Late 19th century London is visualised richly, but with the occaisional wobble. Given that a lot of it is still there, I'd have expected a slightly better job. Never mind. Johnny Dep's Van Dyke-esque cockernee-sparra accent is a little distracting, though Heather Graham's Anglo-Irish is pretty respectable.

The murder scenes are quite the most disturbing I've seen in a while.

But none of this is what makes the film interesting for our purposes. What makes it interesting for us is that it's storyline. In brief: Prince Eddy, heir to the throne, marries a Catholic girl, Annie Crook, and has a legitimate child by her, which would be spectacularly illegal under the Act Of Settlement. Not only is his secret wife a Catholic, she's also a prostitute. She's abducted by Special Branch and lobotomised, the baby given away, and the surgeon-in-ordinary to the royal household, Gull, is instructed to murder those other east-end prostitutes who were witnesses at the wedding.

He's a senior Freemason and kills the women in the style of Freemasonry's ritual punishments. Thus, they are not only silenced, but also punished for leading Eddy astray (and infecting him with the syphillis that will shortly kill him). However, Gull goes off the rails and the murders become more and more violent and gruesome. The Met know full well who Jack is, but are prevented for acting by a conspiracy of Special Branch and the masons. Gull is himself lobotomised and packed away to an asylum.

Phew! A grand conspiracy of the old school: sex, royalty, murder, Freemasons, psycho-surgical malpractice, it's got the lot. What it doesn't have, and neither do the several variations on the theme, is any evidence to back it up whatsoever. On which see From Somewhere.

One version of the story has Eddy meeting Crook at the studio of Walter Sickert. Sickert's son Joseph is on record as confirming this. But then, he's also on record claiming to have made the whole thing up. And the chronology doesn't make any sense, etc. etc. A more recent spin has Sickert himself being Jack.

As you can quickly verify with a google search, variations and embellishments of this story go around and around, and the whole thing gets bigger and bigger, with no input of new data.

Amongst the things google turns up are handy hints for the Freemason needing to counter this story. Sort of an FAQ. It's a hoot to read.

Since these events took place some 120 years ago, it's likely that all the evidence that's going to get into the public domain is already there. Now, there are still people alive who witnessed the assasination of JFK at fairly close quarters, and again, we probably know as much about that as we're everg going to. And those people aren't going to last for ever. So soon the JFK conspiracies are going to move into the same regime as the Ripper ones. Should be interesting to watch for students of the conspiracy nut phenomenon. -- Keith Braithwaite

Saw the movie a couple of weeks back. Like you I trawled the web afterward, and was amazed at the quantity of related conspiracy theories ... some involving the new film itself. Your comment on the accents made me laugh (at myself, I hasten to point out) -- from this side of the little pond the Johnny Depp accent seemed great (not at all van Dyke-esque, and remarkable for someone from Kentucky), while the Heather Graham accent was from the worst school of Hollywood Oirish (ok, bias acknowledged, and why not the same concessions for a girl from Wisconsin). -- Peter Swords

I've only talked once on the phone to Joseph Sickert, who lives five minutes away from me in Kentish Town. (They all do, you know, you have to realise that, people.) A close mutual friend from a Catholic background who started to attend some of our informal Christian meetings in peoples' homes down by Camden Lock in the late 80s put us in touch a few years ago, after I'd read the book The Ripper And The Royals that gives Joe's side of the story. This little known and not so terribly well written effort was penned by a local London writer after Sickert was terribly disappointed at the more professional Stephen Knight ending up putting the blame for the killings on his Dad, after he had taken the massive step of trusting Knight with all the "terrible secrets" he had kept to himself for so many years.

The reason Joseph says he didn't publicise the true details of the Ripper case before the 70s was to protect the feelings and the reputation of the Churchill family during "Winnie"'s life (as he calls him). He retains the greatest affection and respect for Winston Churchill, whom he claims saved his life during the War. His insights about the key differences between Winston and his father Randolph (whom the son adored, despite his lack of obvious care for him) are worth thinking about in their own right, independent of which exact team, led by whom, did in fact carry out the Ripper murders. What is well known on the public record is that Walter Sickert, of Camden Impressionists fame, helped to teach Churchill to paint.

Perhaps the most interesting recent piece of evidence suggesting that Sickert's story is not so far from the truth is that the Royal Bank Of Scotland has recently started to add HRH after his name on his cheque book. I took that to be a major concession from the Queen Mum at the end of her life. At least, that's what Joe says now happens. I haven't seen it. He's pretty careful whom he lets into his home. -- Richard Drake

Some of these wild ideas had to come From Somewhere.