Jack the Ripper, Prince Eddy, Lord Randolph Spencer-Churchill and the Queen Mother

…What do these seemingly unconnected people have in common? The answer may well surprise and shock you to the core.

The story begins in the late summer of 1888, the heyday of Queen Victoria’s reign, in the gas-lit streets of London, when a young woman’s horrifically mutilated body was discovered in a tawdry slum street in the run-down Whitechapel area of London….

On the evening of the 31st August 1888 the body of Mary Ann Nicholls, a common prostitute, was found prostrate on a pavement in the Whitechapel district in the East End of London. She had been brutally hacked to death, her throat having been slit and devastating cuts to her torso revealed her exposed internal organs. She was to be the first of a series of five victims of the now legendary killer who came to be known in popular folklore as ‘Jack the Ripper’.

The so-called ‘Ripper’ murders came under the jurisdiction of the London Metropolitan Police Force and in particular an Inspector by the name of Frederick George Abberline who was tasked with the overseeing of the investigation. It is important to note that the diaries of Frederick Abberline did not see light of day until around 70 years after the unsolved murders, being in the possession during this time, firstly of Walter Sickert (1860-1942), the famous artist of the time and latterly of Joseph Sickert, his son. The full significance of this will become apparent later.

Walter Sickert had been employed by the royal family in the 1880s to provide private art lessons to their son and heir, Prince Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence otherwise known by his colloquial name of ‘Prince Eddy’. Eddy was in fact the eldest son of Albert Edward the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and Princess Alexandra (later Queen Alexandra), the eldest grandson of the reigning monarch, Queen Victoria and older brother of the future king of England, King George V and as such would eventually have been first in line to the throne. Unfortunately however, Eddy was not in the best of health. He had been born, mainly due to centuries of royal in-breeding, partially deaf and of well below average intelligence and was thus shunned by the majority of his cold-hearted family.

Queen Victoria, the reigning monarch at the time was a great supporter and patron of freemasonry as were all the Royal males of the age (and as they still are today). Indeed it was the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family (the current British royals) that had sponsored the rise of Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, originally a freemasonry offshoot, in Bavaria in the 18th century.   Weishaupt himself was born and raised in the Bavarian town of Gotha.

It is a little known or reported fact that there are several masonic lodges in the royal palaces of Britain, the most significant one perhaps being the Royal Alpha Lodge in Kensington Palace. In 1885 Prince Eddy was initiated into the Royal Alpha Lodge at the behest of his father.

As well as his membership of the lodge, Eddy was also a regular ‘customer’ at a homosexual-paedophile brothel in Cleveland Street, London and indiscreetly instigated a series of explicit love-letters with a young boy employed at these most vile of premises. The well-known Satanist, Aleister Crowley had these letters in his possession for many years but eventually they were lost or more likely destroyed and have never since seen the light of day. This incident alone had the potential to become a huge national scandal if made public, but events took a turn for the worse when it was discovered that Eddy had also made a young Catholic ‘commoner’ of Irish descent by the name of Annie Elizabeth Crook, pregnant with his child. Eddy also, as it turned out, had foolishly married her in a clandestine church service and this in effect barred him from ever becoming king as British royals are not permitted to marry Catholics, let alone one who is deemed to be a commoner and bearing a child conceived out of wedlock.

In 1883, Eddy’s mother, Princess Alexandra, had asked the young painter Walter Sickert to introduce Eddy to the artistic and literary life of London. Sickert’s studio, where he spent most of his time, was at 15 Cleveland Street near to Tottenham Court Road in north London. He duly introduced the teenage Prince to many of the area’s ‘bohemian types’, including the theatrical friends he had made when, for four years, he had been a minor member of the Lyceum Theatre Company. Sickert also introduced Eddy to one of his models, a pretty Irish Catholic girl, the afore-mentioned Annie Crook who lived nearby at 6 Cleveland Street and who worked by day in a local confectioners or tobacconist’s shop. They fell for each other and, according to Sickert, went through two clandestine marriage ceremonies, one Anglican and one Catholic. Soon afterwards, due to Annie’s pregnancy, her employer needed someone to deputise for her during her confinement. Walter Sickert was asked if he knew anyone suitable and, after consulting friends, found a young girl by the name of Mary Jean (Marie Jeanette) Kelly, from the Providence Row Night Refuge for Women in Whitechapel. For some months, Mary worked alongside Annie Crook in the shop and the two became friends. In due course, on the 18th April 1885, Annie gave birth to Eddy’s daughter, Alice Margaret and when she returned home, her new friend Mary Kelly moved-in as the child’s nursemaid. Mary also worked as a prostitute in the evenings to supplement her meagre income.

Naturally, Eddy absolutely enraged the establishment with his ‘illicit’ marriage and this combined with the incident of the love-letters, threatened to tear apart the monarchy and spark a constitutional crisis of major proportions. So, as is always the case, the monarchy set in motion a huge cover-up operation as part of the damage limitation process. Annie was kidnapped from the small apartment in Cleveland Street in which she lived and in which Eddy spent time with her and at the same time Eddy was abducted into a carriage headed for Buckingham Palace where he was instructed, in no uncertain terms, to stay until further notice.

Fortunately, fearing the worst, Annie had already given the child, Alice to Walter Sickert for safekeeping shortly before she was forcefully taken to Guy’s Hospital in London. She remained there for five months and whilst she was there, Sir William Gull, the Queen’s personal physician performed a partial frontal lobotomy on her, in effect rendering her docile and compliant and thus easily controlled by these inhuman monsters. Subsequently certified insane by Gull, Annie lived for the rest of her life in institutions, spending her last days in the Lunacy Observation ward of St George’s Union Workhouse, Chelsea and dying there in obscurity in early 1920 at the age of 57.

This was not the first time that Sir William Gull had been implicated in a scandalous royal cover-up operation. Around twenty years prior to this, the Prince of Wales (the future King Edward VII) the father of Prince Eddy, had been involved in a series of extra-marital affairs, one of which was with the young Lady Harriet Mordaunt. One day she foolishly confessed to her husband, Sir Charles Mordaunt, that she had been unfaithful with several men, one of whom was the Prince of Wales.

Sir Charles was absolutely incensed and he let it be known that he intended to sue for divorce, citing the Prince as a co-respondent.   The Prince of Wales was rightly nervous about giving evidence in court as it would bring shame upon the entire royal family and cause an unacceptable scandal. So, at this point, Queen Victoria herself interceded on the Prince’s behalf to protect the reputation of the family and instructed Sir William Gull to intervene.

Gull immediately, in consort with several other doctors conspired to have the young woman declared insane and locked away in a lunatic asylum, where she spent the last remaining 37 years of her life in abject misery, dying in 1906. Ultimately the case was dismissed, saving the Prince and the royals from acute embarrassment and no divorce was granted, not because adultery was unproven but simply because poor Harriet was declared insane.

However, to return to the main story, the matter might have ended there, but for Mary Kelly’s greed. Back in Whitechapel, Mary had befriended three other local prostitutes to whom she boasted of her ‘royal connections’ and in the spring of 1888 the quartet, led by Mary, hatched a plan to demand money from Walter Sickert, threatening to otherwise make the story public. Being a simple girl, she had not fully comprehended the fact that she was in effect also holding-to-ransom a group of psychopathic murderers who would literally stop at nothing and had the means to kill with impunity whilst enjoying the full ‘protection’ of people in high places.

Sickert immediately passed word to Eddy who informed his father and the Prince of Wales discussed the threat in the greatest secrecy with trusted fellow masons in the Royal Alpha Lodge. Subsequently, a special meeting was arranged at the Lodge by the royal masons known as the ‘Princes of the Blood Royal’ whereby they agreed to form a ‘hunting party’ to literally hunt-down and kill the hapless girls as punishment for their sheer audacity and significantly, as a masonic blood-sacrifice ritual.

The ‘hunting party’ was drawn exclusively from the Royal Alpha Masonic Lodge and included Sir William Gull, Eddy’s former Cambridge University tutor J. K. (James Kenneth) Stephen and Sir Charles Warren, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (who took no active part in the killings but who helped facilitate the plot and expedite the cover-up). To drive them about their sordid business they recruited a coachman who had previously betrayed Prince Eddy’s indiscretions to the royals, one John Netley.

Warren provided what information he could, on the girls’ whereabouts using his privileged position in the police force and Sir William Gull prepared grapes injected with opium, which would be offered to the victims to subdue them so that the dastardly deed could take place with a minimum of fuss. It was arranged that John Netley, the coach driver and a particularly nasty character, was to be the ‘getaway driver’ and the ‘lookout’ would be J.K. Stephen, a cousin of Virginia Woolf and another freemason with royal links, whilst the murders were planned to occur within Gull’s carriage – away from prying eyes.

It should be noted that Abberline’s diaries confirmed that the modus operandus was not that of one person only and that the murders were planned and performed according to masonic ritual, similar to a fox-hunt. These are facts which were never allowed to come to light.

So, who was the ringleader of this murderous gang? None other than the prominent freemason, Secretary of State for India, the Leader of the House of Commons and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Randolph Spencer-Churchill, father of the future prime minister, Winston Churchill. Churchill was not only the ‘brains’ behind the entire operation, but he was also personally responsible for the cutting of masonic emblems and symbols into the bodies of the victims, whilst the skilled surgeon’s hands of William Gull performed the organ removals.

The killings and mutilations were not observed by the public simply because four of them were not carried out in the streets where the bodies were found but in a moving coach, whilst the last was perpetrated in situ, in the victim Mary Kelly’s own room. The police must have been aware that the bodies had been moved to their resting places due to the lack of blood as the whole pavement area would surely have been awash with blood had the rituals been performed there. Obviously though, this fact was never publicly disclosed by the police.

The assassins set about discovering the blackmailers’ whereabouts with ‘insider’ help from Warren and then systematically plotted their executions. The ritualistic, murderous spree began on the 31st August 1888 with Mary Ann Nicholls as their first victim and continued with the killing of Annie Chapman on the 8th September. In turn each woman was lured inside the coach, then killed and mutilated in the ritualistic way that the three ‘Juwes’, Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum, the murderers of Hiram Abiff in King Solomon’s Temple, were executed in the old Masonic legend. Their throats were ‘cut across’, their bodies’ torn open, their internal organs deftly removed and arranged around the corpses in their final resting places and their entrails ‘thrown over’ the left shoulder.

On the 30th September there were two further killings but on that night things did not go smoothly. As the murderers were dumping that night’s first victim, Lizzie Stride, in Berner Street, they were interrupted and had to abandon her corpse before its ritual mutilation had been completed. More alarming still, the night’s second victim, Catherine Eddowes, was, according to Sickert, almost immediately discovered to have been killed in error. It was learnt that poor Catherine had for some time lived with a man called John Kelly, had often used his surname and so had been wrongly identified by the gang’s underworld informants as the blackmailer-in-chief, Mary Kelly.

That mistake nearly led to the group’s undoing. In the mistaken belief that this was to be the climactic, final episode of their campaign, the group had already arranged Catherine’s corpse, more completely mutilated than any of her predecessors, in Mitre Square (significantly masonic) opposite the masonic Temple and close to the Whitechapel Road. They had chalked on a nearby wall a masonic slogan to act as a postscript to the whole sordid affair. Abberline copied it down into his notebook and it said:

The Juwes are   

the men that    

will not be blamed          

for nothing.

Arriving on the scene suspiciously quickly, Sir Charles Warren, to the acute surprise of his underlings, ordered that the chalked epitaph, presumed by observers to be in the killer’s hand, noted by Abberline to be that of an ‘educated’ man, should be immediately washed down and erased. The reason he gave was that he did not want anti-Jewish sentiment to be inflamed, but Sickert suggested the real reason was that too many insiders would recognise that the message referred not to the ‘Jews’ but to the ‘Juwes’ of Masonic legend, and would therefore identify the killers as freemasons.

After this setback there was a pause of more than a month, the longest interval between the killings, whilst the group redoubled their efforts to find the real Mary Kelly who was by this time lying low in fear of her life. Meanwhile, rumours of the killer’s associations with freemasonry and with the royal family continued to grow. It was not until the 9th November that Mary Kelly was finally tracked down. To use the coach again was deemed to be too dangerous now, so she was dispatched in her own Dorset Street lodgings, more bloodily mutilated than any of her fellow-conspirators, her throat slashed, her body brutally cut apart and her intestines arranged ritually about the room.

There is in existence a police drawing of the last person to be seen with Mary whilst she was still alive and this bears an uncanny resemblance to no less a person than Lord Randolph Spencer-Churchill himself. Of course, this particular ‘lead’ was never followed-up by the masonic-controlled and run Metropolitan Police. J.K. Stephen, again according to Abberline’s diaries, actually went to the police, made a full confession and surrendered himself in a fit of guilt but of course no arrests were made and Stephen was also released without charge whilst Abberline resigned his position with the force and retired forthwith as a direct result of his disgust at the inaction and cover-up on the part of the police. Indeed there are still files in existence in Scotland Yard that have been sealed forever to prevent the truth from ever being revealed. Stephen himself suffered a complete mental and physical breakdown shortly after the attacks and died a sad, lonely death in a lunatic asylum in Northampton, three years later at the age of only 33.

In the late 1970s, a researcher and author, Stephen Knight, managed to obtain limited access to the ‘Ripper’ files but discovered that there were many gaps in the records. Despite this, he still managed to unearth new leads and information based upon which he wrote a book ‘Jack the Ripper – the final solution’. Unfortunately before publication, many of the more incriminating parts were ‘stolen’ and in those days, before personal computers were commonplace he had no back-ups or copies as protection. After the book was eventually published, minus the more incriminating information, he published another book. ‘The Brotherhood’ which exposed the gross corruption and illegality prevalent in the freemasonic movement and shortly afterwards he was dead – allegedly poisoned, but of course no arrests were ever made. No change there then.

When Prince Eddy found out that his wife had been lobotomised he had a nervous breakdown as a result and when he learned the truth about the ‘Ripper’ murders, he withdrew within himself and was never the same again thereafter.

Sickert fled the country immediately, upon hearing the news of Annie Crook’s abduction and took up residence in Dieppe, France in an attempt to protect the child, Alice. When Alice grew up, she and Walter became lovers and in turn had a child themselves who went by the name of Joseph Sickert – the very same man who held Inspector Abberline’s diaries after inheriting them from his father.

In the meantime, Prince Eddy, his mental health by now completely shattered, was given into the care of the Earl of Strathmore who owned Glamis Castle in Scotland, until such a time as it had been decided by ‘the firm’ what was to be done with him. The royal family then blatantly lied to the world and announced that Eddy had sadly passed away at the age of only 28, on the 14th January 1892 due to influenza, but of course Eddy was still alive and being held in Balmoral Castle having not yet made the final move to Glamis.

Balmoral is approximately 1000 feet (300 metres) above sea-level and as such is partly surrounded by steep cliffs. This was the intended site for the planned murder of Eddy to be undertaken by Randolph Churchill and John Netley the coachman.   The prince was pushed from the cliff-top but somehow managed to survive his fall and after the passage of two days had endeavoured to crawl all the way back to Balmoral where he was found at the door by his incredulous hosts. It was decided after this that the best option would be to just incarcerate him at Glamis for the rest of his life and the Earl of Strathmore agreed to undertake this task on behalf of the royals in return for one simple favour. The favour he stipulated was that one of his daughters be allowed to marry a future king of England.

Prince Eddy died in 1933, forty one years after his ‘official’ death date and during this time, his mother visited him only once, but took a photograph of him which she apparently sent to her cousin. This photograph is still in existence and shows a much older Eddy thoughtfully painting a picture which would sadly never be seen by anyone outside the walls of Glamis Castle.

The pact between Strathmore and the royal family was eventually fulfilled in 1923 when Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (his daughter, b. 1900) married the future King George VI of England after originally being promised to his brother, the heir to the throne and eventually the former King Edward VIII (he of abdication fame). In 1936 George ascended the throne upon his elder brother’s abdication and Elizabeth became his queen consort. Elizabeth of course was more commonly known as the Queen Mother and the mother of the current incumbent of the family firm, Queen Elizabeth the second. She went to her grave in 2002 without ever revealing the secret and thus the world was never aware of this unholy pact.

In a further twist, as revealed in the Duke of Windsor’s (the former King Edward VIII’s) last known interview, shortly before he died, he revealed to Michael Thornton, the author of ‘Royal Feud – The Queen Mother and the Duchess of Windsor’ that the Queen Mother had been in love with him and not his brother Bertie (who eventually became King George VI). In fact it was the Queen Mother’s treachery that was the reason why the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were banished from England and forced to live out the rest of their lives in France. Here is a transcript from the final interview of the Duke of Windsor (formerly King Edward VIII of England) with the author Michael Thornton:

“‘So you’re planning to write a book about the Queen Mother,’ said the Duke, exchanging a conspiratorial smile with his wife.

‘Well, we shall have to be extremely careful what we say on that subject, won’t we darling?’

‘Why is that, Sir?’ I inquired innocently, although I was well aware of the reason.

The Duke, only months away from being diagnosed with inoperable throat cancer, was interrupted by a convulsive spasm of coughing.

He cleared his throat and added: ‘I hope your book will tell the truth, instead of all that gush they dish out about her. Behind that great abundance of charm is a shrewd, scheming and extremely ruthless woman.’

He must have noticed my surprised reaction, for he quickly added, with his most charming smile, ‘…but, of course, you cannot quote that.’

The Duchess was less inhibited. ‘The Duke would have loved to return to live in the land of his birth, but our way was blocked at every turn. We were never allowed to go back, and we never will be allowed. Not until the day we die. She will never permit it. When we are dead, perhaps she may at last forgive us’.

When I asked her the reason, the Duchess’s right arm shot out as if she was taking aim with a gun and she said: ‘Jealousy.’

‘Jealousy of the Duke?’ I wondered. ‘No!’ cried the Duchess, and for the first time her southern American origins were audible. ‘Jealousy of me for having married him.’

The Duke, who appeared vaguely uncomfortable with this topic, murmured: ‘Well, it’s hard to explain. But, yes, Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) was rather fonder of me than she ought to have been. And after I married Wallis, her attitude towards me changed. ‘My sister-in-law is an arch-intriguer, and she has dedicated herself to making life hell for both of us.’”

Was it intended then that they were introduced with the specific aim of a royal arranged marriage between the two in order to fulfil the promise to Strathmore, her father and then when she was rejected by him (he was a notorious playboy and rebel in his younger days so quite possibly he went against the wishes of his family in the matter) she/they decided she would have to settle for second best in his younger brother? After all it was she who fought tooth and nail to have them disinherited by the royals and banished to France.

And is it then also possible and most intriguingly of all, that Edward VIII was forced into abdication deliberately by denying him the right to marry Wallis Simpson whilst he was still King, in order that the decades-old promise would come to fruition and that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the daughter of the Earl of Strathmore could become Queen? There was obviously no other way of fulfilling this promise if Edward was determined to marry Mrs Simpson. Had it been expedient for the powers that be, that Edward was to marry Mrs Simpson whilst still king, there is no doubt in my mind that this would have been allowed to happen. The rules are changed and manipulated to suit whatever is best for our controllers, after all.  One rule for us and NO rules at all for them.

And there is also much irony and even déja vu in the tragic story of the Queen Mother’s nieces, Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon, both born mentally deficient and unable to speak. They were confined in the Royal Earlswood Mental Hospital at Redhill, Surrey in 1941, where they remained for the rest of their lives. Although the Queen Mother (incidentally, the patron of the charity ‘Mencap’) knew that the statement in Burke’s Peerage that both women were dead (published after false information had been supplied by their mother) was untrue, she never visited or ever again acknowledged either of them.

In 1973, the BBC produced a truly bizarre investigation into the ‘Ripper’ story featuring, amongst other strange anomalies, fictional television detectives who all attempted to solve the enigma in their own styles. Several researchers were employed to extract all the information they possibly could about all the potential suspects and after speaking with a long-retired, un-named Scotland Yard detective, one researcher was advised to seek the help of a man by the name of Joseph Sickert who apparently knew about the clandestine marriage of Prince Eddy and a poor Catholic girl by the name of Annie Crook. The researchers could find no evidence of the marriage or the man Sickert and so puzzled by this, they went back to their Scotland Yard contact who revealed that the details he had given them were incorrect (apparently to test their intentions). He then gave them Sickert’s real address and phone number no less and after being tracked down, Sickert willingly told his amazing story as it had been outlined to him by his mother and father many years previously.

Sickert explained that the monarchy had been very vulnerable and unpopular at that time and the news of a royal scandal was likely to cause a revolution. Queen Victoria supposedly handed the matter to Lord Salisbury, her Prime Minister, for resolution and Salisbury ordered a raid on the Cleveland Street apartment and Eddy and Annie were abducted in separate cabs. Her child, a girl by the name of Alice Margaret, had somehow escaped in the care of Walter Sickert who had been one step ahead of the royals all along.

Sir William Gull died shortly after the murders (early 1890) as did JK Stephen (early 1892) at the extremely early age of 33 and ironically both had been committed to insane asylums immediately prior to death. Randolph Churchill died in 1895 also rumoured to be insane, but it was claimed, as a result of syphilis. Annie Crook also died insane in a workhouse in 1920 as a direct result of a lobotomy and severe mental trauma. Netley was chased by an angry mob after he unsuccessfully tried to run over Alice Margaret with his cab shortly after the murders and he was believed to have been drowned in the Thames. There does appear to be an awful lot of insanity and strange deaths around at that time – nothing changes, really.

Sickert also said that his father was fascinated with the murders and bore great guilt over them. Walter Sickert, after all, had been the one who introduced Eddy to Annie and begun the grisly game. To attempt to alleviate his guilt, as he could say nothing safely, he painted clues as to the identity of the murderers into several of his most famous paintings and he later married Alice Margaret.

To say that the BBC researchers were stunned by these revelations would be a gross understatement. In checking the facts, they found that a woman named Annie Crook definitely lived in Cleveland Street at that time and that she did give birth to a daughter at the same time that Sickert said she did. They also believed strongly that this ‘theory’ was the most feasible one of all (as do I) and they incorporated it into the show.

When it was screened, the BBC production was confusing to many viewers. The ludicrous combination of facts with fictional detectives and what was to many, an outlandish theory involving people who in their beliefs could do no wrong, prompted much questioning of the programme’s veracity at the time. Joseph Sickert actually appeared personally in the last episode and verified absolutely everything that had been said. As previously related, it was agreed by all that this version of events was the most likely solution to the mystery.

Stephen Knight, the late author, entered the story a little later. After watching the BBC programme, he asked Joseph Sickert for an interview and after some indecision, Sickert agreed. During the course of their interview, which took place over several meetings, Knight also became convinced that Joseph Sickert believed he was telling the truth. He said that the story had been told to him by his father to explain why his mother always looked so sad and why both she and Joseph were partially deaf (as was Eddy).

Once familiar with the basics of the plot, Knight then attempted to confirm the theory and eventually, he felt that the story warranted a book. Sickert was upset by this as he had only agreed to a short interview for an article and wanted no further publicity and exposure of his father’s role in the story. Undaunted, Knight went ahead with his book anyway but amazingly and contrary to what he had been told by Sickert, attempted to implicate Walter Sickert as the murderer. As a direct result of this action, Joseph Sickert cut off all ties with Knight and immediately publicly denied the whole story – not just simply his father’s alleged involvement in it all, saying that he had made it up for sensationalism.

This I find hard to believe. How could the detective, contacted by the BBC have known Sickert’s whereabouts or even known who he was or somehow involved if the whole story was concocted? And also if Sickert did make it up for ‘sensationalism’, why did he retreat back into obscurity as soon as he realised that Knight was giving him the publicity he allegedly sought in the first place. No smoke without fire I strongly believe and knowing what I know about masonic operations and royal subterfuge down the ages, although there is no categorical proof that this version of events is the correct one, it does ‘tick a lot of boxes’ and contains more than a smattering of circumstantial evidence.

A further legacy of this sorry affair was that the payoff for the Spencers was two terms as prime minister for Lord Randolph’s son and two generations later, Lady Diana Spencer became the wife of the future King Charles III and mother to the future King William V and his brother Harry, only to be famously discarded once she had fulfilled her wifely duties in providing her highly-desirable genes to produce a ‘heir and a spare’ and eventually being brutally and ritually murdered herself in 1997 in Paris.

This then is the real story of Jack the Ripper, straight from the ‘horse’s mouth’ (ie. Joseph Sickert’s mouth). These facts must be known by the current establishment but as always, they close ranks to prevent the real truth from becoming known. All of the multiplicity of theories that abound as to the identity of the killer and the many films, documentaries and TV programmes that portray an unending search for the ‘truth’ are nothing more than elaborate smokescreens, born from the deliberate confusion engendered by the Elite to protect the guilty, as is their usual modus operandus. Yet another tiny example of how easy it is for these psychopaths to provide us all with a completed distorted view of both history and our existing reality.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *