A cover up by the men that murdered Princess Diana

[kennyo]

I'm a member of many other forums mostly automotive and IT related but have to say this is the first forum i've been on that seems to be degraded down to the level of barryboys(website) with the in fighting between forum posters. I'd have liked to think that people on this website were of better reasoning and civility?

Why don't you both keep on topic instead?

Mr Twibbs,

You are quite right, I have been waylayed and stooped to the gutter level of this man. He has his victory if that is his intention. Thank you for pointing out the errors of my ways, I will no longer rise to his bait.

Kennyo

[claire]

'Waylaid.' 'Colin Powell.' $1m = 7 figures. Thank God for subs.

[Supe]

Claire,

'Waylaid.' 'Colin Powell.' $1m = 7 figures.

Obviously, a large portion of that million dollar advance must go for hiring a brilliant and long-suffering copy editor. LOL.

Don.

[Zodiac]

'Waylaid.' 'Colin Powell.' $1m = 7 figures. Thank God for subs.

Hi Claire,

Hey!!! It must be that Pat Cornwell woman!!! Just think of the brass that you could earn going through her new 6/7/8 figure sum grossing best seller!!! Oh, by the way, have you heard that she will be publishing it under a new pen-name? What was it again? Err... Karen... something, I think. Err... Karen Trenouth??? Something like that anyway!!!

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

[kennyo]

'Waylaid.' 'Colin Powell.' $1m = 7 figures. Thank God for subs.

I stand corrected, thank God for editors!

[kennyo]

Claire,

'Waylaid.' 'Colin Powell.' $1m = 7 figures.

Obviously, a large portion of that million dollar advance must go for hiring a brilliant and long-suffering copy editor. LOL.

Don.

Just goes to prove you don't need to be able to write to be an author. Just good dreams and a vivid imagination.

[Bob Hinton]

?

Why don't you both keep on topic instead?

Couldn’t agree with you more and that is exactly what I have tried to do. If you look at my very first post on here you will see that I point out errors in Kennyos opening post. But instead of acknowledging these he has just ploughed on making more and more errors. Whenever I point these out he just goes off in another direction.

For example he made a statement that the killer had to have help; it’s there in his own words. When I asked him to provide some sort of proof for this statement he just jumped off into fantasy land about how he was a world class author getting million dollar advances.

It’s very difficult to stay on point if the poster will not offer anything to back up his ideas and theories and just resorts to personal attacks. For example he calls it “A cover up by the men who murdered Princess Diana”, in other words he is asserting that Diana was murdered. Does he offer any proof to back up his assertion? He read a book once that said she was so there!

He makes some comment about a book I wrote being difficult to get hold of and demands to know why in a most strident way. I politely ask him which book he is referring to – has he answered? No he’s just gone off in another direction.

I fully support staying on point and wish he would do so. Here is my stance once again, let’s see if he answers this time or makes some childish excuse and runs for cover.

Kennyo,
In your first posting you made several errors of fact. Will you now acknowledge these and explain how you came to make them.

You accuse PAV of being involved in the murders, will you now give some evidence to back your theory.

Now Mr Twibbs how can I be more reasonable than that?

[MrTwibbs]

Now Mr Twibbs how can I be more reasonable than that?

very fair and also diplomatic as possible.
My comment asking you both to try to keep on topic was me being diplomatic as I didn't want to single an individual out or be accused of taking sides. I'm just neutral observer trying to learn as much as possible and like things that stay on track rather than going down the route of keyboard warrior arguments.

Constructive replies help the less knowledgeable such as myself.

[Bob Hinton]

Grateful thanks

very fair and also diplomatic as possible.
My comment asking you both to try to keep on topic was me being diplomatic as I didn't want to single an individual out or be accused of taking sides. I'm just neutral observer trying to learn as much as possible and like things that stay on track rather than going down the route of keyboard warrior arguments.

Constructive replies help the less knowledgeable such as myself.

One does try does one.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Kennyo,

I think that one problem with conspiracy theories is that a great deal of circumstantial evidence has to be used to back up the case. It also has to be fed to the reader logically and persuasively.

If we read any book about JtR that promotes a suspect, the author starts off with known facts, in the hope of getting the reader at least partly on side, and then suggests the circumstantial evidence that dovetails with the known facts, to try and convince the reader that they have reached the right conclusions.

If the author is good enough at his or her craft, he/she will have been able to make a good case for his or her chosen suspect, even if it's rejected by a certain percentage of readers. If it's a good read, people will still get something out of it.

Presumably if you have a publisher that is willing to offer that amount of money as an advance, you've written a book that's convinced the publishers at least, that you do have a very good case. The problem is, no-one here has seen any evidence that you have a workable theory, so are obviously very skeptical. Add to that the fact that you have no track record in the Ripper community then you're bound to have trouble persuading anyone that you are worth taking seriously.

Obviously we wouldn't expect you to give away all of your secrets, but we do expect that you provide us with something that gives us some confidence in you as an author.

If you aren't willing or able to do that, then perhaps it's just best to leave the topic until your book comes out and then when people have read it, they can discuss your theory from a more solid foundation.

Regards

Jane

[Bob Hinton]

And from Kennyo...

answer came there none!

Jane I love your slogan!

[Phil H]

I read Kennyo's initial post at the time it was written, but until now have not had an opportunity to comment on it.

The theory I am leaning towards is Prince Albert Victor and his partner in crime, (I think) James Kenneth Stephen.

Without new evidence or material there's nothing new there then. This has been done before, unconvincingly.

....Hyde Park and St James's Park which were in fact huge wooded areas back then.

So far as I am aware, apart from the construction of the Mall and the Victoria Memorial, the areas of the Royal Parks has changed little - if at all - since PAV's day. St James' Park was laid out by Charles II and hasn't been used for hunting since. Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens - the haunt of Barry the site of Rotten Row has similarly been a public space all the time. Does Kennyo think that PAV was one of the Tudor's perchance, when his remark might have been accurate.

... the holes they pick can be easily explained by two words - cover up.

Which of course, makes the one promoting a theory have to work harder to produce the evidence of a cover-up. As has been said so many times, there is none here.

...the establishment had absolute power to cover up scandals using whatever means were necessary, including murder.

Hardly so, and I'd like to know what basis the allegation is made. There is absolutely no evidence of the "scandals attaching to PAV's father, The Prince of Wales (POW) being covered up, except in the most obvious ways - attempts to get blackmail letters from George Lewis, would be an example. There is no trace of Daisy Warwick and Charles Beresford being murdered! The POW even had, embarrassingly, to appear in the law courts a couple of times, much to his mother's known indignation.

Some of the unconnected murders not attributed to 'The Ripper' were alledged to have been carried out by agents of the Palace

Anyone know where these "allegations" have been made?

One only has to look at the murder of Princess Diana, (shock horror) to see the power that the Establishment has.

Typically, Kennyo makes an assertion without factual basis and one that has been explored thoroughly.

I suggest you take a look at a book quite honestly called. "The Murder of Princess Diana" by Noel Botham to see how the Establishment works.

This requires an assumption that Mr Botham knows his stuff and has confidential sources - even that his argument has force or weight, which I doubt. But precisely how is the "establishment" defined? There are several ways the terms has been used since it was coined after the war, but all rather general.

It goes on today and there is no doubt it went on during the Autumn of Horror in 1888.

What goes on today? I can think of occasions when the "establishment" has acted - the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936 being a case in point - but even in those days when the "upper classes" were still largely those in positions of power, I would point out that Mrs Simpson was NOT killed. And she and the, by then, the Duke of Windsor, were much more of a danger than Princess Diana ever posed.

I think the errors re dr Stowell have already been dealt with, so I'll pass over them.

Dr Gull...held the key in his documents which were at one time ere held at the New York Academy of Medicine.

My understanding was that the Library had long since checked its holdings and found no truth in the statement (by Mr Spiering I believe, from whom nothing should be taken on trust). But then. perhaps Kennyo believes that the Academy is part of the British establishment too!!

Even leaving aside his other strange claims re authorship and advances - I conclude that Mr Kennyo is not to be taken altogether seriously. But I'd welcome the opportunity, should he ever resurface, to debate the issues with him at length and in detail.

Phil