Jack the Ripper

 Jack the Ripper is the best-known name given to an unidentified serial killer who was active in the largely impoverished areas in and around the Whitechapel district of London in 1888. The monicker attached to what became known as `the worlds first serial killer' originated in a letter signed #JacktheRipper, claiming credit for the savage rampage and was propagated by the local newspapers at the time. However, I should point out at this stage that this grisly claim to fame was attributed to American serial killer, H. H. Holmes, who was one of the first documented serial killers in the modern sense of the term. Although Jack is generally referred to as "The Whitechapel Murderer" this is misleading as the term refers to additional murders speculatively attributed to the ripper murders, particularly, Alice McKenzie and Martha Tabram, with the only thing in common being that the suspect was never identified. Between August and November 1888, the Whitechapel area set the stage for the most gruesome murders in criminal history. The five destitute victims were prostitutes, and all except for one - Elizabeth Stride - were horribly mutilated.

-

As an objective researcher I have always challenged any official story of the 1888 Whitechapel murders. The events are what set me on my path as a curious and diligent young man of 15 years old when my father told me about one of the many books he was reading, Jack The Ripper, The Final Solution by Stephen Knight. For an astute teenager it was part of a much larger picture that had to be explored and investigated further. A cabal of now well known authors sprang up as a result of Knights book, all refuting every aspect of his work since his untimely death. This inner circle defensively close ranks at any suggestion of the British Royal family being involved. This is perpetuated by the pompous Victorian empirical view that "NO Englishman would have done these crimes" as  alleged by Sir Robert Anderson, KCB, the second Assistant Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, from 1888 to 1901. He laid the blame for the ripper murders squarely at the door of social outcasts of English society, Polish Jews. However, since the clique of so-called experts are so well established, any challenge to them is aggressively rebuked, so their position is well maintained. Their leading spokesman, the elevated Donald Rumbelow is a former City of London policemen, who never succeeded above the rank of `constable'. Yet, this situation serves only to prevent the most obvious and basic questions from being asked, such as, "How could one person elude, deceive and escape perhaps the greatest police force in the world at the time, which is responsible for protecting the mighty British Empire?" Both the Metropolitan police and the City of London police were gravely outsmarted by one man who was so self-confident that he took great risks of being caught in the act of depravity. Not only does that make Jack the Ripper an exceptional human being, but how much more of an exceptionally powerful individual does it make him that he is able to defy several generations and history itself? Yet, these ripperologists as they have become known, would have us believe that the killer was a foreign lunatic. His identity will never be known, only because there are people who won't allow it to be known.

I abandoned the Jack The Ripper Casebook forum some time ago due to its arrogant dependence on the club of alleged experts. You may already be familiar with them. When I challenged them, explaining that Jack could not possibly be one single person and was indeed among a group of individuals, forum members immediately aggressively attacked me, ridiculing me for daring to challenge these so-called authors. My challenge was the Mitre Square murder of Katherine Eddowes (aka Mary Kelly as given at the police station she had just been released from). In the short space of approximately five minutes and under the noses of a night watchman and two patrolling police officers and in a pitch black unlit Mitre Square, a single killer managed to lure a victim into the Square, render her unconscious, dissect her body, locate her kidney and finally arrange her body for display, as noted by one of the officers at the scene. The killer even had the audacity to stop and scrawl an obscure chalk message on a wall in Goulston street as he fled the scene, which can reasonably be viewed as deliberately taunting the police. It was the fact that two police officers passed through the Square during their respective beats that one of them came across the body. This indicates that the killer either had an accomplice as a lookout man or that the abduction and mutilation took place elsewhere and the body was dumped in Mitre Square. This theory was also proposed at the scene of the first victim, Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols. The Mitre Square location being chosen for some ritual reason can be supported due to the killer's willingness to risk being caught. By this stage it was obvious that the killer operated in confidence and with impunity. This became most apparent upon the murder of his second victim, Annie Chapman. Again, we are expected to believe that the killer risked taking his victim into a house (29 Hanbury Street) that was filled with tenants and escorted her to the back yard where he performed his grisly act of butchery and mutilation, then take the time to arrange the victims body for display and leave the scene covered in blood. It is difficult to believe that upon the frenzied butchering of five women that nobody witnessed seeing anyone covered in blood near the crime scenes. Instead, yet again we are distracted to make the assumption that the area had several slaughterhouses so it was not uncommon to see bloodstained abattoir workers. Perhaps the reason why there was so little eye witness accounts of such characters is because in each case all the victims were displayed and very little blood was found at the scene, despite the horror of the crime. These facts alone strongly indicate that the crimes were committed elsewhere. Yet, each of the alleged ripper experts today alter the evidence to suit their own agenda as well as their egos and god help anyone who dares to challenge them.

In conclusion these people have perpetuated the myths:

1. Jack the Ripper was a solitary individual.
2. He was a lunatic (probably foreign and Jewish) despite being clever enough to outwit the mighty British Empire, two of the worlds leading police forces and its best detectives and even history itself.
3. The upper classes and especially the British royal family are of high moral standards and ethics and as such are infallible so could possibly be involved in such depraved acts. This is despite their history of sexual decadence and incest.
4. He was just lucky.
5. He was invisible.
6. He had `no' anatomical knowledge despite the evidence clearly indicating otherwise. This claim also contradicts the evidence of other doctors.

In a BBC interview in 1973, an elderly nun at the Providence Row Night Refuge claimed that she had been a novice there in 1915 and was told by an old sister who was there in 1888 that "if it had not been for the Kelly woman, none of the murders would have happened". 

Both these books support this account as does the Jack The Ripper Casebook forum

In conclusion, Of course Joseph Sickert (aka Gorman) denied the story he told Stephen Knight as a hoax. When he told the story of his father, Walter Sickert, he didn't realize until it was too late that he was implicating him of involvement in the Ripper murders. Once he became aware of this and that Knight was going to write a book about it, he was obviously enraged and defiant. The other glaringly important issue here is the pattern that emerges about the historical "record of the British monarchy". At the time, Queen Victoria's grandson, Bertie had already established a reputation as a philandering womanizer, even to the point of having an affair with the wife of a high ranking establishment figure. Bertie's father disowned him due to his embarrassment to the royal family. That pattern continues to this very day. Just look at the former Prince Andrew once nicknamed "Randy Andy", who was involved with a former porn star, Koo Stark, who's name we conveniently never hear of anymore. The late queen's own sister, Princess Margaret also had exactly the same reputation, often disguising herself to frequent pubs and parties in seedy parts of London. The so-called ripperologists, such as Philip Sugden, still vehemently and arrogantly defend the Royal family and aggressively attack anyone who dares to implicate them. They won't even entertain the obvious questions. Their self appointed foremost authority on Jack the Ripper, Donald Rumbelow, is a failed ex-cop. Coincidentally, Stephen Knight died under mysterious circumstances after he published his book, allegedly due to being struck on the head with a cricket bat, so he was never able to challenge the vicious criticisms.

The Tale of Global Economic Crisis Explained

The European Union and the Global Hostage Crisis in a Nutshell:

Remember all those Euro Treaties? How many of us actually know what they were about and what was negotiated? Not very many. If we did, then there wouldn't be so much ignorance over the global economic crisis. And, if we did, the masses would most likely arm themselves and take to the streets.

So, without going into too much detail, I hope this explanation simplifies a better understanding. Having established Central Banks (modeled on the Bank of England) in almost every corner of the globe, the Rothschild and Rockefeller families dispatched their agents to persuade each sovereign nation that if they each toss all their chips into one huge kitty, then all could be converted to cash and distributed equally, making each nation economically better off. Once each nation had surrendered all its assets, the city bankers in London and Wall Street began taking bets on their value, each competing for the lowest possible price, devaluing every asset. These assets include gas, electricity, healthcare, pensions etc, which explains why in recent years, the UK and others began charging a fee for water, with the very air we breathe to follow, in the form of carbon tax. This is why David Cameron paid an impromptu visit to Goldman Sachs on 15 March 2012 and was barely covered by the mainstream daily lies. Cameron had returned to the UK a couple of days later, gloating over the sale of public healthcare to the devil. When every resource is sold, the only one remaining is Human Resources, forcing wages to plummet and inflation to rise, until the value for our labour is a bowl of soup, and even that is only to provide us with the energy to keep us working. Eventually, when every single asset is sold, all that remains is our very souls.

And, in case you're thinking that the vast savings in your bank account will provide you with security, perhaps you ought to ask yourself what they are worth, since all the gold, silver and precious metals that your bank note was redeemable against now resides in the house of Rothschild, (a.k.a. the Bank of England) and in the Bank of the Knights Templar (a.k.a. Switzerland). If you have any old banknotes, dating back a few years, you may notice that the inscription that they once bared to the effect of, "This currency is redeemable against gold..." is no longer present.

The Queen surveys plundered Gold

So, while reading, watching or listening to the daily distraction about the events in Syria, you ought to consider the Truth on what is really going on, since Syria, like Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and all Africa had no Central Banks until recently. This is why unrest and civil instability in regions such as Egypt has re-emerged again, since the people are starving and have nothing to trade for food imports. This is why David Cameron is always busy scuttling around these regions. His mission is to sell arms, since war makes money.

However, this tale may demonstrate my point more clearly:

When Satan tried to tempt Christ during his fast in the wilderness, Jesus rejected his temptations. As the devil revealed all the kingdoms of earth to him, he offered them to Jesus should he worship him. Knowing that he could not tempt or deceive the Son of God, it is not difficult to imagine that Satan's response was, "Since you won't accept my offer, I can easily find others who will". And, indeed he did. Satan made the exact same offer to everyone in return for their eternal souls. Throughout time when each came to collect all their promised wealth and earthly treasures, they complained that others tried to steal it from them. Individually, they each reaffirmed their claim and asked Satan to make good on his promise and hand over the goods. Satan responded, saying, "Of course I'll honour our agreement, but you'll have to join the queue". When the curtain was drawn back and the claimant saw the endless queue before him, he was shocked, not only by the eternal length of the queue, but he could also see that they were the same people who tried to rob and kill him for his bounty. Outraged, the claimant complained, "You offered all earthly treasures and wealth to me. You made no mention that you also made the same offer to all mankind. You deceived me. I demand that you return my soul to me!"  Satan laughed and said, "Of course I deceived you. It is my nature". "As for your soul. You have already corrupted it by your greed and selfishness. Your soul belongs to me now and I have better use for such virtues".

Anti-monarchist Morrissey blames royal family for death of hoax call nurse

'I'm sure the royals put maximum pressure on this woman': Anglo-Irish Anti-monarchist, Morrissey blames Kate Middleton for death of hoax call nurse

Although royal engagements are probably planned well in advance, the queen and prince Philip chose to go ahead with their visit to the Bank Of England to survey their Rothschild Gold, plundered from Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and soon Syria, by David Cameron. They obviously didn't anticipate how it might overshadow the death of this poor girl and consider postponing their visit as a mark of decency and respect so soon after her death. Instead, we had the standby default response to the death from the royal press office. Although we may never know exactly why this poor nurse decided to end her life, it seems clear that her superiors put extreme pressure on her for taking that phone call. So, why aren't they being hauled up to answer for her death? Perhaps it is because they may reveal that the hospital received outrage from the palace at what should have been regarded as a good matured prank. We have just recently heard how vitriolic the queen can be after it was revealed that she was outraged over radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri being granted `human rights'. And, given their strong Nazi ties, why should they give a damn about a peasant colonial nurse from India.