for this, I can’t conclusively rule out (kan inte uteslutas!) other crap reasons like “confabulation” and “false memory” and other remote possibilities.

I think you just contradicted yourself there.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

In spite of the Echo, themselves, in print, openly complaining that the police refuse to tell them anything worthwhile, you still choose to maintain that you know different.

Are you paying any attention to the actual content of the quotes you're producing? You can't be, because the ones you reference above are concerned solely with the issue of Kelly's mutilations. They complained that the police did not supply them with the full details pertaining to that particular issue. It is ludicrous to extrapolate from this that the police failed to discuss any case-related information with the press, especially when we know for a fact that they did, as the Hutchinson example perfectly and unquestionably demonstrates.

You are telling me that Dr Phillips offered his opinion on Kelly's time of death, "before" the Friday post mortem

No, I'm not.

(Sigh).

You've gone and misinterpreted yet another press article, and accuse me of recklessness instead - an accusation that must extend to Philip Sugden who arrived at precisely the same conclusion I did. Let us try and clear up your confusion. The autopsy – with Phillips in attendance – was conducted on the morning of Saturday 11th, whereas the Times article, in which Phillips expressed his view on the likely time of death, appeared the next morning. Phillips had already conducted the autopsy by the time he offered that opinion, and the autopsy itself was made reference to in the same interview as having occurred the previous morning. I have no idea where you informed the impression that Phillips ventured his opinion before the autopsy, but I think you’ll find yourself in the minority of opinion yet again.

Phillips’ reported opinion on the likely time of death was that it occurred between 5.00 and 6.00am or thereabouts. It does not accord in the slightest with that of Bond, and therefore does not help your brand new idea that Bond’s evidence was prioritized to the exclusion of others. Similarly, your assertion that Phillips shared Bond’s 1.00-2.00am is well known to be completely wrong.

"The police don't need to name him to confirm what is already public knowledge.
All they need to say was "yes".”

They wouldn’t have said “yes” - that’s the whole point. The police did NOT sanction the interview between Hutchinson and Central News. They did NOT sanction the public release of his identity. They would NOT, therefore, have advertised the fact that the “George Hutchinson” mentioned in the heavily embellished Central News interview was the same witness mentioned in the 13th November morning papers, which WAS provided by the police. The fact that they did so with the Echo exclusively assures us that some sort of relationship of trust existed.

“The revelation that the 13th and 14th November press reports had a common origin irrefutably qualifies as case-related “inside” information" and it was the type of information that only the police could have provided.

No, it most certainly does not, and was not.”

Yes it most certainly does, and was (multiplied by infinity, and more times than you’re capable of wrongly protesting to the contrary).

“Why would he think it was significant?”

I’m not saying he would. I’m saying that a hypothetical lie from hypothetical “captured” Mr. Astrakhan about fish and chips would not have “proved” him innocent, or anywhere close.

Hi Fisherman,

I’m not sure quite why we’re getting so bogged down in the “awfulness” of this off-topic issue. I don’t remember even citing this extract from his book as being a particularly problematic one. For all any of us know, he could simply have meant that he tripped over and fell on the floor that had yuckiness elsewhere on it. That’s an acceptable interpretation of his words, and it involves neither gore directly underfoot nor a pack of lies. Let’s face it; the floor was "awful". Indeed, the "awfulness of that floor" was plain to see, regardless of whether or those surveying it happened to be standing directly on a blood-stained bit. More perplexing, perhaps, is Dew’s failure to mention the piled-up flesh on the table at all, especially in the unlikely event that its drippage was responsible for his slippage. All he said about the table was that it was in a bad state of repair! I wonder how he’d react if he saw a unicorn leap over his garden hedge?: “Ooh, that privet needs a trim!”.

Regards,
Ben

[Scott Nelson]

...its drippage was responsible for his slippage.

Pretty funny, Ben. You're good.

[Ben]

Cheers, Scott. I try!

Whether my comedy will work on Scandinavian Crossmerians remains to be seen, though.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I’m not sure quite why we’re getting so bogged down in the “awfulness” of this off-topic issue. I don’t remember even citing this extract from his book as being a particularly problematic one. For all any of us know, he could simply have meant that he tripped over and fell on the floor that had yuckiness elsewhere on it. That’s an acceptable interpretation of his words, and it involves neither gore directly underfoot nor a pack of lies. Let’s face it; the floor was "awful". Indeed, the "awfulness of that floor" was plain to see, regardless of whether or those surveying it happened to be standing directly on a blood-stained bit. More perplexing, perhaps, is Dew’s failure to mention the piled-up flesh on the table at all, especially in the unlikely event that its drippage was responsible for his slippage. All he said about the table was that it was in a bad state of repair! I wonder how he’d react if he saw a unicorn leap over his garden hedge?: “Ooh, that privet needs a trim!”.

Regards,
Ben

Not interesting, Ben.

I made the observation that Dew could well be truthful about slipping and falling on the floor, since the flesh on the table could have dripped blood onto it. Nothing else.

After that, you have been trying your hand at all kinds of farcical escapes, avoiding to simply say:

Yes, blood would have dripped onto the floor from the flesh to some extent, and yes, Dew could have slipped in it and fallen.

There - not very difficult, is it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

All he said about the table was that it was in a bad state of repair! I wonder how he’d react if he saw a unicorn leap over his garden hedge?: “Ooh, that privet needs a trim!”.

Regards,
Ben

Of course, you now paint things out as if Dew specifically spoke of that table, forgetting to mention that there was flesh lying on it, so I think we need to see the whole quotation:

"There was very little furniture, a bed, a table, a chair or two, all in a bad state of repair."

I rest my case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

... the ones you reference above are concerned solely with the issue of Kelly's mutilations.

This (below) does not mention the mutilations. The police are telling the press nothing, and its the same complaint across the board with the press in general. Not just the Echo.

"The house in which the murder was committed stands up a narrow court which at the further end terminates in a cul-de-sac. Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information."
Echo, 9th Nov.

How many times do you need to see this in print?

The press knew nothing that couldn't be obtained off the streets by following the police around and re-interviewing the same witnesses.

You've gone and misinterpreted yet another press article, and accuse me of recklessness instead....

Yes, and my point is quite obvious if you just read what you quoted.

Dr Phillips is reputed to have said "when he was called to the deceased", which means this statement was taken 'before' any post mortem was conducted.

Since we know the doctor was not permitted to share this observation at the inquest and, since we also know he has been quoted as not being willing to share medical information with the press, then we can reasonably infer this comment is attributable to his initial reaction on Friday morning, on his arrival (ie; "when he was called to the deceased".).

Is it necessary to remind you of Philips's opinion:
"Dr. Phillips was especially emphatic in his desire that the investigations should not to be made known."

So lets not assume he only paid lip service to his own words.
Phillips did not talk to the press.

- extend to Philip Sugden who arrived at precisely the same conclusion I did.

Trying to hide in the shadow of giants is not something to be proud of.
Phil Sugden was not one to insist his opinion is the final say on the matter, unlike 'some' we encounter here.

They wouldn’t have said “yes” - that’s the whole point. The police did NOT sanction the interview between Hutchinson and Central News. They did NOT sanction the public release of his identity. They would NOT, therefore, have advertised the fact that the “George Hutchinson” mentioned in the heavily embellished Central News interview was the same witness mentioned in the 13th November morning papers, which WAS provided by the police. The fact that they did so with the Echo exclusively assures us that some sort of relationship of trust existed.

You put great emphasis in trying to convince why the police 'wouldn't', and yet you contradict yourself by saying 'but they did'.

No such 'special relationship' existed, and a simple 'nod' does not qualify as 'case related information', its as simple as that.

I’m not saying he would. I’m saying that a hypothetical lie from hypothetical “captured” Mr. Astrakhan about fish and chips would not have “proved” him innocent, or anywhere close.

This detail, only known to Abberline, holds no significance to the suspect. Therefore, the suspect has no cause to even mention it. An investigator knows what to look for in a statement, seemingly innocuous comments can make an important difference in whether an investigator believes the suspect or not. This is why Abberline would see significance is such an innocent remark.

And "I", never say anything about "proof" (as well you know), I didn't say "it did happen", I said that "it could". Whereas you said nothing could save him - this was incorrect.

[Ben]

This (below) does not mention the mutilations. The police are telling the press nothing, and its the same complaint across the board with the press in general. Not just the Echo.

"The house in which the murder was committed stands up a narrow court which at the further end terminates in a cul-de-sac. Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information."
Echo, 9th Nov.

That's the 9th November, Jon.

Of course the police weren't supplying details at such an early stage, and when they had precious few of their own. To extrapolate from this that the police never discussed any case-related details with the press at any stage is utterly ludicrous, especially when we know for an indisputable fact that information was shared, and not just with regard to Hutchinson's statement.

How many times do you need to see this in print?

You've shown me nothing of value in print, and nor will you in the future, because there is nothing to support your provably wrong opinion.

Dr Phillips is reputed to have said "when he was called to the deceased", which means this statement was taken 'before' any post mortem was conducted.

No!

Really, how hard can this be?

Phillips was not offering this opinion at the time he arrived at the deceased (to a reporter stationed elsewhere in the "awfulness" of that little room?). He was saying that based on the recently conducted autopsy and his initial impression of the body as first doctor on the scene, Kelly must have been dead some five or six hours. Sugden got this, so what's your excuse? You insist that Phillips didn't speak to the press - which is definitely wrong - but cheerfully accept that he divulged his findings to some pressman in mythical earshot just a few moments after his initial examination of Kelly!

Phillips's and Bond's estimated time of death for Kelly did not accord with one another, unhappily for your theory.

Is it necessary to remind you of Philips's opinion:
"Dr. Phillips was especially emphatic in his desire that the investigations should not to be made known."

No, it is not necessary to remind me of this particular opinion because it was expressed on the 9th November, the day of the murder, when no policeman or pressman was likely to spread nebulous details of the crimes to the press. I'm talking about opinions expressed on the 12th November. It should be quite clear that a police silence on the day of the crime itself does not equate to total silence thereafter.

You put great emphasis in trying to convince why the police 'wouldn't', and yet you contradict yourself by saying 'but they did'.

No contradiction here. I observed simply that the police would not have wanted for all and sundry to know about the common origin of their own press circulation, and the embellished, contradictory interview supplied to Central News. The fact that it was supplied to one newspaper only is indicative that they trusted that particular newspaper.

An investigator knows what to look for in a statement, seemingly innocuous comments can make an important difference in whether an investigator believes the suspect or not. This is why Abberline would see significance is such an innocent remark.

You're missing the point. Let us pretend for the sake of argument that the police had Astrakhan man in their grasp. How could they have found a way to prove him innocent of the Kelly murder? You've suggested that this could be achieved by Astrakhan relating the detail that Kelly wanted to get some fish and chips for supper, but this isn't proof of anything. It could have been a lie, and no competent detective was going to release the prime suspect based on an opinion that the "supper" story was true.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

After that, you have been trying your hand at all kinds of farcical escapes, avoiding to simply say:

Yes, blood would have dripped onto the floor from the flesh to some extent, and yes, Dew could have slipped in it and fallen.

I've avoided saying it because I consider it very unlikely, for reasons I won't go into again.

"There was very little furniture, a bed, a table, a chair or two, all in a bad state of repair."

You don't think it's just a trifle odd that the only observation Dew could make about the table was that it was "in a bad state of repair", not that it had piled-up lumps of flesh on it, the blood from which had caused him to slip over?

I find that baffling myself.

Regards,
Ben

[Cogidubnus]

Modern Ripperology's biggest puzzle solved?

Its quite amazing , [and I am as fault as anyone] that no researcher, be it amateur /professional has ever looked through every single Radio times from 1971-75 to find the programme I have mentioned for donkeys years.
I did attempt this a few years back with two members of my family at Brighton University library , but after spending our 90 minute spot, searching frantically through the front pages of countless editions, we unfortunately did not look in the back pages, which a later memory cell informed me we should have done....
I can assure everyone that the article''The man that saw Jack'' is there somewhere, I listened to the programme a few days after I read the article, that is how I knew it was going to be aired.. I remember vividly sitting on my couch, and listening to the tale of Hutchinson the witness, and his vivid description, and at the end of the broadcast, the alleged son of the witness, talked about his fathers tale, and the last words he said,which I can quote..were''It was his biggest regret, that despite his efforts, nothing came of it''.
This is not my imagination, or is it my memory playing tricks on me, I heard that,one hundred per cent....
We must not forget this radio broadcast was approx 40 years ago, it is not surprising members of the family never heard of it. it is even conceivable that the son was not Reg, or his younger brother, but someone relaying what they knew, from a past meeting....it is irrelevant to me, it does not prove that the tale is true, or that George was not a shady customer, or even a killer..what is important is the tale was not invented for the Ripper and the Royals, it was known years before...That is my point.....

Richard Nunweek, after all these years, you may well be vindicated.

During 1972 BBC Radio 4 broadcast a ten part series of programmes called "The Other Victorians" - and guess what? On the 1st June 1972 they broadcast Episode 8 entitled "Who was Jack the Ripper?"

This was a programme, as you correctly recall, on the Royal Conspiracy...

If you want to know more it's all online with the BBC Genome project, which is now up and running!

http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Richard Nunweek, after all these years, you may well be vindicated.

During 1972 BBC Radio 4 broadcast a ten part series of programmes called "The Other Victorians" - and guess what? On the 1st June 1972 they broadcast Episode 8 entitled "Who was Jack the Ripper?"

This was a programme, as you correctly recall, on the Royal Conspiracy...

If you want to know more it's all online with the BBC Genome project, which is now up and running!

http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/

All the best

Dave

Well done, Dave. Even if the BBC don't have it in their archives, somebody somewhere will have tape-recorded that programme.

[Stewart P Evans]

Mystery?

Richard Nunweek, after all these years, you may well be vindicated.
During 1972 BBC Radio 4 broadcast a ten part series of programmes called "The Other Victorians" - and guess what? On the 1st June 1972 they broadcast Episode 8 entitled "Who was Jack the Ripper?"
This was a programme, as you correctly recall, on the Royal Conspiracy...
If you want to know more it's all online with the BBC Genome project, which is now up and running!
http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/
All the best
Dave

Mystery? This is no mystery. The script, by Michell Raper, was broadcast on the B.B.C. Radio Four on 1st June 1972. The whole script was published in 1974 by The Tabaret Press (my friend Jack Hammond) in a limited edition of 100 numbered copies.

Obviously this was at a time when the 'royal conspiracy' was still very much to the fore and it was featured in the script. Twenty-odd years ago Jack gave me his last half dozen or so copies of the script, a small booklet in soft wraps running to 37 pages. I dished these out to Ripperological friends (including one to Paul Begg) and retained one for my own collection. I also discussed the script with Mich Raper, on the telephone, not long before he died.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Stewart

The reference to a mystery was a gentle and humorous "dig" at Richard's radio programme, something that some posters down the years seemed to believe was apocryphal...thank you for expanding