Annie and Alice Crook photographs.

[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

[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.

[PaulB]

That post simply reeks of objectivity.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

I wasn't aware that he was not an ace investigative journalist "by any stretch of the imagination".... Can you direct me to the evidence of this please?

His CV alone is evidence enough - a little over a decade working on local newspapers doesn't elevate anyone into the same bracket as, say, a John Pilger or a Carl Bernstein.

[miss marple]

I agree with Simon Wood.
I knew a very close friend of Stephen Knight's who knew him for many years and Stephen did not believe in his own theory.
The more one examines the theory, it fall apart anyway.Annie Crook was not a Catholic.
Gull was over seventy and had suffered strokes, and much much more as most ripperologists know.

Miss Marple

[PaulB]

Hmm! Interesting that nobody has actually addressed what was said. So much for constructive criticism and the hope of learning something. Instead, all I get is the usual deviations to insults and abuse, which speaks for itself (not to mention what it says about the integrity of this site) so I won't waste my time on trolls. However, I am grateful for the reference to Stephen Knight, although his career at the BBC or the BBC itself is irrelevant. I wasn't aware that he was not an ace investigative journalist "by any stretch of the imagination".... Can you direct me to the evidence of this please?

As for the attacks on Knight and Fairclough... believing that just because you aren't aware of it makes it untrue is defined as `arrogance'. I would suggest doing some research yourself.

Your claim to have been ‘attacked’ on this site was investigated and disputed by admin; your assertion that Stephen Knight was ‘viciously attacked’ and that Melvyn Fairclough’s career was ‘destroyed’ were questioned; it was made clear that Stephen was not an investigative journalist for the BBC, as you sort of implied; and I agreed that Joseph’s story shouldn’t be too readily dismissed. All in all, that seems to have been addressing what you said in your post.

I see that you were not aware that Stephen wasn’t an ace investigative journalist. I suppose that unawareness defines you as being arrogant, which is a conclusion some may already have reached from reading your posts.

I regret that I never had the opportunity to meet and talk with Stephen Knight, but I have met and talked with several people who did and knew him reasonably well, such as Richard Whittington-Egan and Donald Rumbelow, and also with people like Simon Wood, whose researches and article in Bloodhound were the first to treat Knight’s story seriously and actually investigate it. I have read Stephen’s book many times since it was published and I have been through his surviving research papers. I met Melvyn Fairclough and discussed The Ripper and the Royals with him before it was published and had the pleasure of working with him on another project for about a year. And I have met and talked with Joseph Sickert and his family on numerous occasions, in fact Joseph phoned me for a chat several times. I think that qualifies as ‘doing some research’.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Vanillaman,

I had a face-to-face meeting with Stephen Knight about a year or so after the publication of his book.

His story wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

I knew it, and he knew it.

But that hadn't stopped him from earning a colossal amount of money from a gullible public, always ready and willing to believe the latest old cobblers about Jack the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

[Vanillaman]

A fool trying to be clever is cringingly embarrassing (Ally)

Hmm! Interesting that nobody has actually addressed what was said. So much for constructive criticism and the hope of learning something. Instead, all I get is the usual deviations to insults and abuse, which speaks for itself (not to mention what it says about the integrity of this site) so I won't waste my time on trolls. However, I am grateful for the reference to Stephen Knight, although his career at the BBC or the BBC itself is irrelevant. I wasn't aware that he was not an ace investigative journalist "by any stretch of the imagination".... Can you direct me to the evidence of this please?

As for the attacks on Knight and Fairclough... believing that just because you aren't aware of it makes it untrue is defined as `arrogance'. I would suggest doing some research yourself.

[PaulB]

I'm sorry, Ally. I wasn't thinking.

[Sam Flynn]

I wasn't aware that he had an unsuccessful career at the BBC. Can you direct me to the evidence of this please?

You might check out Stephen Knight's credits on IMDB (the Internet Movie Database), online "tributes" and Wikipedia entries. Between them, the only reference to a BBC connection I could find was the one Horizon programme, in which he was a participant. Far from being a "BBC man", he seems to have spent most of his career on the staff of local newspapers in Ilford and Hornchurch, with a brief stint at the London Evening Standard.

[Ally]

Now Paul, don't go letting facts get in the way of a good outraged victim scenario. Where's your appreciating for a good dramatic story of the downtrodden underdog rising up against the oppressive masses and the nefarious cabals out to silence them through any means necessary? I mean we haven't had one of those since ... yesterday.