Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Sam Flynn 13 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Harry D 14 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 18 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Varqm 30 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by rjpalmer 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (38 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (14 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (13 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Whitechapel Murders of 1888: Another Dead End? - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > "The Royal Conspiracy"

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-15-2010, 10:03 AM
Steven Russell Steven Russell is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sheffield, UK.
Posts: 650
Default

Kennyo,
These are your boards too and you are entitled to share your thoughts and opinions. A bit of gentle ribbing is all part of the game so please don't get discouraged. You asked about other suspects. Here are a few who many consider much more likely candidates than Eddy and Stephen:

Kosminski,
Chapman/Klosowski,
Tumblety,
Druitt,
Stephenson,
Barnett,
Jacob Levy.

I hope this early skirmish hasn't put you off too much.

Best wishes,
Steve.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-15-2010, 10:16 AM
kennyo kennyo is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Russell View Post
Kennyo,
These are your boards too and you are entitled to share your thoughts and opinions. A bit of gentle ribbing is all part of the game so please don't get discouraged. You asked about other suspects. Here are a few who many consider much more likely candidates than Eddy and Stephen:

Kosminski,
Chapman/Klosowski,
Tumblety,
Druitt,
Stephenson,
Barnett,
Jacob Levy.

I hope this early skirmish hasn't put you off too much.

Best wishes,
Steve.
Many thanks, Steve, I'll be back.

Later

Kennyo
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-15-2010, 01:00 PM
Bob Hinton Bob Hinton is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 654
Default Oh really...

But Kennyo you are destroying your own argument. If as you say “the establishment is all powerful” how come they made such an appalling mess of killing these people that there are possibly millions discussing it and investigating every aspect of the case over a century later. Don’t you stop to consider that an all powerful establishment could get rid of half a dozen prostitutes without drawing any attention to the fact?

I have knowledge of six assassinations carried out by government departments, one of ours and five of theirs and I can assure you all of them were written off as natural causes or suicide. Ours was rather good as we arranged to have one of theirs bumped off by them. Oops clear another bunk in the Gulag for that one. (If you want to know what that was about check the Paris Air Show for 1973)

Eddy’s alibi as you put it was provided by the Court Circular and myriad witnesses. For that to have been false you would have had to have a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of ordinary people. What on earth would their motive me for doing that?

You go on” The point I'm making in the royal conspiracy theory is that it smells of another cover up.” Will you listen to yourself? You are saying that one load of nonsense smells just like another load of nonsense, well who would have thunk it?

As for shooting down theories that’s actually called ‘peer review’, look it up. If you can’t manage that I’ll explain it for you. It means if anyone puts forward a hypothesis others will examine it and see if it is a likely theory or just another load of rubbish. The Royal Conspiracy has been dismissed as rubbish years ago for very good reasons, so please don’t blame us for pointing that out!

You go on “by the experts who offer nothing in return”; we do offer plenty in return if you weren’t so blind as to not see it. We offer a combined total of hundreds of years experience in the case and vast quantities of accumulated knowledge, however if you decide to turn your back on that then don’t be surprised if people don’t take you seriously. Furthermore we don’t make a conscious effort to ridicule and insult but you must be aware that your silly ideas are considered by many to be ridiculous and insulting to their intelligence.


If you have a theory, fine let’s hear it and I am quite sure everyone will give you a fair hearing. But you have to present in such a way as we can see what you are getting at. Blabbering on about mysterious Royal Conspiracies, without offering a shred of evidence that they ever exist is just as daft as talking about Diana’s murder, again not offering any evidence that she was. You read a book by someone who says she was and you jump all over that. How about the countless books that have been written ( one by a person who was there at the time) and various investigations that says she wasn’t – apparently you dismiss all those on the basis of Royal Conspiracy because it was a Royal Conspiracy that covered up the Ripper killings etc. And round and round we go.


The point is you jump in with both feet, your ears shut and your mouth wide open. In your original post you made errors of fact, errors which I pointed out and yet you have failed to admit your errors, failed to thank me for taking the time to correct you and failed to admit you were wrong. I managed to point out you were wrong after only a few minutes on the internet, if you cannot be bothered to do the same why on earth should we take you seriously?


You bleat about ‘experts’ offering nothing in return for your ludicrous ideas and yet when we do offer you the benefit of our knowledge you just ignore us. I’m under contract to the Welsh Assembly to go round schools and Colleges lecturing. They pay me £60 per hour. How much should I charge you?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-15-2010, 01:06 PM
kennyo kennyo is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hinton View Post
But Kennyo you are destroying your own argument. If as you say “the establishment is all powerful” how come they made such an appalling mess of killing these people that there are possibly millions discussing it and investigating every aspect of the case over a century later. Don’t you stop to consider that an all powerful establishment could get rid of half a dozen prostitutes without drawing any attention to the fact?

I have knowledge of six assassinations carried out by government departments, one of ours and five of theirs and I can assure you all of them were written off as natural causes or suicide. Ours was rather good as we arranged to have one of theirs bumped off by them. Oops clear another bunk in the Gulag for that one. (If you want to know what that was about check the Paris Air Show for 1973)

Eddy’s alibi as you put it was provided by the Court Circular and myriad witnesses. For that to have been false you would have had to have a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of ordinary people. What on earth would their motive me for doing that?

You go on” The point I'm making in the royal conspiracy theory is that it smells of another cover up.” Will you listen to yourself? You are saying that one load of nonsense smells just like another load of nonsense, well who would have thunk it?

As for shooting down theories that’s actually called ‘peer review’, look it up. If you can’t manage that I’ll explain it for you. It means if anyone puts forward a hypothesis others will examine it and see if it is a likely theory or just another load of rubbish. The Royal Conspiracy has been dismissed as rubbish years ago for very good reasons, so please don’t blame us for pointing that out!

You go on “by the experts who offer nothing in return”; we do offer plenty in return if you weren’t so blind as to not see it. We offer a combined total of hundreds of years experience in the case and vast quantities of accumulated knowledge, however if you decide to turn your back on that then don’t be surprised if people don’t take you seriously. Furthermore we don’t make a conscious effort to ridicule and insult but you must be aware that your silly ideas are considered by many to be ridiculous and insulting to their intelligence.


If you have a theory, fine let’s hear it and I am quite sure everyone will give you a fair hearing. But you have to present in such a way as we can see what you are getting at. Blabbering on about mysterious Royal Conspiracies, without offering a shred of evidence that they ever exist is just as daft as talking about Diana’s murder, again not offering any evidence that she was. You read a book by someone who says she was and you jump all over that. How about the countless books that have been written ( one by a person who was there at the time) and various investigations that says she wasn’t – apparently you dismiss all those on the basis of Royal Conspiracy because it was a Royal Conspiracy that covered up the Ripper killings etc. And round and round we go.


The point is you jump in with both feet, your ears shut and your mouth wide open. In your original post you made errors of fact, errors which I pointed out and yet you have failed to admit your errors, failed to thank me for taking the time to correct you and failed to admit you were wrong. I managed to point out you were wrong after only a few minutes on the internet, if you cannot be bothered to do the same why on earth should we take you seriously?


You bleat about ‘experts’ offering nothing in return for your ludicrous ideas and yet when we do offer you the benefit of our knowledge you just ignore us. I’m under contract to the Welsh Assembly to go round schools and Colleges lecturing. They pay me £60 per hour. How much should I charge you?
The words of a true lecturer.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-15-2010, 01:34 PM
MrTwibbs MrTwibbs is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyo View Post
The theory I am leaning towards is Prince Albert Victor and his partner in crime, (I think) James Kenneth Stephen. Everything is there if you pit the two of them together, there are too many flaws in the argument if you point the finger at only one of them. Two... and it all fits, motive, conspiracy, a little madness, violent tendancies against women and of course the necessary means to elude capture with a little help from certain 'friends' within the establishment. Eddy is known to have connections with the East End and there is no doubt he learned the butchering of an animal on the many hunts he enjoyed in Hyde Park and St James's Park which were in fact huge wooded areas back then. Although many Ripperologists will pick holes in the theory, the holes they pick can be easily explained by two words - cover up.
No fingers were pointed at Eddy during the time of the killings. It's not surprising because the establishment had absolute power to cover up scandals using whatever means were necessary, including murder. Some of the unconnected murders not attributed to 'The Ripper' were alledged to have been carried out by agents of the Palace to silence certain individuals who were making their mouths go, even demanding a little hush money to seal their lips. One only has to look at the murder of Princess Diana, (shock horror) to see the power that the Establishment has. Whilst wholly unconnected to the Whitechapel Murders 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. It goes on today and there is no doubt it went on during the Autumn of Horror in 1888.
Indeed when Doctor Thomas Stowell published an article in the Criminologist in 1970 suggesting the involvement of Eddy in the Whitechapel murders it caused quite a sensation.
Two days later he was dead.
Look at the holes in the theory of Eddy and Stephen and tell me if those holes could have been conveniently created up by someone with an enormous amount of power, more than the police for example. Dr Gull, the medical council of both Eddy and James Stephen would appear to perhaps have held the key in his documents which were at one time ere held at the New York Academy of Medicine. The Academy politely explained that Dr Gulls notes did not contain any reference to Eddy or James Stephen, they did however point out that some of the dicumentation could have been misplaced . Strange but true!
I'm new to this forum but what i've just read in your post has no evidence and it reminds me of Bruce lee's death in 1973. After he died, so many rumors arose including those of a cover up. i.e. He was murdered due to their being connections to the chinese mafia. Another fanciful theory was that he was murdered and like Elvis Presley went onto live the life of a hermit.
All of these are just theories and it won't be long before another theory comes up telling us that Jack The Ripper was in fact an alien life form who travelled around in a star ship.
I am in no way belittling your theory but there always seems to be so many theories involving certain people. D B cooper, Hitler, Bruce Lee, Elvis, Roman Polanski.

If you can give me evidence as to why you think the Royals were involved that would be great as i'm new to this forum.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-15-2010, 01:36 PM
Bob Hinton Bob Hinton is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 654
Default Oh really...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyo View Post
The words of a true lecturer.
And there you go again Kennyo, proving my point most adequately!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-15-2010, 01:45 PM
MrTwibbs MrTwibbs is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyo View Post
My whole point of the royal conspiracy is that the establishment is all powerful. Yes, It is highly likely Diana was murdered by them and you only have to read the book I have mentioned to open your minds to the fact that when orchestrating cover ups they are the worlds best. .
This is done to sell books, the more fantastic the story the better it sells as Joe public loves this stuff. Gossip, rumor and fantastic stories all make for a good interesting read. The authors who make these sweeping statements then vanish into thin air for a few years or recruit other voices to fuel their theories.

I think it could be best summed up by this statement from the suspects section on Price Albert


"In 1978, Spiering issued a challenge to Queen Elizabeth II to reveal the truth about Eddy. Either she should open the Royal archives or hold a press release detailing the Duke's activities as the Ripper. When a Buckingham Palace spokesman stated that Spiering could examine the Royal Archives (as other researchers had done) but that the accusation were "not sufficiently serious to warrant a special statement from the Queen", Spiering replied that he didn't want to see the files. Leaving Rumbelow and others to deduce that the entire episode had been orchestrated to sell copies of the book.

Since then Spiering has not made any further claims or produced any further evidence supporting his theory."

Last edited by MrTwibbs : 08-15-2010 at 01:56 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-15-2010, 01:52 PM
kennyo kennyo is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hinton View Post
And there you go again Kennyo, proving my point most adequately!
Magistrates and Mason's, can't beat them can you??? Time to go
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-15-2010, 01:58 PM
kennyo kennyo is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTwibbs View Post
This is done to sell books, the more fantastic the story the better it sells as Joe public loves this stuff. Gossip, rumor and fantastic stories all make for a good interesting read.

I think it could be best summed up by this statement from the suspects section on Price Albert


"In 1978, Spiering issued a challenge to Queen Elizabeth II to reveal the truth about Eddy. Either she should open the Royal archives or hold a press release detailing the Duke's activities as the Ripper. When a Buckingham Palace spokesman stated that Spiering could examine the Royal Archives (as other researchers had done) but that the accusation were "not sufficiently serious to warrant a special statement from the Queen", Spiering replied that he didn't want to see the files. Leaving Rumbelow and others to deduce that the entire episode had been orchestrated to sell copies of the book.

Since then Spiering has not made any further claims or produced any further evidence supporting his theory."
It's a valid point, but might it be that Spiering will be fully aware that any incriminating evidence about a royal involvement would have been removed from the palace records long ago? Don't forget the Royal Archives are exactly that, Royal Archives, sensitive subject matter can be buried quite easily.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-15-2010, 02:02 PM
kennyo kennyo is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolo View Post
Hi kennyo,

the Royal Conspiracy Theory and sub-plots like Prince Eddie & J.K. Stephen as a murderous duo are fascinating tales of sex and crime, tragedy, horror and political scandals that still bring fourth new fans and believers and were the starting point for many a Ripperologist's career.

Trouble is that its core elements and allegations rely on information that had been proven wrong time and again. Yes, you can explain away its gaping holes with cover-ups and the intervention of higher powers and whatnot but ignoring the facts is never a good idea, it's right what created this impenetrable jungle of fallacies, hearsay and red herrings that is the Royal Conspiracy theory in the first place.

If you haven't already, check out a few more down-to-earth books on the case by the likes of Philip Sugden, Steward P. Evans or Paul Begg, this might help you to watch things from a different angle.

Regards,

Boris


Many thanks Boris,

Good stuff, I'll take your recommendations.

Ken
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.