|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
dan higgins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 2:15 pm: | 
|
Even if we rule out that william gull did not commit the murder which is unlikely as some royal conspiracy theorists believe, what is there to say that the whole annie and alice crook idea is not true, i am very interested in this part of the jtr theory and would like to know what others think, who is to say that if it was true that alice crook did not have other children than the fake joseph sickert idea. |
Opal Elaine Small (Moyer)
Sergeant
Username: Bonedigger
Post Number: 11
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 11:49 pm: |
|
Dan,
I tend to favor the Crook conspiracy theory, myself. I have searched to find evidence of a marriage between Alice Crook and Walter Sickert, but have only found record, so far, that says it's only on Joseph Sickert's word. That doesn't mean that Joseph Sickert was not the child of Alice Crook and Walter Sickert. Also, I believe that if a marriage took place between the Duke of Clarence and Annie Crook, that the conspirators would have destroyed record of that, even if the marriage had been annuled. Whether it was the marriage, itself, or merely something about Annie Crook that the royals did not want to become public knowledge, I believe that there was a cover up. I have also read that there has been talk of two dates of death for the Duke of Clarence, which is peculiar. I am interested in this part of the JtR theory, as well. I don't believe that Gull actually carried out the murders, however, he may have been assigned to oversee that they were carried out. This is part of what I think, though, I think the final solution may lie in a combination of this and other theories.
Sincerely,
Bonedigger
|
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 757
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Hi all
I have finally managed to locate Annie and Alice Crook in the 1891 census. the problem was that their surname in the searchable index had been transcribed as CREEK but there is no doubt from the original census page (see below) that it is Crook. Annie E is listed as 29 years old and Alice M as 5 years old so both ages fit and the place of birth for Alice Margaret is given as Marylebone which again fits with the 1885 register index (again see below). Both were living in 1891 with Annie's parents, William and Sarah and Annie's marital status is given as single.
details for the household are:
Address:
16 Upper Rathbone Place, Marylebone, London
Head:
William Crook aged 60 born Windsor, Berks
Pianoforte Finisher
Wife:
Sarah A Crook aged 50 born Berwick, Scotland
Charwoman
Daughter:
Annie E Crook aged 29 born St Pancras, London
Jam maker
Grand daughter:
Alice M Crook aged 5 born Marylebone, London
I think the combination of correct names (even to middle initials), correct ages, correct place of birth, argues strongly that this is the Annie and Alice Crook from the Joseph Sickert story. I have searched the whole UK census for any other combination of Alice and Annie Crook of appropriate ages and this is the only one.
I must add that if this is the case, the fact that in 1891 Annie Crook was in employment, living with her parents and her daughter casts serious doubts over Sickert's version of events.
Chris
 |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Interesting find about the Crook family, and many thanks for posting.
I have found details in the 1881 census, which fit fairly closely to what you have, they are as follows:
William Crook,
Birth Year: 1831
Birthplace: Eton Bucks.
Age: 50
Occupation: Piano Forte Finisher
Marital Satus: Married
Dwelling: 2, Rose Street,
London Middlesex.
Sarah A. Crook
Birth Year: 1839
Birthplace: Scotland
Age: 42
Dwelling: 2 Rose Street
Marital Status: Wife
London Middlesex
Annie J. Crook
Birth Year: 1863
Birthplace: London
Age: 18
Occupation: General Servant Domestic
Marital Status: Unmarried
Relation: Dua
Dwelling: 2 Rose Street, London
Alice Crook
Birth Year: 1869
Birthplace: London
Age: 12
Occupation: Scholar
Relation: Dau
Dwelling: 2, Rose Street London.
Regards,
John Savage |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 762
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Interesting that if this is the Annie of the Sickery story she had a younger sister called Alice after whom, presumably, she named her daughter born in 1885.
Thanks for the post
Chris |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 9:15 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
It seems that Annie did have a sister called Alice, and the above information tallys pretty well with information given by Ellen May Lackner, who was the daughter of Alice Crook. (see "The Ripper and The Royals" by Melvyn Fairclough)
Best Regards,
John Savage |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Ever since you posted the 1891 census info "Rathbone Place" has been bugging me, I knew I had come across a reference somewhere. Now I've found it, and again it is part of the testimony of Ellen May Lackner:
"My grandfather William Crook, dined at her [his eventual wife Sarah] employer's house, saw her and fell in love. His guardian Uncle Ned Stephen, threatened to disown him if he persisted in the romance. This is just what did happen. Before doing so he set him up in a workshop in Rathbone Place, with tools, a bench, plus a boy as apprentice. He worked as a cabinet maker making pianos."
Just thought it might be of interest to you.
Regards,
John Savage |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 769
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 10:22 am: |
|
That is very interesting indeed John and seems to corroborate the 1891 identity.
many thanks for that
Chris |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Here are a lot of questions that come to mind after reading the information posted by Chris Scott and John Savage. I would appreciate any answers that anyone might have.
Joseph Sickert claimed that Walter Sickert fathered two children with Alice Crook. Joseph claimed that he was one. Did he claim that Ella May Lackner was the other. If so, did Ella have children who are alive today?
Joseph claimed that Walter Sickert married Alice Crook. I gather that there is no record of such a marriage. Did Joseph maintain he was a legitimate child of Sickert until his recent death, or did he ever let go of the fiction that Walter and Alice had married?
I gather there is no evidence to indicate Joseph was Walter's biological son. Did Joseph ever claim that Walter had given money to Alice or to Joseph while he (Joseph) was growing up?
I gather there are paintings by Sickert that include Alice Crook in 1911. She would have been 25. Is there any documented link between Walter and Annie after 1911? Is there any image of Annie Crook in any Sickert painting? Is there any image of Joseph in any Sickert painting?
Joseph claimed that Walter gave him the basic facts of The Royal Conspiracy Theory. DUring what years did Joseph claim his conversations between him and Walter take place? How old was Joseph at the time? Was Joseph's tale of the RCT to the BBC based solely on his recollections, or did Joseph use any notes he had written down following his alleged talks with Walter?
The phony RCT has nuggets of true facts -- such as the existence of John Netley, the coachman, and the Cleveland Street Connection. Are these facts that Joseph Gorman could possibly have known or even discovered by research? Or are they facts that only Walter Sickert could have known because he was there in 1888?
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
d higgins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 3:45 am: |
|
hi mark
i think that joseph sickert has now ruled out that he was alice crooks son, i think in the final solution he genuinly thought he was alices son from what walter had told him but now i think he knows hes not her son. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Hi D. Higgins,
Alice Crook married William Gorman on 14th. July 1918. With regard to birth certificates I have checked the index to the birth registers for the December quarter 1925 which gives us the following information:
GORMAN, Joseph W.O.
Mothers maiden name: CROOK
District: PANCRAS
Vol. 1b Page 32
I think it is well established that Joseph Gorman Sickert was the son of Alice Crook, the real question being, who was the father?
Best Regards
John Savage
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Hi Chris Scott,
Going back to the Crook family tree, and the William Crook I sighted earlier from the 1881 census, I can add a little more information:
ETON PARISH REGISTER OF BAPTISMS
William Crook, son of William and Sarah Crook baptised October 24 1830. Abode of parents Eton. Occuptaion of Father Glasier.
Also I have noted that a William Crook married Sarah Quordisman 25th. May 1829 Upton Cum Chalvey, Bucks. (which is about a mile from Eton)
Best Regards
John Savage |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1214
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Many thanks John for this extra piece of info
all the best
Chris
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Hi All,
The Crook conspiracy has always depended on proving a link between Cleveland Street and Whitechapel. Joseph claimed that Mary Kelly had been sent to work in Cleveland Street by Edmund Bellord, chairman of the governors of the Providence Row Refuge. Mr. Bellord was said to be a partner in the firm of Perkins and Bellord, estate agents, of whom ther has never been a trace. However today Robert Charles Linford provided a most useful link to The Times online archive and this has enabled me to find references to just such a firm. Their address is given as 14 Fitzroy Street W 1, but the earliest reference I have been able to find was 1938 and it must be remembered that Edmund Bellord died in 1926, for this reason I suspect that the firm of estate agents was run by his nephew James Bellord.
Below is an extract from The Times showing one of their many advertisements.
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 198
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 10:58 pm: |
|
Sorry All
That attachment has not worked......back to the drawing board.
Bes Regards
John Savage |
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Hello all,
This Crook conspiracy is pointing the finger at Sir William Gull, is it not? Or at least at some part of the Royal Conspiracy and covering up things and whatnot, right? Personally, I believe that there was a coverup and the thing about it is that we weren't there. We didn't know whether or not Prince Albert was baby Alice's father. He very well could have been.
Yes, he had syphillis but that doesn't mean for any reason that he was incapable of fathering Alice and contracting the disease later on and possible even the day after he impregnated Annie. I believe that he did marry Annie and fathered Alice but of course there is no way of knowing. Had he already been infected with the disease prior to sleeping with Annie and getting her pregnant, Little Alice would have been born blind due to the disease. The great thing about conspiracy theories is the fact that most of them linked to a crime so far gone that it is near impossible to either prove or disprove them.
Angel |
Kathy Crook
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 11:37 pm: |
|
Dear Rippologists,
I don't know if I have any thing to offer BUT I decided to log on to this site because of a nagging voice in my head. Many years ago I read a book about Jack, at the back of the book was a flow chart/family tree. I noticed the name Crook. by my email address you will see why it caught my attention. like a fool I let a friend borrow the book with the promise that it would be returned!!! Of course I never saw it again. I decide this morning to search the net to see if my memory had served correct. Yes it had. To be to the point. My husbands late great aunt was an Alice Mary Crook. I found the family bible this morning and unfortunately the only entry is of her marriage to Harry Rogers on February 16th 1918. Aunty Alice passed away in her late 90s I'm not sure of the date, but I can check it out if it is of interest to any of you. Aunty Alice was born in England, I'm not sure where but I do know that she has family living in Reddich now. My husband too was from Reddich. Alice migrated to Australia with here husband and was a pioneer in the Western Australian wheat belt area.
On the wall behind where I am sitting is a photo of Alice and Harry on their wedding day. Harry is wearing his Army uniform and Alice is wearing a very nice gown for those times.
I will leave it at that, if anyone wishes to contact me I would be more than happy to reply to your emails.
Regards
Kathy |
James V. Bianco
Police Constable
Username: Jamesvbianco
Post Number: 3
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 2:40 am: |
|
Just wanted to add this:
1871 London, St. Marylebone, All Souls Dist.1
Folio 26 Page 49 House 297
William CROOK age 40 Born Bucks, Eaton
Annie , wife age 32 Born Berwick on Tweed
Annie E., dau. age 8 Born London
Alice , dau. age 2 Born St. Pancras
Catherine,dau. age 7Mos Born Marylebone
Only saw 1891 and 1881 posted, so wanted to share this for anyone interested.
Thanks, Jim Bianco |
James V. Bianco
Police Constable
Username: Jamesvbianco
Post Number: 4
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 2:35 am: |
|
Well, I've just finished reading (with some minor skimming) The Ripper and the Royals by Fairclough.
I am a genealogist, and it was to say the very least upsetting how the author presents all of these familial relationships between the Crooks and many of the influential families of London.
Melvyn claims that Annie Crook was a second cousin to JK Stephen through her father William Crook. According to the book, William's mother was a Stephen, sister to Sir James Stephen (Grandfather to JK). This is ridiculous because William Crook's mother was Sarah Quartermane aka Quordisman, and brom Bucks, and clearly of the most humble background. The author seems to invent details and present them as fact. |
alanhayday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 6:24 am: |
|
Joseph Sickerts illustrious ancesters were via the DRYDEN line. Sarah Crook (nee Dryden) was related to several notable families, including the Cecils, Howards, Warrens, Stephens, etc. He told me that he
and his brother, Charles were the illegitamate sons of Walter Sickert and Alice Gorman (nee Crook) and I believe him.
Some of the statements he has made have been proved incorrect, this is because of mis-understandings, faulty hearing, and faulty memory on his part.....not deliberate attempts to mislead. Logicly, the
abductions in Cleveland Street happened in 1885 not 1888. The Ripper episode was just a small part of a larger intregue and cover-up involving many people. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 958
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
alanhayday - are you saying we must take as valid Joe Gorman's claims about Special branch involvement in his life and Sutcliffe's contacts - as retold by fairclough?
Was this just faulty hearing or bad memory?
Genuine questions,
Phil |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 959
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Bonedigger, you wrote:
...I believe that if a marriage took place between the Duke of Clarence and Annie Crook, that the conspirators would have destroyed record of that, even if the marriage had been annuled.
There would have been no need for anyone to "annul" the marriage specifically, as it would never have been legal.
Whether it was the marriage, itself, or merely something about Annie Crook that the royals did not want to become public knowledge, I believe that there was a cover up.
On what grounds? How would you show it was so - as you cannot prove a negative? I think it frankly despicable and underhand for anyone to express such a belief and demonstrate not one shred of evidence or supporting grounds for it. It is only this sort of baseless nonsense that keeps this old wives' tale of a conspiracy alive.
I have also read that there has been talk of two dates of death for the Duke of Clarence, which is peculiar.
Well, the conspiracy theory never seems to die at all!! It would indeed be odd if there were two dates for the Duke's death, but what is the source of the one that is not "official" - is the origin, and support for the second date enough to warrant convicting many public office holders and reputable people of perjury or worse? Evidence always needs to be evalutated, I am interested to see how you evaluate your's.
I don't believe that Gull actually carried out the murders, however, he may have been assigned to oversee that they were carried out.
On what basis do you "believe" that? What was the motive for the crimes, in your view :
a0 for the need to murder anyone;
b) for them to be carried out in such a brutal way?
This is part of what I think, though, I think the final solution may lie in a combination of this and other theories.
Please be more precise and illuminate us? What combination - exactly?
Angel - I have much the same problems with your post when you write:
...Personally, I believe that there was a coverup and the thing about it is that we weren't there. We didn't know whether or not Prince Albert was baby Alice's father. He very well could have been.
So no doubt COULD have been many men in London at that time, between the ages of 14 and 80!!
Yes, he had syphillis...
Prove it - you make a specific statement, please now justify it.
I believe that he did marry Annie and fathered Alice but of course there is no way of knowing.
If there is no way of knowing, why do you "believe" it? Is this based on reading of biographies of the Prince, or a study of the period, original research or just romantic delusions?
The great thing about conspiracy theories is the fact that most of them linked to a crime so far gone that it is near impossible to either prove or disprove them.
But the proper response is surely to assume none unless there is positive evidence to support one? Why consider the reverse even for a moment?
James Bianco - thank you for your corrective and factually based post.
Sorry folks if I seem impatient with all this unsupported "I believe there was a conspiracy" rubbish, but it really does have to be put down.
Phil |
alanhayday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
Phil Hill,
The prima facia evidence of a conspiracy / cover-up is there for all to see. Im refering to the outragous and illegal way the Millers Court murder was investigated, and especially the subsequent "Inquest". Even at the time (1888) this subterfuge was commented-on by the likes of THE DAILY TELEGRAPH and others. The victim WAS DELIBERATELY MIS-IDENTIFIED as "Mary Jane Kelly", who in fact outwited her enemies, and survived!
By law Dr Wynn Baxter should have conducted the Inquest.....BUT, it was taken out of his hands, by the authorities.
The simple fact of this cover-up can only mean that eminent people were being protected. Therefore, we should forget about low-life serial killers, and start looking at MOTIVE. These women were killed because of what they KNEW. Except that is, Catharine Eddowes, who was mistaken for Mary Jane....As was the victim in Millers Court. The reason they were after Mary Jane - who had been the nanny in Cleveland Street, was she had taken something of importance. (It was not a question of blackmail). Mary Jane was in fact Welsh, with dark auburn hair.
(see statement by Elizabeth Phoenix 9.11.88
at Leman Street Police Station).
Alan |
alanhayday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
Dear Phil Hill,
The Metropolitan Police have always had some interest in Joseph and his family, because of who he was. You will recall that it was the BBC researchers who initially were given his phone number by a Scotland Yard contact in the 1970s....Joseph did not seek them out.
Melvyn Fairclough and especially Stephen Knight should be treated with great caution, as their books are riddled with errors, although, Melvyns is the more reliable source of the two.
The marriage between PAV and Annie Crook may not have been legal, but, nevertheless, would have been considered valid by the Church.....PAV would NOT have been free to mary Princess Mary Teck for instance.
Peter Sutcliffe DID try to contact Joseph, but Joseph refused to see him. This was before it was known that Sutcliffe was the "Yorkshire Ripper".
The cover-up was over more than just the morganic marriage, and to find out the full story you will have to wait for Keith Parkers book "THE ROYAL LEGACY OF HATE". |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 970
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
alanhayday
Even IF MJK's inquest was mishandled, that does NOT by any means lead to the assumption of a cover-up. That is a false logic that misses out other options such as an incompetent coroner.
As to the mishandling of the invesitgation, where is your evidence for that allegation?
The victim WAS DELIBERATELY MIS-IDENTIFIED as "Mary Jane Kelly", who in fact outwited her enemies, and survived!
That statement can ONLY be personal opinion based on a certain interpretation of the evidence, it is not a FACT.
The simple fact of this cover-up can only mean that eminent people were being protected.
Again not a logical extrapolation from your previous statement.
... These women were killed because of what they KNEW.
How does that follow?
The reason they were after Mary Jane - who had been the nanny in Cleveland Street...
But there was no one to be a nany To in Cleveland St!! the connections to that address in the relevent years have been exploded - Knight falsified his evidence.
Mary Jane was in fact Welsh, with dark auburn hair.
A confident statement. So all the purposeful researchers into her identity on this site and elsewhere have failed to find facts you know??
Melvyn Fairclough and especially Stephen Knight should be treated with great caution, as their books are riddled with errors...
I hooted with laughter when I read that, as you previous post shows you still hold to Knight's misleading evidence.
...although, Melvyns is the more reliable source of the two.
On what basis do you assert that, and which bits are right and which wrong? How does a reader distinguish between the two in reading the book?
The marriage between PAV and Annie Crook may not have been legal, but, nevertheless, would have been considered valid by the Church....
Which denomination? The CofE as the ESTABLISHED church would certainly not have regarded it as so. Annie was protestant, NOT catholic.
PAV would NOT have been free to mary Princess Mary Teck for instance.
Nonsense. That is the very purpose of the Royal Marriages Act.
Peter Sutcliffe DID try to contact Joseph, but Joseph refused to see him. This was before it was known that Sutcliffe was the "Yorkshire Ripper".
Other than your and Gorman's assertions, what evidence do we have of that unlikely event?
The cover-up was over more than just the morganic marriage, and to find out the full story you will have to wait for Keith Parkers book "THE ROYAL LEGACY OF HATE".
I can assure the wait, on my part, will not be with baited breath!!
I'm afraid i find your two posts totally unconvincing and as showing no understanding of either UK law, or the case. Where exactly do you come from?
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
perkins bellord jpg