Annie and Alice Crook photographs.

[Vanillaman]

Stephen Knight

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]

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]

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]

Stephen Knight

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]

That post simply reeks of objectivity.

[Sam Flynn]

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 royals

No danger of that from me. I'm a republican.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.