Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Edmund Hope Verney: The Royal ConsPEERacy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Edmund Hope Verney: The Royal ConsPEERacy

    • Sir Edmund Hope Verney, 3rd Baronet (1838–1910)
    I'm not venturing into Ripperology with a new suspect. (Someone else might want to do that.) Right now, I think EHV should be considered a possible player in the story. He doesn't feature in Stephen Knight's theory so I don't really see a reason to bring up something debunked to debunk something unrelated. We don't have to worry about his reputation because he got caught trafficking women to France for his own personal use. I guess it depends on whether you think Mary Kelly was a prostitute or not because EHV seemed to like respectable women. I don't see proof either way in regards to Mary's life. EVH operated with a French woman, Eugenie Roullier. (credit JTRFORUMS.com)

  • #2
    In 1891, Verney got caught trying to get a 19-year-old to have sex with him by paying for a trip to France and offering her money. The age of consent was 16 and the girl refused his advances. That hardly qualifies Verney to be a Ripper suspect.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Trapperologist View Post
      • Sir Edmund Hope Verney, 3rd Baronet (1838–1910)
      I'm not venturing into Ripperology with a new suspect. (Someone else might want to do that.) Right now, I think EHV should be considered a possible player in the story. He doesn't feature in Stephen Knight's theory so I don't really see a reason to bring up something debunked to debunk something unrelated. We don't have to worry about his reputation because he got caught trafficking women to France for his own personal use. I guess it depends on whether you think Mary Kelly was a prostitute or not because EHV seemed to like respectable women. I don't see proof either way in regards to Mary's life. EVH operated with a French woman, Eugenie Roullier. (credit JTRFORUMS.com)
      Vasiliev, yes, he killed street prostitutes with knives. And this person killed.....?
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Fiver View Post
        In 1891, Verney got caught trying to get a 19-year-old to have sex with him by paying for a trip to France and offering her money. The age of consent was 16 and the girl refused his advances. That hardly qualifies Verney to be a Ripper suspect.
        I’m not suggesting he’s the Ripper (I try to avoid that and not because I’m trying to be just about the victims) but, as you’ve described, he makes a perfect candidate for Mary Kelly’s gentleman. Is that not relevant?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Trapperologist View Post
          • Sir Edmund Hope Verney, 3rd Baronet (1838–1910)
          I'm not venturing into Ripperology with a new suspect. (Someone else might want to do that.) Right now, I think EHV should be considered a possible player in the story. He doesn't feature in Stephen Knight's theory so I don't really see a reason to bring up something debunked to debunk something unrelated. We don't have to worry about his reputation because he got caught trafficking women to France for his own personal use. I guess it depends on whether you think Mary Kelly was a prostitute or not because EHV seemed to like respectable women. I don't see proof either way in regards to Mary's life. EVH operated with a French woman, Eugenie Roullier. (credit JTRFORUMS.com)
          Hi Trapper,
          Can you​​ give me the jist of how your connecting him? I'm not familiar with him at all so a few pointers would be much appreciated.

          Cheers!
          Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Trapperologist View Post
            I’m not suggesting he’s the Ripper (I try to avoid that and not because I’m trying to be just about the victims) but, as you’ve described, he makes a perfect candidate for Mary Kelly’s gentleman. Is that not relevant?
            Nothing that has been stated in this thread shows that Mary Kelly had a 'gentleman'. If she did, he was pretty stingy, considering her lodging and the amount of rent she owed.

            Verney was willing to spend quite a bit to try to get a woman to sleep with him, so that makes him unlikely to be Kelly's 'gentleman'.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

              Hi Trapper,
              Can you​​ give me the jist of how your connecting him? I'm not familiar with him at all so a few pointers would be much appreciated.

              Cheers!
              Sorry. Here’s a link but without benefit of viewing attachments.

              https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=31210

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Trapperologist View Post
                Sorry. Here’s a link but without benefit of viewing attachments.

                https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=31210
                San Fran,

                Your cryptic approach only works on those who have some idea of what you are talking about.

                Gary

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                  San Fran,

                  Your cryptic approach only works on those who have some idea of what you are talking about.

                  Gary
                  lol exposed!
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                    lol exposed!
                    I’m still trying to get my head round SF’s ‘Double Imposter Theory’ (post 167 here: https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php...ble#post378287)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Everyone seems to looking at bases for a new conspiracy theory. I was looking at the basis for the old.

                      This one has all the elements and Sickert would have known - a peer taking advantage of young respectable women and secretly giving a place to stay for a woman with an illegitimate child in 1886. As Gary said, it has the echoes of Mary’s story which if true ( the story not the echoing) then it’s connected to her. EHV is not as interesting as PAV but at least it’s true.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                        I’m still trying to get my head round SF’s ‘Double Imposter Theory’ (post 167 here: https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php...ble#post378287)
                        hi gary
                        thanks for the link, but ill pass. too many convoluted rabbit hole theories lately.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          I’m still trying to get my head round SF’s ‘Double Imposter Theory’ (post 167 here: https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php...ble#post378287)
                          Not being able to understand a theory doesn’t make it untrue.

                          Abby,

                          I thought you were completely wrong on another case in Shades of Whitechapel because I thought the solution was too complicated but now I understand the scenario and it’s finally making sense. Talk about a rabbit hole!

                          The One Imposter Theory was proven correct. The family member even believes it. A Second Imposter Theory is now the simpler explanation if you mean an explanation that makes human sense, not requiring Mary Jane Wilson reconciling with her estranged mother and changing her name to Jane at 35 and then dying under her sister-in-laws name, and then her sister-in-law knowing or not knowing she was dead and still posing as her at the orphanage 3 years later. Or attributing it all to a clerical error.


                          Last edited by Trapperologist; 10-25-2019, 04:02 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            How many “echoes of Mary’s story” do you need before it becomes the real story?

                            Extraordinary evidence is needed for extraordinary claims but the evidence echoes Mary’s claim.

                            My only claim was she was a servant which is less extraordinary than Mary’s without the mention of servanthood but the only evidence for her claims includes the reasonable probability of being a servant.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              I’m still trying to get my head round SF’s ‘Double Imposter Theory’ (post 167 here: https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php...ble#post378287)
                              I guess you could always go with the Mary Jane Kelly Survived theory. That would explain the return to Liverpool and the sudden name-change in 1889, I’ll admit.

                              I used to be an MJK Survived theorist but I’m not interested in going back there at the moment. Maybe post-exhumation if that ever gets done.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X