"Epiphany Of The Whitechapel Murders", Karen Trenouth, 2006 (Authorhouse)

[clark2710]

https://kpoulin1.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/the-missing-kelly-mortuary-photo/

This is a short article regarding a mortuary photo that the writer is claiming is actually Mary Kelly instead of whom it's listed as. Have any of you read the book he's referring to regarding Prince Albert Victor and the bophomet and what not? I stumbled across this article and I'm wondering if any have read this book and how credible is it?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Good lord no, not this one!

No, that's not the image of Prince Albert in the woodgrain of the coffin.

Seriously, Clark, me 'owd mucker, I admire your enthusiasm and curiosity, but when your asking how credible a theory is that, in addition to it's many flaws, states that the image of Prince "compulsory to any crackpot theory" Albert is in the flippin' woodgrain of the mortuary shell, overlooking the victim 'even in death', I'm wondering if we should replace your access to the internet with access to crayons and a therapeutic adult colouring book.

No, it's not credible. It's horse **** of the worst kind. And no, I've not read the book. Nor will I. It can get filed along with Van Gogh and Lewis Carroll.

[drstrange169]

Danger Will Robinson DANGER!

[Losmandris]

This one certainly takes the cake! Steer well clear!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I read something on here once about the author of that nonsense. Longer standing posters will no doubt remember her. Barking mad and very unpleasant to boot. I believe she got banned?

Avoid like the plague Clark. A slow and painful descent into madness would lie ahead.

[Ms Diddles]

I think this is a well reasoned, rational and brilliantly written account of the case.

It's a must-have for any budding Ripperologist!!!!








Only joking, Clark!

It's a pile of utter pish!!!!

[clark2710]

Good lord no, not this one!

No, that's not the image of Prince Albert in the woodgrain of the coffin.

Seriously, Clark, me 'owd mucker, I admire your enthusiasm and curiosity, but when your asking how credible a theory is that, in addition to it's many flaws, states that the image of Prince "compulsory to any crackpot theory" Albert is in the flippin' woodgrain of the mortuary shell, overlooking the victim 'even in death', I'm wondering if we should replace your access to the internet with access to crayons and a therapeutic adult colouring book.

No, it's not credible. It's horse **** of the worst kind. And no, I've not read the book. Nor will I. It can get filed along with Van Gogh and Lewis Carroll.

I have been told i'm rather naive when I read things. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt. When it said "woodgrain" I really looked and I thought they were talking about a picture or something. I was tired...that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it

[clark2710]

I read something on here once about the author of that nonsense. Longer standing posters will no doubt remember her. Barking mad and very unpleasant to boot. I believe she got banned?

Avoid like the plague Clark. A slow and painful descent into madness would lie ahead.

Yes Sir

[clark2710]

I think this is a well reasoned, rational and brilliantly written account of the case.

It's a must-have for any budding Ripperologist!!!!








Only joking, Clark!

It's a pile of utter pish!!!!

Yes Ma'am

[DJA]

Yes Sir

So,you are now accepting advice from a dyslexic fictional detective

[Ms Diddles]

Yes Ma'am

You should read whatever tickles your fancy, Clark!

Some of the best reads in Ripperology are not espousing theories which are (to my mind anyway) remotely viable.

Stephen Knights book is a great read, and I have a huge soft spot for Bruce Robinson's They All Love Jack.

Both theories are nonsense, but did I enjoy reading them?

Yep!

[Ms Diddles]

Oooooft!

I just spotted the appalling grammar in my second paragraph above.

I hang my head in shame...

[clark2710]

You should read whatever tickles your fancy, Clark!

Some of the best reads in Ripperology are not espousing theories which are (to my mind anyway) remotely viable.

Stephen Knights book is a great read, and I have a huge soft spot for Bruce Robinson's They All Love Jack.

Both theories are nonsense, but did I enjoy reading them?

Yep!

Sometimes it's the joy of the journey; yes?

[Tel]

She wasn't dubbed 'Krazy Karen' for nothing.

[Geddy2112]

She wasn't dubbed 'Krazy Karen' for nothing.

One in the same? https://victorianripper.forumotion.c...echmere-busted Although it would be rather funny if she was correct (she isn't) this post is comedy gold...

'It would appear that Charles Andrew Cross lied about his address at the inquest because he saw John Netley, the Royal Coachman on the scene. The article from New Zealand, mentioned in an earlier post, reports that Charles spoke to another car man while walking to get a policeman. The other car man was Netley. No wonder Cross lied about his address; he didn't want the Royals' goons harassing him at home'

Damn so Robert Paul gave a fake name at the inquest.... he was actually John Netley.. wow case blown wide open.