I’ve read your Jack the Ripper articles and have said nothing before, but omg. Albert wasn’t brought up as a potential suspect until 1966 which was WELL BEFORE any police documents were released to the public in 1977. So all the theorists had to go on were newspapers that may or may not have been remotely accurate and hearsay. Not all sources are created equal. Reading books on Jack the Ripper doesn’t make anyone more informed if those books aren’t based on credible information.

Albert was also out of town during the murders of Elisabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes. And the entire idea of them being murdered as a coverup because they knew too much about something or an illegitimate child is contextually ridiculous. Do you know how many poor women claimed their child was an illegitimate royal? They would have been brushed aside even if it was true. There was no need to brutally murder them.

In addition to that, prior to the Jack the Ripper case, there was no fully documented precedent of a sexually motivated serial killer. It wasn’t that they never existed, but that before, there weren’t newspapers being printed every day and widely distributed to a literate public. The “conspirators” wouldn’t have had a concept to hide behind like this.

Jack the Ripper wasn’t anyone special. He was a disgusting excuse of a person who murdered and mutilated innocent women for his own pleasure before there was any procedure to investigate crimes like this. That’s the beginning and the end.

I also have no idea what this has to do with Jack the Ripper. Just because a few of the investigators who were involved in THIS case were involved in this does not mean this case is connected. They just worked on more than one case.

With the utmost respect as a fellow true crime writer, the facts don't need to be bent to be readable.