Re: Jack the Ripper & the Churchills - soon to be published book

by zerdini Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:28 pm

petal34 wrote:
zerdini wrote:Pity you didn't tsetify at the inquest, Joan.

The judge would have welcomed your input - they welcome armchair detectives!

Sometimes an 'armchair detective' can be better than the real thing,George.
It's amazing what we find out.

The problem is that you didn't find out anything at all, Joan - just speculation with no evidence of any kind whatsoever!

by petal34 Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:29 pm

Where did I say I had found anything out?
Only that it is amazing what we could find out.

I knew the state of Charles and Diana's marriage,like most people did.
A bit more than most,shall I say?

by petal34 Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:31 pm

hiorta wrote:As did Lucan's nanny.

Poor nanny. She was very young,wasn't she?

They never caught Lucan,did they,Hiorta?

Or did they? Have lost touch with the case now.

by zerdini Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:50 pm

petal34 wrote:Where did I say I had found anything out?
Only that it is amazing what we could find out.

I knew the state of Charles and Diana's marriage,like most people did.
A bit more than most,shall I say?

Have you already forgotten what you posted a short while ago? "It's amazing what we find out."

I repeat - you didn't find out anything.

You know nothing about Diana and Charles's marriage other than what you read in the tabloid press.

Trying to insinuate that you had inside information is patently ridiculous. If you had you would have been in all the papers and interviewed on TV. You weren't! Rolling Eyes

Nuff said.

by petal34 Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:57 pm

zerdini wrote:
petal34 wrote:Where did I say I had found anything out?
Only that it is amazing what we could find out.

I knew the state of Charles and Diana's marriage,like most people did.
A bit more than most,shall I say?

Have you already forgotten what you posted a short while ago? "It's amazing what we find out."

I repeat - you didn't find out anything.

You know nothing about Diana and Charles's marriage other than what you read in the tabloid press.

Trying to insinuate that you had inside information is patently ridiculous. If you had you would have been in all the papers and interviewed on TV. You weren't!

Nuff said.

Don't you dare insinuate I am telling lies.
I knew quite a bit about their marriage.
That's enough for you to know.

by zerdini Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:36 pm

petal34 wrote:
zerdini wrote:
petal34 wrote:Where did I say I had found anything out?
Only that it is amazing what we could find out.

I knew the state of Charles and Diana's marriage,like most people did.
A bit more than most,shall I say?

Have you already forgotten what you posted a short while ago? "It's amazing what we find out."

I repeat - you didn't find out anything.

You know nothing about Diana and Charles's marriage other than what you read in the tabloid press.

Trying to insinuate that you had inside information is patently ridiculous. If you had you would have been in all the papers and interviewed on TV. You weren't!

Nuff said.

Don't you dare insinuate I am telling lies.
I knew quite a bit about their marriage.
That's enough for you to know.

I am not insinuating anything - you know nothing at all about their private life - except in your imagination.

I challenge you to prove your claim.

You would be very well known if you were an intimate of them or any of their friends.

Your claims are preposterous.

by Quiet Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:51 pm

I wonder why it matters now. I like the Queen but the rest of the family are quite irrelevant now if you are not English.

I think the Royal Family do represent the class system but they perhaps the better exponents of it. There seems to be immense wealth and privilege in different layers of British society (the Establishment) and that is more worrying than the Family itself.

Diana was a tragic figure in many ways but she was also a very privileged young woman. She had wealth and status but in the end she did try to represent more than those things. I do admire her for that.

Apart from the Queen and Princess Anne, not many of the other members of the Royal Family seem to have done anything of real note. They have little more than birth status to their names.

I prefer to look for 'heroes and heroines' in everyday life. People like your own Harry Edwards are exceptional to me.

It matters little now how Diana died (except for mystery buffs perhaps).

by hiorta Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:02 pm

""They never caught Lucan,did they?"" Petal.

No, apparently he had to run, without money or passport, catch boats on a devious route to the continent and made his eventual way to trustworthy colonialists in Africa. All this while a strict watch was imposed on all ports.

I'd imagine that had it been the nanny who murdered him, she'd have been in police custody the same night.

by petal34 Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:59 pm

You are so right there,Hiorta.

One rule for the rich and one for the poor.
All I remember of the case is,I seem to remember the police were considering Australia.
Not sure if he had been seen there.

So sorry to upset your topic,many apoligies,Hiorta.

by petal34 Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:02 pm

To Zerdini

by zerdini Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:24 pm

petal34 wrote:To Zerdini

You can't answer because you know your claims are preposterous.

by petal34 Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:21 am

Of course I do not know the Royal family.
I did not even suggest I knew them.
Never anticipate,George.

It's Sunday today,do you go to church?
If you do,let's have some peace among us,eh?

by zerdini Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:26 am

petal34 wrote:Of course I do not know the Royal family.
I did not even suggest I knew them.
Never anticipate,George.

It's Sunday today,do you go to church?
If you do,let's have some peace among us,eh?

You stated " Don't you dare insinuate I am telling lies.
I knew quite a bit about their marriage.
That's enough for you to know."

I repeat - you know nothing about their marriage - it's ridiculous to suggest you did.

At last you admit you don't know the Royal Family which is what I said all along.

I am aware it's Sunday and, no, I don't go to church which is of no relevance whatsoever.

I am a Spiritualist and I deal in facts and evidence of survival not idle gossip and speculation.

Furthermore, I am a peaceful person and if you want peace then don't continually post unsubstantiated assertions which have no factual basis.

by petal34 Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:31 pm

This is to put the record straight.

What I know about the marriage of Charles and Diana is not for anyone else's ears.
I heard it in a completely neutral place,not connected to royality and certainly not for any public areas.

I made a chance remark on here.

Now leave it and me alone.

by zerdini Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:04 pm

petal34 wrote:This is to put the record straight.

What I know about the marriage of Charles and Diana is not for anyone else's ears.
I heard it in a completely neutral place,not connected to royality and certainly not for any public areas.

I made a chance remark on here.

Now leave it and me alone.

Then don't make chance and unsubstantiated remarks on here or anywhere else. You don't know anything about their marriage - stop pretending you do.

by Admin Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:51 am

Enough all round I think none of this has much to do with Spiritualism. In terms of plots and counter plots we will soon move on to 9/11 was caused by the US Government. All of these are conspiracy theories with no substantive proof so they feed upon themselves. Do I think the UK Government could have done this yes and that says a whole lot about the way the UK society has gone. Do I actually think it (or in the US 9/11) was the Government there is no proof and almost as many theories as there are people who thought it happened. Unless there is real truth (i.e what the actual facts are) then your truth and my truth have no validity. It is better to leave such debates to the tabloids to help them sell copies.

Time to call it quits and return to Spiritualism which is all about Truth.

Unfortunately our modern world love glamour and rumour far more than substance and ethics. Now that is what we need to project as Spiritualists philosophy, ethics, substance and the truth.

by zerdini Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:22 am

Unfortunately our modern world love glamour and rumour far more than substance and ethics. Now that is what we need to project as Spiritualists philosophy, ethics, substance and the truth.

Absolutely right, Jim.

That is what I've said all along. Very Happy

by Sponsored content