Talk:Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories

message: Jtdrl really needs to stop removing the merge from tag at the top of the article. The Royalty and urban legends article itself is a mess of unrelated rumors that clearly need to be split up into separate articles, and since this is the article about Prince Eddy and the Ripper murder, that section really needs to be merged into this article. It's all nice that he took the time to write his little article, but for him to oppose much-needed edits on it simply out of egotism and to write nasty and deceptive edit comments when he removes the tag is simply unacceptable. Victrix 01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: James Pope Hennessy, Queen Mary's official biographer, spoke to many people then still living who actually knew Prince Eddy (see his posthumously published book of interviews), so his statement that Eddy's private life was 'dissipated' must be taken as gospel (as too must his statements with regard to Eddy's intellectual slowness). Hennessy knew what he was writing about, and indeed, died at the hands of rough trade. His close friend James Lees Milne, who was bisexual, and with whom one can presume he would have shared the more unpublishable results of his findings, wrote the first frank biography of Lord Esher, the grey eminence of the Edwardian royal court who was pederastic, and who kept a folder of letters from parties about the scandal. Both Lees Milne, and later Theo Aronson used it for their respective books which touched on the scandal. To suggest that Andrew Cook's thinly argued book settles the case with regard to PAV's possible involvement in Cleveland Street is utterly ridiculous. Engleham 12:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleveland Street Scandal 

message: article states:
"Stowell claimed that his sources for the article were accounts written in private by Sir William Withey Gull. The article was published shortly before Stowell's own death on November 8, 1970. His papers were reportedly burned by his family. It has been suggested that Stowell could have served directly or indirectly as Jullian's source.
"Stowell's article attracted enough attention to place Prince Albert among the most notable Ripper suspects. However, almost all of Stowell's claims were soon demonstrated to be untrue:
"Gull died on January 29, 1890, and so could not have been Stowell's source concerning Prince Albert's death."
Why not? Gull's death in 1890 is 80 years *earlier* than Stowell's death in 1970. It is perfectly possible for someone who died *before* you to be your source for something.Almaward 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that nonsense again. It was deemed silly last time someone brought it up, it's still silly now. And, in this article, this is what it's called, so it can't be changed. DreamGuy 00:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's neutral presentation principles require you to cite who (and perhaps how many people) call it X but you can't use a non-neutral adjective in an article's title. zen master T 01:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be pointed out here for historical purposes in case this comes up again that Zen-master's ideas about what Wikipedia principles require were incorrect, and his proposal was not only strongly rejected but outright deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: For the record, I think that 'Conspiracy Theory' is pejorative-it is (almost) always used to imply the conspiracy theorist is wrong, and so is used to imply disapproval. I'd support a renaming of the article, which is certainly possible btw.FelixFelix talk 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something 

message: As plenty of others have observed before, this article is full of weasel words and unsubstantiated assertions. Stephen Knight's theory  is certainly full of holes, but (not least because it's so well known) it deserves a better refutation than this. 
Also I took out a factually incorrect passage about Gull's strokes rendering him unable to perform 'the operation' on Annie Crook. Although Gull did suffer with several strokes (the first in 1887), there is no documentation that they disabled him. I think that there's plenty of work to do here.FelixFelix talk 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Soapboxing and Weasel words

message: The article is written with obvious disapproval of the royal theories of the Ripper murders, which is understandable, as they're all full of holes and frankly a bit silly. But it reads very un-encyclopaedically, being full of unsubstantiated refutations, some of which are factually incorrect and come across as a bit desperate.
I'd like to propose the following changes;
* Change the article name, for example how about 'Jack the Ripper; Theories of Royal involvement' (a bit clunky, I know) or something similar? As pointed out above, many editors disagree with article title with 'conspiracy theory' in them, which is a pejorative.
* It's not very clear from the text exactly what the theories involve, only Knight's is spelled out, although partially and it's almost completely obscured by not terribly intelligible refutations following almost every sentence. I'd suggest a point by point detailing of  the main parts of each theory, perhaps followed by a separate 'criticism section' which ought to be properly referenced.
I really don't think that anybody's going to come away from a more neutrally worded and properly cited article thinking that PAV or Gull actually did it, unless they're of a mind to already, in which case the kind of 'take it from me, I know' style that the article is written in now will only sound like a bit of a cover up.FelixFelix talk 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about a rename (the 9/11 conspiracy theories article underwent a similar discussion, which went nowhere), but a more neutral rewrite would be a good idea. The article should present the theories in a manner that lets the readers draw their own conclusions. Wikipedia isn't in the business of deciding what theories are correct or not. --clpo13(talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I've separated the rebuttals from the story itself, and placed them in a separate paragraph. 14:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about all this, but to accuse someone of a horrid crime isn't best to prove the guy did it, rather then to concoct an unlikely theory and then try to make un proving it the game?- Maria  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.242.128 (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose Changes

message: Issues: "focuses too much on Albert Victor"; "Seriously redundant with the Jack the Ripper suspects article";
How did this get on the front page? -unsigned  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.170.139 (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardly a featured article 

message: In the section titled 'Prince Albert Victor as a suspect' the first sentence starts 'Stowell could have served indirectly as Jullian's source, as ...' but I cannot see any reference in the article as to who this 'Jullian' is.
That sentence ends with 'in Jullian's book.[3][4]'.
   * [3] links to a reference to Evans, Stewart P. (October 2002). "On the Origins of the Royal Conspiracy Theory".
   * [4] links to a reference to Cook, pp.8–9 (Cook, Andrew (2006). Prince Eddy: The King Britain Never Had).
Reference 3 is to an online source and if I scan that I can see some information about Jullian.  However there should be some explanation of who Jullian is and why he is being mentioned actually in the article.
FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is 'Jullian'? 

message: The writing of the section below is misuse of information that is really quite disgraceful and doesn't belong in a wikipedia article. It is the worst type of journalise, that leads the reader on towards a certain opinion, which the reader later discovers is false! 
Stowell could have served indirectly as Jullian's source, as Stowell shared his theory in 1960 with writer Colin Wilson, who in turn told Harold Nicolson, a biographer loosely credited as a source of "hitherto unpublished anecdotes" in Jullian's book.[13][14] In 1970, Stowell published an article that claimed Albert Victor had contracted syphilis during a visit to the West Indies, that it had driven him insane, and that in this state of mind he had perpetrated the five "canonical" Jack the Ripper murders. Stowell wrote that following a double murder on 30 September 1888, Albert Victor was restrained by his own family in an institution in the south of England, but later escaped to commit a final murder on 9 November before ultimately dying of syphilis. Stowell said his information came from the private notes of Sir William Gull, a reputable physician who had treated members of the Royal Family.[15] Stowell knew Gull's son-in-law, Theodore Dyke Acland, and was an executor of Acland's estate.[16]
Stowell's claims were swiftly dismissed. Stowell had claimed that Albert Victor was incarcerated in a mental institution, when he was actually serving in the British army, making regular public appearances, and visiting friends at country houses.[17] Newspaper reports, Queen Victoria's diary, family letters, and official documents prove that Albert Victor was attending functions in public, or meeting foreign royalty, or hundreds of miles from London at the time of each of the five canonical murders.[18] On 31 August 1888, when Mary Ann Nichols was killed in Bucks Row in London, Albert Victor was at Danby Lodge, the home of Viscount Downe in Grosmont, North Yorkshire.[19] Albert Victor travelled from Danby Lodge to the Cavalry Barracks in York on 7 September, and was still in Yorkshire on 8 September when Annie Chapman was killed in Hanbury Street, London. On 30 September 1888, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were killed at 1:00 and 1:45 a.m. respectively, at times when Albert Victor was over 500 miles (over 800 km) from London. On the 29th, he was shooting in Glen Muick, Scotland, with Prince Henry of Battenberg among others, and in the afternoon he attended a recital given by Emma Albani.[20] On the morning of the 30th, he attended a church service at Balmoral, the royal retreat in Scotland, with his grandmother Queen Victoria, other family members, visiting German royalty and the estate staff. Afterwards, Albert Victor had lunch with the Queen.[21] On 9 November, Mary Jane Kelly was killed in Miller's Court in London, but Albert Victor was at Sandringham House, the Norfolk country home of his parents, the Prince and Princess of Wales. That morning, he went shooting with his father and the house guests, including Baron Rothschild, Lord Lansdowne and other members of the British and foreign nobility. In the afternoon there was a party to celebrate the Prince of Wales's forty-seventh birthday.[22]
Stowell had claimed that his source concerning Albert Victor's death was Gull, but that was impossible since Gull had died on 29 January 1890, two years before Albert Victor.[23] All three doctors who were attending Albert Victor at his death in 1892 concurred that he had died of pneumonia. The first symptoms of madness that arise from syphilitic infection tend to occur about fifteen years from first exposure. Consequently, for Albert Victor to have suffered from syphilitic insanity in 1888, he would have to have been infected at the age of nine in about 1873, six years before he visited the West Indies. While the timescale of disease progression is never absolute, it is highly improbable that Albert Victor had syphilis.[24]
Rather than name Albert Victor in the article directly, Stowell described his suspect in a roundabout way in an attempt to either disguise his identity or create a mystery. On 5 November 1970, Stowell wrote to The Times newspaper denying that he had ever implied Prince Albert Victor was Jack the Ripper. The letter was published on 9 November,[25] the day after Stowell's own death from natural causes. The same week, Stowell's son reported that he had burned his father's papers, saying "I read just sufficient to make certain that there was nothing of importance."[26]
*What is my complaint? To say that Stowell published an article that claimed Albert Victor ... had perpetrated the five "canonical" Jack the Ripper murders is a gross and deliberate mis-statement of fact that Stowell himself refuted, as stated further down in the article. Stowell did not (in writing) name his subject. 
I haven't looked down the history of this article to find out who the editor was that misused the facts to this degree. But it certainly doesn't deserve a gold star in the corner. I'm most surprised that some other critical mind else hasn't picked up on this. 
Stowell's obituary says: 
He was interested in criminology, and in an article published in The Criminologist said that for fifty years he had kept to himself certain evidence as to the identity of the notorious killer Jack the Ripper, which seemed to point to a man of noble family, for fear of involving as witnesses some close friends who were still alive. reference T.E.A. STOWELL, C.B.E, M.D., F.R.C.S. 
Amandajm (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stowell

message: My grandmother, who lived in Australia all her life and died shortly before Stowell's article was published, was perfectly familiar with, and in complete support of the theory that Prince Albert Victor was Jack the Ripper. It was clear that the subject and the suspicion was widely discussed among her generation. It may, perhaps, date from the time of his "untimely death". Probably quoting her own mother, she said that he was the family favourite, but that no-one else could stand him, and that "everyone" thought that Princess Mary was lucky to have married his younger brother instead. 
The existence of the rumour for many years before it was suggested in Jullian's publication is supported at this blog  which states:
I refer to the article by Andrew Cook on the Duke of Clarence (November 2005). He claims the story of 'Eddy' and Jack the Ripper was 'created' by Dr Thomas Stowell. This is absurd, as the idea of the connection between the Duke and the Ripper was widespread when I was young in the 1930s. Dr Cook has to rely on printed material, I suppose, but there must be many people like me who have memories of the story before the article in the Criminologist. 
Amandajm (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are claims that people believed the Duke of Clarence was involved in the Ripper murders or connected somehow before Stowell, but there are no reliable sources to back it up. All that have ever been found are people who claim that they knew it back then, but there are no published sources from that time which show this to be true. Considering how unreliable such reports are in general, both from hoaxes and bad memories, we cannot trust in such undocumented claims. DreamGuy (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How old is this theory?

message: Would someone with access to all these books and article kindly date the article that Stowell published. 1970 really isn't good enough for a FA article! Amandajm (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper referencing