I read Kennyo's initial post at the time it was written, but until now have not had an opportunity to comment on it.
The theory I am leaning towards is Prince Albert Victor and his partner in crime, (I think) James Kenneth Stephen.
Without new evidence or material there's nothing new there then. This has been done before, unconvincingly.
....Hyde Park and St James's Park which were in fact huge wooded areas back then.
So far as I am aware, apart from the construction of the Mall and the Victoria Memorial, the areas of the Royal Parks has changed little - if at all - since PAV's day. St James' Park was laid out by Charles II and hasn't been used for hunting since. Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens - the haunt of Barry the site of Rotten Row has similarly been a public space all the time. Does Kennyo think that PAV was one of the Tudor's perchance, when his remark might have been accurate.
... the holes they pick can be easily explained by two words - cover up.
Which of course, makes the one promoting a theory have to work harder to produce the evidence of a cover-up. As has been said so many times, there is none here.
...the establishment had absolute power to cover up scandals using whatever means were necessary, including murder.
Hardly so, and I'd like to know what basis the allegation is made. There is absolutely no evidence of the "scandals attaching to PAV's father, The Prince of Wales (POW) being covered up, except in the most obvious ways - attempts to get blackmail letters from George Lewis, would be an example. There is no trace of Daisy Warwick and Charles Beresford being murdered! The POW even had, embarrassingly, to appear in the law courts a couple of times, much to his mother's known indignation.
Some of the unconnected murders not attributed to 'The Ripper' were alledged to have been carried out by agents of the Palace
Anyone know where these "allegations" have been made?
One only has to look at the murder of Princess Diana, (shock horror) to see the power that the Establishment has.
Typically, Kennyo makes an assertion without factual basis and one that has been explored thoroughly.
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.
This requires an assumption that Mr Botham knows his stuff and has confidential sources - even that his argument has force or weight, which I doubt. But precisely how is the "establishment" defined? There are several ways the terms has been used since it was coined after the war, but all rather general.
It goes on today and there is no doubt it went on during the Autumn of Horror in 1888.
What goes on today? I can think of occasions when the "establishment" has acted - the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936 being a case in point - but even in those days when the "upper classes" were still largely those in positions of power, I would point out that Mrs Simpson was NOT killed. And she and the, by then, the Duke of Windsor, were much more of a danger than Princess Diana ever posed.
I think the errors re dr Stowell have already been dealt with, so I'll pass over them.
Dr Gull...held the key in his documents which were at one time ere held at the New York Academy of Medicine.
My understanding was that the Library had long since checked its holdings and found no truth in the statement (by Mr Spiering I believe, from whom nothing should be taken on trust). But then. perhaps Kennyo believes that the Academy is part of the British establishment too!!
Even leaving aside his other strange claims re authorship and advances - I conclude that Mr Kennyo is not to be taken altogether seriously. But I'd welcome the opportunity, should he ever resurface, to debate the issues with him at length and in detail.