It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by skjalddis
reply to post by Golithion
Well, that was the suspect that Trevor Marriott put forward previously. What interests me about this development is that the Telegraph article has him saying that he believes that the files contain details of at least four NEW suspects. By new, I take it to mean that he is not referring to the list above or to the suspect he previously put forward himself.
Now if they are reluctant to disclose the info due to the identities of these new potential suspects, then why might that be.
Speculating here, but I do not think that anyone with links to the royal family would necessarily warrant that protection now - give how the Duke of Clarence was suspected for so long and what little effect that has had on the royal family - for that to be an issue it would have to be someone a little closer to the throne than he was, and he was pretty close. So what else might be that sensitive? My thoughts are:
- someone with close connections to a FOREIGN head of state - that *could* possibly have repercussions in the present, maybe cause some disgruntlement on the diplomatic front, offence taken by people with whom relations might already be difficult for other reasons.
- someone with close connections to government at the time, if it were actively and deliberately covered up. Perhaps someone in government who had a hand in parliamentary activity that could be viewed in a different light if it were known that they committed those crimes.
- someone high up in the police, evidence for which that was actively and deliberately covered up, which would be just plain embarrassing for Scotland Yard if nothing else.
peace
J
Originally posted by lambros56
Originally posted by ressiv
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Golithion
Maybe there are family members of Jack the ripper still around today, family members who would not want to be linked with a serial killer.
royalty involved?????????
Maybe so. Otherwise why keep it a secret.
Look at Princess Diana.
She even wrote in a letter that her husband had warned she`d die in a car and it would be made to look like an accident.
That happened.
Verdict: Accident.
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Golithion
Your probably right, I dont know much about the Ripper to be honest, I remember seeing a documentary on it a few years ago that eluded to it being a member of the royal family, but having just done a little research, I see that evidence has been refuted.
The member of the Royal family in question was Prince Albert Edward Victor, Duke of Clarence, Queen Victoria’s grandson and heir presumptive to the throne of England. Prince Albert Edward Victor, or “Eddy” as he was affectionately known, most certainly was not Jack the Ripper. Indeed Royal records show that he wasn’t even in London on the dates of the murders. From the 29th August to 7th September he was staying with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge, Grosmont, Yorkshire, which would rule him out as the murderer of Polly Nichols who was killed on August 31st. From the 7th to the 10th of September he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York, Annie Chapman was murdered on the 8th September. Between the 27th and 30th of September he was Abergeldie, Scotland, where Queen Victoria noted that he lunched with her on the 30th. The murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catharine Eddowes occurred in the early hours of this morning, and to have committed the murders and be back in Scotland in time for lunch would be no mean feat today let alone then! He was back in London on 1st November, and on the 2nd he left for Sandringham where he remained until the 12th of November, which would rule him out as the killer of Mary Kelly on the 9th November.
www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...
edit on 15-5-2011 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by DJKris
so what are they covering up?
why discount all the possibilities? sure blindly doing that is what is silly.
Honestly, it looks like you're the only one on this thread so far who's even bothered to read the article to see what their arguments are.
Originally posted by zazzafrazz
The arguments being presented by Scotland Yard are nothing short of insulting.
Originally posted by JoshNorton
Honestly, it looks like you're the only one on this thread so far who's even bothered to read the article to see what their arguments are.
Originally posted by zazzafrazz
The arguments being presented by Scotland Yard are nothing short of insulting.