It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scotland Yard fights to keep Jack the Ripper files secret

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:30 PM

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.


That's what I'm thinking too cause honestly, why would the Royal Family want something like this covered up? Their history as well as the history of most other royals worldwide has thrown up things just as bad if not worse throughout history than this so what would they have to be ashamed of?

Definitely won't be connected to the Windsors.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by skjalddis

I wouldn't think its a matter of anyone still alive of course. But to whom they were then OR who they are now related to may be the issue.

S and F though, nice to see some are interested in this also!!
edit on 5/15/2011 by Humint1 because: add

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 05:38 PM
This whole practice of withholding information, especially when it is to protect the elites, of closing dossiers for 60 years and more, and of being able to classify things 'top secret' without proper scrutiny of the process needs to be thoroughly overhauled. It's a system to protect the rich and powerful in its current form.

It makes no sense at all to withhold this info on Jack the Ripper, and if it does reflect badly in some way on the royal family, then the people have the absolute right to know.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:24 PM
Scotlant Yard has always maintained a world wide reputation. Perhaps they just don't want to release the information because the investigation was so badly botched?

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:28 PM
There's also credible evidence that Jack emigrated to the USA and continued the same killings in New York and Boston.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:08 PM
Hi all,

Yes, this is a breaking story on Jack the Ripper historical sources but it has been an on-going saga for some time with the UK FOI tribunal. The story is a bit more involved than the press are reporting, or as Trevor Marriot is describing. There are certainly some details of a Victorian Special Branch investigation of Jack the Ripper, however, because suspects are named, does not of course mean that they were the serial killer of 1888. In fact it is impossible to prove the identity of Jack the Ripper now and with the available sources, which include these Special Branch ledgers that simply outline the police lines of inquiry. It has to be remembered that no-one was convicted of the crimes so any new information can at best give a better idea of the police investigation.

I am the author of a forthcoming non-fiction book which may interest you that puts this and other Jack the Ripper mythologies into a Victorian context and examines how and why these conspiracies emerged on these historic unsolved crimes. The title of the book is: "Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and the Supernatural Mystique of the Whitechapel Murders". Further details can be found on my publisher's website

And no, the Royal/Masonic Conspiracy Theory has no basis in fact though it has grown as legend and been perhaps the most popular theory of all.

Thanks for your time and hope that if interested, the book will provide a good insight into the legends of Jack the Ripper, how the crimes were perceived and what really happened for both enthusiasts and Ripperologists alike.

edit on 15-5-2011 by auspirograph because: spelling

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:26 PM
Was Jack the Ripper a alien.

That would be a very good reason to never open the file.

They may never have known it at the time but years later when one of the suspects died and a autopsy found he was a alien and proof that he was Jack the Ripper you could see a reason never to open the files.

Otherwise why not just doctor the files and release them with all references to someone they want to protect removed.

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:05 PM
The arguments being presented by Scotland Yard are nothing short of insulting.

It may stop informants from coming forward and cause terrorists to run wild and free...spare me you toffee nosed establishment protecting corrupt Scotland Yard cronies. Police corruption still being kept quiet all these years later.
And they even throw in "look what happened to Judas Iscariot when he became a informant" Is this a joke?
Files are released without this ridiculous excuse.
They are hiding something pure and simple.
As for the Duke having alibis, of course they had alibis for him. Remember how the current queen miraculously remembered within 24 hours of trial end that Paul Burrel the butler mentioned to her that he had Diana's things in safe keeping and he wasn't a thief, when we all know he had the dirt on them.
Same deal Queen Victoria has a note of having lunch with him....please like anyone should believe this tripe.
If it wasn't the duke, then it is someone very big they are protecting.
This is about protecting a huge conspiracy, and not long dead informants from nearly 130 years ago. People/victims of crime face exposure every single day from what their relatives or friends have done...we dont see any of them saying dont release any files. Are we saying that the Scotland Yard uses the same techniques for inquiry as they did 130 years ago so this cant be released. I hope the Judge is laughing in their faces when they come up with these excuses.
The royals just had a wedding to get them in good favour again, they would hardly want any negative press like one of them was the ripper...especially at a time when their usefulness and popularity is hanging by a thread.

Not releasing this information, is simply saying "we are covering something up"
Their excuses are almost insulting to common decency.

edit on 17-5-2011 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:14 PM
What about Robert D'Onston Stephenson - he's quite a likely suspect, if you look at the murders in an occult ritual way. But there must be a strong reason for keeping these files secret that is still pertinent today, otherwise, they'd happily release them.

Don't you think it's strange that ol' Jack is the most famous serial killer, even though his body count is much lower than so many others. Something about Jack sticks in the mind, in a symbolic sense. That should tell you something.
edit on 17-5-2011 by CodyOutlaw because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:35 AM

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.

William Gull was physician to the King and Queen.

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:50 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

I agree with you on that point. I believe he was a royal, and we all know the steps they will take.

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:23 AM
I remember reading/hearing a theory that it was a Royal Family Member who went out and picked off prostitutes, or a person in a high position. But it was definitely connected to the Royal Family. Wouldn't surprise me to be honest.

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:10 AM
Since people are still going on about the Royal connection, I thought I'd quote this post from earlier in the thread since it's either gone largly unnoticed or been ignored.

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.

edit on 15-5-2011 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

Of course you can claim the alibi was made up, but that just makes you look silly because with no firm evidence against him to begin with there's no need to create the alibi, especially one that covers such a large timeframe and could easily have been exposed.

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:17 AM
reply to post by DJKris

so what are they covering up?
why discount all the possibilities? sure blindly doing that is what is silly.

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:22 AM
Perhaps it was one of the elite, like a member of the royal family or a top mason, carrying out killings for some ritual, occult, satanic purpose - and perhaps it's something which is still done today, albeit more subtly. Imagine if it contains evidence of a member of the royal family engaging in occult, ritual serial murders. Now that would really open up a can of worms, lol!

edit on 18-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:39 AM

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.

I totally agree they seem to be covering something up. It makes no sense at all to keep these secret after all these years. This thread is the first time I've heard that there is information no public, so the idea of it coming out is exciting to me, I've always been fascinated by Jack The Ripper.

However, in the case of the Prince the evidence available suggests he could not have done it and given other supporting evidence, such as the killer likely had surgeons knowledge, I see nothing keep looking at him as the main (or one of) suspect.

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
The arguments being presented by Scotland Yard are nothing short of insulting.
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.

I agree, they're pretty weak. That said, I don't know how valuable the names of the informants from 130 years ago would be to a modern investigator either. If it's just the informant's names that is blacked out, then investigators today should still be able to put together a case from everything else, if there's a case to be made.

I guess the only way knowing the identities of the informants would be important would be if modern investigation sought to impugn the witness's testimonies.
edit on 2011.5.18 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:50 PM

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
The arguments being presented by Scotland Yard are nothing short of insulting.
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.

Lol possibly, its a good read, it speaks volumes on the Uk judicial and policing systems as much as the Ripper case

The exposing of informants from centuries gone, is just not a viable argument. Period.

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:05 AM
Interestingly on the weekend, I read this article in the paper with some more detailed information, apparently they have proof that 2 of the murders were done by two different individuals. Interesting
Just thought Id add it.

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:21 AM
I think there are a few points to this not being put into the public eye so to speak.

1. Would be the fact that if they released informants names form the case then it would make today’s informers not want to inform for sake of them being found out.

2. Would be the fact that the descendants of Jack The Ripper would not want to be linked to such a viscous and callous serial killer!

3. The fact that it could be a royal connection, if any of you haven’t seen the film From Hell take a look it’s a good film that shows what maybe would have gone on if it was linked to the royals.

4. We wouldn’t want to muddy the name of the monarchy now would we!!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in