My Beautiful Thesis: the best bits explained for the stupid.

It has come to my attention that traffic has increased here, so perhaps the time is right for a little summary of my matters.

First a short history of how I have introduced my research to the public. I am on record as having published my thesis in condensed form in March 2003. I have also revealed that I got a diploma for it only available to top students, and I regularly reannounce that I am still about to publish it any day now. So that’s clear.

I have not, and never would, show my work to either academics or publishers; the former are alot of jealous cavillers and the latter are just money grubbing pillistines. So I have chosen to place my trust in journalists and antique dealers, who are a much better class of people in general and are known to be trustworty, I think you’ll find.

On to the detail. Some lazy and disreputable writers and researchers have, over the years, suggested that Walter Sickert had knowledge of the Ripper murders and left clues in his paintings to that effect. These people are all charlatans and nuthags. I have taken nothing from them. Nothing from Knight, Fuller or Cornwell. Atall. These unpardonable blunderers have just messed up the whole thing and with their looning have made it more difficult for serios researchers like me to be heard.

They have also foolishly overlooked several important points. namely that it was Prince Eddy and Mary Kelly that had a secret love child - NOT Prince Eddy and Annie Crook. That stupid story came from Walter Sickert’s son. My knowledge comes from close study of his PAINTNINGS. So, you can easily see who is right here.

Anothe amazing discovery I have made is that Fenians and Jacobites are THE SAME THING!!! This is quite revolutionary and has until now not been suspected. Until now dunderheaded and unimaginative academics have ASSUMED that the mainly Scottish, Catholic, royalist Jacobites had very little in common with the exclusively Irish, secular, republican Fenians. I ask you? How stupid and blinkered can people be.

The Fenians and Jacobites were able to make common cause in the cause of the Lost Prince and his cause. If they didn’t, then my whole theory comes crashing down. And that of course would be the end of a thing of beauty, which is beautigful and also incidentally proves how talented, clever and generally superior I am as both a person and a friend.

Next: Mary Kelly WAS a Stuart heiress. She just was. It’s obvious.

Being one of seven children and having five brothers makes her an obvious candidate for perpetuating the Stuart line, wouldn’t you say? Well, the boys would father children called Kelly, wouldn't they? And she was born in poverty in the depths of rural ireland, away from prying eyes, which makes the Stuart connection even more likely. Some authorities dipute this, but I know jealousy when I see it. She is also reported to have went to France once, so that must have been with the hier to the British Empire.

And I can recognise her in all Sickert’s genius paintings - even from behind. Really, I can. And that is Price Eddy sitting next to her in military uniform in that picture because, as the whole world knows, he was the only person in 1880’s England who possessed a military uniform.

Now some say that all the legitimate Stuart offspring are accounted for and there is a line of accepted Staurt hiers descending from James I’s daughter Elizabeth, even down to today. But we all know that Wikipedia is a load of sententious rubbish. Mary Kelly is a better candidate because until now SHE HAS N£VER BEEN SUSPECTED OF BEING A STUART HEIRESS! And because of this the beautiful Mary Kelly was the only viable claimant to the legacy of the Stuarts by 1880. None of her brothers had affairs with royalty did they? So Eddy must have known. And the words to “On Mother Kelly’s Doorstep” clearly allude to this fact.

Now the paintings. I understand Sickert’s work in a new way because I know him so well that I know when he’s joking. (Laughs goldenly. ;-) ) I can hear that little twinkle in his voice. ( Bless.) So I am quite secure in disputing the accepted dates of any of his paintings and ignoring or emphasising any of the titles he himself gave them.

Some historians may raise serious objections to this. But on to the next point.

There may be no documentary evidence for alot of what I have found out but there is a whole world full of intuitive evidence, for those with eye’s sensitive enough to see it and with hearts open to the old Catholic secrets. Indeed this one has been confirmed to me numerous times by visions, and by messages contained in several washing lines of laundry I have seen flapping in gardens of houses which could easily have been catholic. “Eddy, Eddy,” they whispered. “Little Jo(e) will be safe with Wally S.” NOW tell me they werren’t married and had a child.

Now to the hard the documenrtary evidence.

The first message in the small Standard cutting form Oct 5 1888 is definitely from Mary Kelly- despite the fact that it doesn’t exactly say that,-and it was definitely meant for Price Eddy- although I realise that it doesn’t actually say it is. But it is, because there is a mention of ALBERT EDWARD two messages later. See? She must have known he would reply in the same column (but not using either his nickname, Eddy, or his official name Albert Victor - well he couldnt could he?) and that this knowledge would lead to her death.

Even better is the Jenkinson connection. That page says clearly “John Kelly: File re received from Mr Jenkinson”. This has one clear meaning, and one silly one. The proper meaning is that Jenkinson gave Kelly a file - which we can safely assume contained dreadful state secrets. The
silly meaning is that Special Branch, whose ledger this is, were recording receipt of a file FROM Jenkinson ABOUT Kelly. Dur.

I have satisfactority proved why a woman called Eddowes can also be called Kelly or Barratt, and the fact that no one has ever made any reference to Kelly’s Library ever before anywhere just proves how the brilliant I am to have found out this whole incerdibly convoluted tale.

My finding are truly unique. Please respect the integirty of my work.
.
I could go on and on but I’m sure you cannot now possibly disagree with the statement that this research is evidence based, irrefutable and coyly beautiful. Any one who says it isn’t is an ignorant buffoon with no joy in their soul or blossom on their head