So, you think maybe the rumors that it was a nobleman/royal are true then?
It certainly wasn’t a Royal - there is basically conclusive proof that the one who was accused in the 1970s (Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence) was elsewhere at the time of the five murders that are regarded as the definite work of the Ripper - hundreds of witnesses would have had to deliberately lie to cover up his movements, 75 years before he was even accused.
But there might be something in the files that would be embarassing to somebody’s reputation, I suppose.
Makes sense. The only harm by releasing information today would be to an institution. The royal family is Britain's number one institution.
You know that episode of Star Trek, where Jack the Ripper jumps from body to body and is hundreds of years old?
Yeah, whoever is inhabiting the body of Obama, he could be hundreds of years old.
It might not be royalty that is implicated. It could very well be Scotland Yard.
Maybe they had the guy dead to right, but their screwups set him free.
My guess is all the evidence was there, it is just that the police bungled the job badly and the killer skipped out.
I think Jack-the-Ripper was an Arab diplomat, maybe from Lebanon or Egypt. His behavior would be in line with what we see from Muslim sheiks but embarrassing to the Al-Fayads types who own Harrods and now half of England.
This sort of lends credence to the idea.
She told me who was accepted as common knowledge as to who the killer was - and yes, she said it was a Lord. I've forgotten the name.
She said Queen Victoria was well aware of who it was.
But this would be far more believable as to why they want to ‘protect’ living descendants. they have a point. Descendants today had no part in it nor in the cover up. But even here, tonight, we'll see slurs against the Royals.
It's rather like the case of Dr. Mudd, whose life was ruined He patched up John Wilkes Booth broken leg, having no way of knowing yet that Lincoln had been killed or that this man was the killer...he just set a broken leg of an injured man.
But he was vilified and his family for generations after - their 'name was mud!" . It wasn't until a few years ago that he was granted a 'pardon' as innocent.
Even HAD he been guilty - why should people crucify his family even to generations long after?
People can be nasty. And if Jack the Ripper is finally revealed to have been a member of the Royal family, people today, and some in here - oh yes! - will vilify today's Royals, over a hundred years later.