| Author |
Message |
    
Jes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 7:25 am: |       |
What do u think was Gull's hell in "From Hell" (Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell)? Was it that the media said it was the Ripper's murderers instead of his? Was it his madness and his logic? Was it the freemasonery? |
Nick
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 12:51 am: | |
I imagine it was the situation. If you buy the royal theory, youd know there was a set number of people gull had to kill. Once all of his targets were assassinated his hell would be over. I doubt it was the freemasonry however, noone has ever proved the freemasons have killed anyone. |
T Owen Stark
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 3:29 pm: | |
Looking at the basics and not the liberties taken in the movie..(From Hell), the Gull theory makes sense to me. My problem is what is factual. For instance, is it a fact that Edward was staying in the area and that he married Ann Crook? Is it a fact that all five of the victims knew Crook?
My interest in the ripper case was sparked by the movie. I would like to hear from those more familiar with the case regarding the Gull theory. Is it far-fetched or valid? |
'Leda
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 9:43 am: | |
To T owen Stark
i'm willing to answer your Question and it's no non of the victims ever met each other, jet i believe that i read something that mary kelly did know william gull but i'm not sure!
and i hope you liked the movie as much as i did.
and as you know William gull was a suspect and some things in the movie where fact somethings where fiction like abbaline because the real abbaline showed up in 1903 in the case.
|
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi all,
If the Gull theory makes sense to you,then consider the following:
Five prostitues need to be silenced.The very survival of the crown is at stake.
So you need to choose a young, healthy,low profile,man who can get the job done both quickly and efficiently.
Naturally you opt for a 72 year old stroke victim,of the highest social standing.A highly skilled surgeon.Just the man to carry out the Butchery.Somebody who is driven around without drawing any attention to himself,as his royal coach clutters over the cobbles!
Still sound plausible?
Steven |
Kris Law
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 2:47 pm: | |
I think it's spelled out fairly clearly in the comic of From Hell that the "hell" Gull was referring to was the world that they lived in where women weren't being kept in their place.
In the scene with Gull and Netley traveling around London, he comes back again and again to the concept of the sun and the moon and how they refer to males and females.
It's a bit complicated, but I think the killings were meant to be warnings to women in the comic of From Hell to "stay in their place".
That's only my theory though, i haven't spoken to Alan Moore about it.
Yet. |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 58
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 9:02 am: | |
I just wanted to ask something of Leda. What did you mean by this "the real abberline showed up in 1903 in the case."
If you meant that he was still around in 1903 then that's fine, but if you meant that he didn't investigate the case until 1903 then you are mistaken. |
James T
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 9:41 pm: | |
Steven Atkins-
They did not select Gull to murder the women, He took it upon himself to do the job. It was his job to look after the Royal Family and this was just him preforming his duties. The Royal Family was not pleased to hear that it was Gull, nor were the Freemasons. |
Bob
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 8:07 am: | |
Isn't it unusual that Insp. Abberline retired almost straight after the last murder and never wrote his memoirs of those events in 1888. |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
I believe the Ripper case took it's toll on Abberline. Thus being another victim of Jack the Ripper in a way. I'm sure Abberline was crushed.
It's assumed Abberline wrote nothing about the Ripper case but if he did it's lost somewhere. Where did Abberline live in 1888? Has anyone checked between the walls or anywhere he may have put anything about the case? I do know that things have been found between walls in old era homes before. Who is to say something, anything might be found about the Jack the Ripper case that might solve the case still? Well don't hold your breath but who knows? England still has many old places still untouched. |
jess
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 1:26 am: | |
It's been told that Abberline did write his memoirs regarding jack the ripper- he gave them to his daughter with strict instructions to publish them after his death... she never did.. A royal cover up?!?! In 1888 a royal censorship could have been ordered to keep it all quiet- its a possibility.
And don't forget that Old Scotland Yard was completely leveled in the Bombing of London- all the files on jack kept here would have been destroyed |
Stephen Leece
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 7:35 pm: | |
Abberline was not keen on police officers writing their memoirs as they could potentially become textbooks used by aspiring criminals. In his unpublished memoirs he cites the example of the finger print department, "now one finds the expert thief wears gloves." I would not read anything into his lack of discussion of the Ripper case in his writings, after all he does not mention the Cleveland Street scandal (but for probably different reasons involving literary censorship on homosexual acts). Perhaps this could be the reason why he never wrote about the Ripper- censorship laws prevented him from going into the grisly details and he felt these would never be relaxed? It is also wrong to assume that Abberline could provide answers- he was after all low-level merely co-ordinating activities on the ground. His reputation has been bolstered purely because of fictional representations such as the Michael Caine series and From Hell comic and film. |
brian johns
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 10:13 am: | |
stephen knights book; Jack the Ripper; the final solution: ties up the Gull; Mason; Royal conection well and convincingly; worth a read if not already read. and why should Jack be a strong; young; healthy person of low profile? Crimes are commited by all walks of life regaurdless of status; and status and respectability tend to make people less likly to be suspected, now and then. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 8:27 am: | |
Knight's book is anything BUT convincing since be withheld key information (specifically pointed out to him) which discredited his theory.
Will a Gull/royal conspiracy supporter please explain to me what the royals family needed protection against?
Abberine was still active enough to be involved in the Cleveland St affair and thereafter to work for Pinkerton's as I recall.
We don't know whether the victims knew each other. I'd venture that some of them at least knew each other BY SIGHT and may have been on speaking terms. After all they lived and worked in a very small - though teeming - area. but I discount any ideas that the were friends who came up with a blackmail scheme.
I do sometimes wonder whether Eddowes, who used the name "Kelly" might have been killed in mistake for MJK.
I doubt that PAV ("Eddy") ever lived in Fitzrovia - ie the Cleveland St area, or the East End. The Annie Crook who Kinght identified has been proved now not to be the Crook he thought it was, and his candidate was Anglican NOT Roman Catholic.
There is NO proof of any kind that Eddy undertook a secret marriage, which would anyway have been illegal under the Royal Marriages Act, which requires those in the immediate line of succession to the throne to have the Sovereign's consent.
Phil
|
