|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 742
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 8:52 pm: | 
|
Hi Ian,
Regarding your numbered questions above:
1) At this time they were thinking that there was already a string of killings, starting with Emma Elizabeth Smth and Martha Tabram, both of which stood out as savage murders beyond the norm for the East End.
2) He didn't see them because her dress was down over her legs by that point. The witnesses who found the body adjusted her clothing for modesty sake. When the doctor showed up, at that point he just needed to declare that she was dead and could save a more thorough examination until later. The neck wounds were more than enough to kill her and there were no other obvious injuries (without taking her clothes off in the street, which is not something they'd really do), so he went home to get more sleep.
3) What's wrong with inquests starting promptly? It's not like they rushed it through to try to do a cover up, as it was extended over multiple days and became a media circus.
I'm not really seeing anything here that looks suspicious at all that would possibly indicate a cover up in progress.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3626
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 10:22 pm: |
|
Stuart,
You can not in any way compare Gull to Druitt or any of the others.
Firstly: Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety etc. were contemporary suspect -- the accusations against Gull is a modern construction.
Secondly and more importantly: what really blows the whole Royal Conspiracy theory to pieces is that it is based on factual errors and lies, and Stephen Knight's rubbish has been more or less totally demolished when it has been more thoroughly studied. It was all a lie and a fictionous creation; some of it was based on real people but the facts that were supposed to link these people to the events and the circumstances of the killings are all fairy-tales and do not hold up. Practically all the relevant facts that is supposed to support this nonsense have, thanks to later research, all been proven wrong and erroneous, and Joseph Sickert, who spread the lies to begin with about Gull, has confessed to it.
I can't believe we are still discussing this in 2005.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Ian Biles
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 9:49 pm: |
|
Hi Dan
I think it very much depends on how you interpret things. If for example a person has a particular view point human nature determines that they subconciously (as much as anything) tend to make things fit with what they believe.
The answers you gave to my questions don't convince me but they obviously do convince you and will convince many others and I certainly respect your opinion and I thank you for providing answers to my questions.
The three questions I posted above are I'm sure you'll agree merely three of many that could have been posted and whatever answers are given to any of the questions will by no means satisfy everyone. |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 2:00 am: |
|
Hi Glen,
I still see nothing concrete on Druitt, Tumblety,Barnett,Cutbush, Ostrogg, the so called Lodger - but alot of oppinions , or hearsay.I cant see tangible connections. I do admit fault with Kosminski, an eyewitness apparently saw him.With Chapman, he was a poisoner aswell which is something.
I must firstly state that I am no fool who believes in hype, or movies such, as 'From Hell'.I have thought carefully about this, and not tried to stir up the pot for kicks.This is firmly what I believe.
Thr Royal Theory has suffered from 'MUSHROOM' syndrome.Joseph brought it up and it was mushroomed out of proportion.Stephan Knight took some small leads and embellished them to sell his mostly fictionous book.The press and movie makers then made a joke of the whole thing. When at last it was suggested that Walter Sickert was implicated in the scheme, Joseph Sickert naturally withdrew his claims and went into obscurity.
So Glen - any chance of a proper, unbiased analysis of this theory has been blown away.However , I am going to fly under the BS radar for a moment. I think that Joseph went onto the BBC ( England's premier broadcaster) and earnestly meant what he said - not knowing the ramifications of his comments.If you think about it hard, there are two possibilities. A man claiming to be the son of a famous English painter, and going on England's biggest broadcaster with his storey was iether:
1. Telling the truth.
2. had just escaped from a nearby assylum.
I believe the former.
With the storm of 'BS' passed over us now, I would like to take up where Joseph had initially started all that time ago, and try to look at this theory more realistically. I have been doing alot of ' Hard Yards' trying to find anything at all of interest. I think I have found something on one crimescene photo, not prieviously noticed.
It does not implicate Sir William Gull, or any name directly. But I believe it to be a link between Freemasonry and Royalty.Given that Gull was apparently a Freemason - it might be of interest.I must point out this has come from alot of long nights and 'Hard Yards' I have been putting in.So for any sceptical people, be patient, I am putting the report together. Given the complexity of the technical side of what I am doing, it will be in the next couple of weeks. You will get the chance to sink your teeth into it then.
Thanks again, Stuart. " I am that meaning, I am that energy" |
Ian Biles
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
Glenn.
Sickert confessed to Stephen Knight's theory being incorrect, the plot involving Annie Crook etc that doesn't neccessarily mean there wasn't a conspiracy. Of course it doesn't mean there was either.
I have an open mind regarding this case. I wouldn't say Gull was my number one suspect but I wouldn't rule him or 75% of the other "suspects" out. |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 1:06 am: |
|
Cheers Ian Biles,
This is what I have said all along. Joseph Sickert is the one person that those who are shrewd enough would look at. As I said in my above posting, it is those that have embellished his initial story that have destroyed the possibility of the theory being taken seriously.
The truth is as you say. Nobody knows whether or not, in reality, there was a theory around the Royal family.Given that it is not known, I do not rule him out as a viable suspect. I would be be glad to continue the disscussion on him with you, or anyone on this thread.
Thanks , Stuart |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 436
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 7:31 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart,
As you sem interested in a possible Royal connection, have you checked out the "Oakley Street" thread on these boards? It gives an alternative, although unproven, connection to Prince Eddy.
Rgds
John |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 682
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 11:41 pm: |
|
Dear Stuart Ryan.
In your post above, you stated that there were 2 possibilities. With all due respect,there are two other possibilities, one being that Joseph believed,irrespective of whether it was true or not,that he was the Son of Sickert and the other being he was intentionally fabricating this story.
HowBrown
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3692
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 2:59 am: |
|
Ian Biles,
Joseph Gorman (Sickert?) withdrew the whole story about the Ripper connection and said it was a 'hoax and a whopping fib' He has stated this himself in black and white.
What he still claimed was true, however, was his relation to the painter Sickert and himself being an heir to the British throne.
But the whole Ripper context, as he once had fabricated it together with Stephen Knight, he admitted was false. The fact that Stephen Knight totally disregarded this retraction, is of lesser meaning.
Stuart,
No, "any chance of a proper, unbiased analysis of this theory" has NOT been blown away. Such an analysis has actually been done several times by researchers like Donald Rumbelow, who totally crushed the Royal theories delivered by Stowell, Gorman and Knight to pieces, by digging through sources and census records.
Thorough research definitely indicates that practically all of the facts in the Royal theories -- including the implication of Freemasonry -- are false and incorrect.
That research also show that the designs of the murders in several aspects do NOT corroborate with the rituals of Freemasonry. There IS NO link to Freemasonry.
The theories about a Royal connection did not start with Stephen Knight and Joseph Sickert but with Stowell, and already his speculations has proven to be ramblings of an old man, based on fabricated lies and erronous facts. Joseph Sickert and then Stephen Knight elaborated further on it and made it into a commercial success, but their story was built on fairy-tales and factual errors already explored.
My point wasn't if suspects like Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety, Ostrog, D'Onston and Cutbush were credible suspects or not (although I do think some of them are worth considering, that was not the issue), but at least they were contemporary and investigated by the police. The Royal theory was established in the 1960s.
And by the way, Chapman was not a contemporary suspect; he was introduced in 1903.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3694
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 5:09 am: |
|
I agree with Hoard.
I have no idea, Stuart, why you exclude the most likely option regarding the reasons for Gorman's claims, namely that he lied through his teeth!
Of course, he could also have been delusional and wanted to believe in the stuff so hard that it actually had become a reality to him. This is not uncommon and you don't have to have 'escaped from a lunatic asylum' in order to be subjected to this. Some people just live in their own fantasy world.
Personally, though, I just think Joseph Gorman is too much; not only did he admit to have lied about the Ripper story, he has also claimed a lot of other strange stuff.
Fact remains that Gorman said a lot of things, not only claiming to be an heir to the British throne and being the son of a famous painter, but also to have been run down by a car driven by one of the most notorious serial killers in England, Peter Sutcliffe.
There can of course be a number of explanations, but looking at the extraordinary nature of his claims, often based on famous people or events, plus the fact that he himself were very keen on presenting them in television and in newspapers, I see a man who liked the attention and probably might have been nothing but a pathological liar.
He is just a little bit too much.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jaime
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
All,
The funny thing about this thread, is that it is a CONSPIRACY thread! Facts and evidence are not needed unless we want them to be proven or disproven. If you disagree, gentlemen, then disagree. That's all there is to it. (Though Glenn, I must admit, causes a twinge of doubt with what he says...) However, the point is that this is a conspiracy thread where people are not only allowed to believe what they want but also to state what they want. Let's go ahead and back off with the defensiveness of it all |
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 7:37 am: |
|
Very good point, Jaime.
This is a CONSPIRACY thread and while the debates get very good and heated, it would be nice to cut the antagonism towards others. Thank you all for your posts and keep them coming!
Thank you!
Azriel |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page