|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 197
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 2:39 pm: | 
|
Harry,
One of the main problems of understanding this case, from a modern perspective, is to understand their terminology.
When Littlechild states "under constant watch", immediately the need arises to believe that Tumblety was shadowed every second he was in London, day and night. That would be incorrect. Just from Tumblety's known movements during that time we know he was not watched day and night, at least at first.
Understanding the Special Branch's watch on Tumblety means the bringing together of a lot of different elements.
1 - Prior to November 7th, they had gathered enough information on Tumblety to know he had committed at least 4 acts of gross indecency, going as far back as July 27th, and including August 31st (a special night), October 14th (the night before a special daylight sighting occurred) and November 2nd. What this means in and of itself is that they were gathering this information from the past and up to November 2nd.
2 - On October 29th the San Francisco Police contacted Scotland Yard to let them know the had found a sample of Tumblety's handwriting. The request was made in October. This is an obvious attempt to link the Lusk Letter to Tumblety, as the description of the man in Emily Marsh's shop so closely resembled Tumblety.
3 - After Tumblety was arested and subsequently let go on November 14th, he was allowed to flee the country. Two things: First - I say he was ALLOWED to flee because he was followed every step of the way after being released, as not only were three undercover detectives waiting in NY to keep tabs on him, but also the Chief Inspector, Thomas Byrnes, of the NY Police to keep Scotland Yard informed, as well as a Special Branch officer on board the ship, which I have theorized to be John Sweeney. Secondly - why I say he was not released until November 14th, is that there is so much information on Tumbelty during that 2 week period, from November 2nd to November 16th, that we must accept the fact that Tumblety was not released early enough to have committed the Kelly murder on November 9th.
4 - Even more evidence that Tumblety was not the murderer on November 9th, was that if the Special Branch was not watching his every movement before November 7th, we know they were after. And we know that they would not have released him on bail on the 14th if he had committed the murder on November 9th.
5 - They followed him after his release. Once he was on board a ship set for NY, an interesting thing happened that no one seems to see the major importance of. It was leaked to the NY papers, on November 19th, that Tumblety was arrested in connection with the 'JTR' murders. He was not, or at least not as the murderer.
6 - Combining all those facts, and many other documented facts, the conclusion arises that Tumblety was viewed by the Special Branch as some sort of accomplice, perhaps leading them to the actual murderer of murderers in NY, the sole reason for leaking that information to the NY press.
7 - As Tumblety's Fenian roots are questionable, and no actual Fenian plot to assassinate Balfour or murder these women in an act of terrorism was on the agenda for the Fenians or the IRB in 1888, then what can we understand from this information?
8 - To me it's crystal clear, but nobody likes the outcome.
Hope this helps Harry
SJR |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 610
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
There seems to be a need to paint Berner Street as a hotbed for subversive activity. Actually, several authors who have written on the subject have stated that the Special Branch and the police in general had little or no interest in the Socialists in the East End in the 1880s. In 1890 the Austrian government requested from Anderson information on the Socialists in London. He sent them a newspaper clipping! So much for surveillance. The Anarchists, meanwhile, were located in the West End; a different story entirely. RP |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 198
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
AP,
Inspetor Reed vs. Inspector Reid. Could have happened to anyone, especially with Abby hanging out with both of them. I tell you what, we'll forgive you if you send some of that Brandy our way. Deal?
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 199
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
RJ,
Well the record exists that anarchist and socialist organizations were looked at by the Special Branch.
As far as constantly watching them, I couldn;t agree with you more, that there wasn't really a watch on them, but more of a general knowledge of their existence. Meaning that the Special Branch knew of the Berener Street Club, but that's probably where it ended.
However, (my favorite word - LOL), if someone were to commit a murder, with the express intention of rubbing it in the noses of the Special Branch, wouldn't it be smarter to do it in the backyard, so to speak, of an organization with less security, yet was known about by the Special Branch, rather than say a Fenian hideout?
Just a thought.
SJR |
Timothy B. Riordan
Sergeant
Username: Timothy
Post Number: 13
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Much has been made of the statement in the New York Times dated 23 Nov. 1888 that the San Francisco Police were in touch with Scotland Yard about Tumblety as early as October 29th. However, there is no evidence to support this. On the other hand, even a cursory reading of the articles from San Francisco papers on this site, shows much evidence to the contrary. For example, on 23 Nov. 1888, the San Francisco Daily Report stated: "When the news was received of the arrest of Dr. Tumblety a few days ago on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer, Chief Crowley instituted inquiries regarding his antecedents."
Not one of the San Francisco papers indicates that there was any contact between the San Francisco department and Scotland Yard before November 19th. Whereas five of them suggest that the contact was initiated after word of his arrest was spread.
It seems to me that if Chief Crowley was involved in the investigation earlier than the 19th, he would have told his home town papers
Best,
Tim |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 200
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Tim,
Interesting points.
However, the San Francisco papers, much like the London papers, would not have known about the request of handwriting samples by the Special Branch, a secret anti-terrorist police unit, and the San Francisco PD. I'm not sure why most people need to provide newspaper accounts documenting inter-departmental sharing of delicate information between police departments?
I do understand your point. Without corroborative evidence how can we trust that they really did communicate?
Mind you, there's no reason to believe the Special Branch would have told the San Francisco Police Department they needed a handwriting sample on Tumblety because they suspected him of being 'Jack the Ripper'.
In fact, the mention of Tumblety in the San Francisco newspapers on November 23rd, 1888 actually tells me that THERE WAS communication between London and San Francisco prior to that. Why else would the San Francisco papers care that a man, who hadn't been in San Francisco since the 1860's or 1870's, as far as I can last determine, was arrested on suspicion of being 'Jack the Ripper'.
As far as I can determine the mention of Tumblety in the San Francisco newspapers was exactly similar, in purpose, to the mention of Tumblety as arrested on suspicion, in the NY papers. The Special Branch was trying to flush out as associate of Tumblety's because they believed not only was there an accomplice, but that Tumblety knew who it was, probably was in on the planning, and hopefull would lead them to him.
Think about it from a Tumblety history standpoint. Every time we know of him fleeing an area where he resided it was because he was in deep trouble. From St. John's in Canada, where as we know Inspector Andrews of the Special Branch was located after he shows up for a couple of hours work on August 31st, as verified by DC Walter Dew, to his many troubles in various other places, it seems like it is obvious why Tumblety fled London under a fake name.
SJR
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1885
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Hi RJ
Its true that Soho was the earlier focus of much of the revolutionary and "socialist"/"anarchist" activity.Police infiltration in these meetings and organisations was common.
Later the activity moved Eastwards towards Mile End and Stratford.
But the point that may be of some interest here is that the groupings were so fluid that other causes such as Home Rule for Ireland and the Fenians joined forces from time to time.Both anarchists /socialists and Fenians seemed to have attended the London Patriotic Club which was one of a number of groups that attempted to form alliances between the more extreme elements who were demanding votes for women,anti imperial legislation and Irish Home Rule.
All these had loose links with the likes of Kropotkin,the Russian Revolutionary,who spoke in these clubs in 1882 [and later Lenin etc.]and had grown out of the 1875 actions of the Parisian Communards.German and Russian emigres swelled the numbers of all these clubs and groupings including the Berner Street Club which housed the radical and famous Arbeter freit Anarchist /workers paper.
A previous paper the Freheit,was closed down for printing an article approving the murder in Phoenix park of Lord Cavendish.This though was in 1882 but demonstrates the links that existed and continued tp exist into the 20th century.
The East end was THE most radical place in Britain.[Bradford wasnt far behind and Scotland too]but thesuccessful Match Girls Strike of 1888was a pivotal moment in Labour History setting in train The massive and equally successful Dock Strike of 1889 that set in motion the Independent Labour Party that changed the face of British politics.
All these events worried the powers that be.
Ofcourse there was surveillance -there had to be.
The main meeting places for the anarchists were in clubs in Mile End and Stratford[London]in the 1880"s.There were demontrations and other protests about the police raids on the Anarchist International club and the breaking up of open air meetings in Stratford.
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Natalie-- It's too simplistic to couple the Socialists with the Anarchists. The Met had a very different view of the two groups. Hell, William Morris was having open air meetings in Hyde Park. They were hardly a subversive organization. The West End might not have been exactly in love with the Labour movement, but that's very different from saying the police were infiltrating what were completely legal organizations. Feel free to argue the point (I'd just as soon not) but for an opposing view check out Bernard Porter's The Origins of the Vigilant State, or more recently, the new biography on William Melville (Special Branch) by Cooke. Both authors argue that the Special Branch and the Met had very little or no interest in the Socialists. Cooke mentions Berner Street by name as of no interest, except, possibly to Russian secret police. Obviously the Fenians, and the Anarchists in Fitzrovia were a pain in the Met's neck, but then they were throwing bombs, no? RP
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 77
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
Monty,
Yes I have spent considerable time filling in forms of all sorts,and many ,many hours on surveilance of one sort or another,as of course you have yourself.It is certanly not as glamourous as some films portray,but the activities observed sometimes enlighten what could otherwise be boring periods of nothingness.
Stan,
I was explaining a general view of surveilance.What pertained to Tumblety,and others during the Whitechapel murders I have no idea.Very little information of a detailed kind is available.'Constantly watched',without the detailed supporting reports,doesn't give a clear picture.Some knowledge of a person's movements is gained in cooperation with other agencies,without the need for constant observation,but you have shown,in the case of Tumblety,that extra measures were taken.
No doubt all patrolling officers,in Whitechapel,in the autumn of 1888,were extra vigilant.To catch the Ripper in the act,or to produce evidence that led to his capture,would indeed be rewarding.
There are however some disturbing aspects.One would expect that Commercial Street would be a thoroughfare that was closely monitored,yet Hutchinson's testimony shows that something was amiss,as no law officer seems to have observed anything that would back his story.
The ripper was extra smart,or surveilance of the sreets of Whitechapel left something to be desired. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1887
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 5:55 am: |
|
Hi RJ
Much of the information for the post above comes from a recent book entitled "Violent London" by Clive Bloom.Some however is from Prof.William Fishman"s book "The Streets of East London" which in turn includes information on a highly acclaimed work of his called East End Jewish Radicals.
It simply isnt true to say you can"t compare the early Anarchists with the early Socialists because in the 1870"s and 80"s when these movements were forming they were much more fluid than they later became.I think the best way to paraphrase the thinking/recording I make from the above books is to say the early British Socialist movement was "infiltrated" for want of a better
word,by the early German and Russian Revolutionary movement and that their were enormous infights and faction fights which included the likes of William Morris [who found it all too hair raising probably]and went off to form a movement of his own.But big important events like the open air meetings in Hyde Park/Trafalgar Square etc that were more often than not broken up by the police,then all the various groups combined to form a Broad United Front which would have most certainly included the Berner Street members---and William Morris who its recorded was a regular speaker at the Berner Street Club.
All this,I restate RJ is simply to point out the connections that existed between the Fenians and the early Radicals,whether these were later to call themselves Anarchists or Socialists. Its true thatlater they separated into much more distinct groupings but in 1888 they were still arguing in factions.
There are in the Bloom book numbers of recorded raids and infiltrations by the police of the meetings ,demonstrations andother activities of these early Anarchists/Socialists which I can put on here if you want.
Natalie
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1888
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 6:13 am: |
|
Harry,
I see our posts have crossed here.
Well here Harry your knowledge and Monty"s must be far deeper and fuller than mine.Whereas I am only quoting from books you have the far more valuable,hands on experience!
Its why I am always much more swayed by Abberline who was said to have been second to none in terms of first hand experience,than say Machnaghten who seems to me to have only made wild guesses about who the ripper was, from second hand accounts.
I "d far rather have the genuine bewilderment of Abberline who confessed to not knowing who the ripper was and who in a certain sense rubbished Machnaghten"s theory.
I believe Abberline!
Natalie
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1722
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 9:45 am: |
|
Hi Nats,
Caz,
I guess this is a very distinct possibility
although you are giving Jack a down to earth
political intention apart from his murders.
No, I was just considering the possibility that, in line with many other serial killers, he attacked women within his own race, was a bigot, and therefore non-Jewish and inclined to be anti-Semitic. If so, his chosen killing fields were full of the 'enemy', one way or t'other, and it would have been fitting - and very easy as it turned out - to try fitting a Jew up for his crimes.
I can't imagine many serial killers would put political awareness near the top of their agenda, considering how asocial their activities are.
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 07, 2005) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1889
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 10:59 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
But is there any known precedent of serial killers fitting up a vulnerable minority/ethnic group in this way ie stopping 10 minutes after
such horrendous mutilation and murder and thinking to himself," Hey me laddo,good job I remembered to bring that chalk , I can just stop here outside this Yiddish doorway and write a few obscenies about Jews and blame THEM for what I"ve been doing-where"s that stinking rag?Oh yeah-if I drop it underneath the writing that"ll make "em sit up and think!"
I mean Caz,thats more or less how he would have been thinking if what you say is right.I just cant credit the ripper with this
somehow. But then I tend to think he was either a single minded[but mad] serial killer or something else entirely.
Natalie |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 96
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Despite all of the surveillance on Tumblety and despite the large dossier that Littlechild said was compiled on this Ripper suspect, it is expected to be believed that the British authorities did not have a sample of the man's writing. Not only did they claim not to possess it, but they felt that it could not even be attained from any of the English Banking Institutions where Tumblety had conducted his transactions for the previous 20 years; nor could they attain it from any paperwork relating to Tumblety's public business practice on the Whitechapel Road; nor from any of his British lodgings; and so forth.
Being "in need" of Tumblety's handwriting, they chose not to deal with Inspector Byrnes in New York who had been on Tumblety's case for years and who would have had easy access to Tumblety's most current handwriting. (e.g. Tumblety had over $100,000 in bonds in a NY Banking establishment.) Instead of contacting Byrnes, the English authorities communicated with the San Francisco Police Dept in a supposed attempt in obtaining Tumblety's handwriting from the year 1870. This was the cover story which was leaked to the American Press one week after Tumblety stunned the British authorities by legally walking out of their custody of him on Nov 16th.
This wasn't about "the seeking of a handwriting sample" which Scotland Yard already had in its possession. This was about the money. That huge Hibernia Bank account was never drawn upon by its depositor. Tumblety didn't arrive in San Francisco in March 1870 carrying a sack full of his own money to be deposited in an Irish-American Bank prior to his abandonment of it. He was privately given the money in San Francisco, and he was instructed to store it in his name at this Hibernia Bank which was a half a block's walk from the quack's business "front" - the phony Indian herb doctoring office. It's not like he hadn't done this type of work before in other cities. It was Tumblety's money in name only, and I find it doubtful that he would have been allowed to even touch it without approval. Subsequently, he didn't come near that Hibernia Bank at any time through the 1870's and 1880's. Except for a visit to his sister's home in Vallejo during the autumn of 1875, I've seen nothing that shows Tumblety to even have stepped foot in the state of California after Sept 1870.
Anderson's open letter to SF Police Chief Crowley was a pressure tactic employed against the entity that controlled this money. Anderson is letting this opponent of the Special Branch know in plain American newspaper print that "If things don't change, there is going to be a financial price tag placed on the trouble this Tumblety character of yours has been causing us. We know where your money is, so control your man." The British authorities were ticked off because they had just lost control of the man for good on Nov 16th. Once Tumblety made it back to New York, he was home free. Good luck to any English detective trying to receive assistants in that city during this time period. The English had a friend in Byrnes, but that city was very pro-Irish |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1892
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 1:15 pm: |
|
I wonder did Tumblety ever collect,along with his wombs and other paraphernalia,any ginger beer bottles?
It seems to me from the information above,his Irish /American connections etc that he could have been some sort of "double agent".
The ginger beer bottles by the way,according to the Bloom book cited above,were part of the arsenal of the Anarchists and the Fenian movement. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 201
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Malta Joe,
That is a wealth of information.
There are a couple of problems that arise.
Why did the Special Branch follow Tumblety to Paris, and then on to NY, as we know both when Tumblety landed in New York and the fake name he used to board the steamship Le Bretagne at Le Havre? In fact it is much more complex than that.
Tumblety was bailed out by two men, both of whom were later tracked by the police and both stated they had only known him for a couple of days. Who were these two men? If it had been strictly over this money why don't we have further information on these two men?
They weren't upset about Tumblety legally walking out on the British authorities on November 16th. They allowed him to be bailed on the 14th, and he returned on the 16th in front of a magistrate. That is a documented record.
So according to this theory the British authorities were stunned by Tumblety walking out on bail, returning two days later for his actual court appearance, then following him to France, where someone, John Sweeney most likely, waited the requisite days until Tumblety boarded a steamship for NY? Doesn't sound stunned, sounds kind of planned, as if for a special surveillance purpose. Stunned just does not make sense.
We know today that Tumblety had over $100,000 in bonds in a NY bank. Do you think its quite possible that the authorities did not know this information then? In fact, no one really knew this information till Tumblety was researched after the rediscovery of the Littlechild Letter in 1993. If you had asked Evans or any prominenet researcher if Francis Tumblety had over $100,000 in a NY bank, their response would have been, "Tumblety who?". Tumblety, at that time, was a crackpot. At that time $100,000 was probably more like a million, approximately. Do you think that if the Special Branch believed Tumblety was working for the Fenians, or in conjunction with the Fenians, as we know they did from Littlechild's letter, they also thought he was a millionaire? That is highly unlikely. Why would a millionaire be involved in not only a group of horrific murders, but murders that also drew attention to an assassination plot against Arthur Balfour?
My point is, if your theory and ideas are correct, why was Andrews researching Tumblety in Canada, a place where he may not have stepped foot in since the early 1860's? Why was Andrews then sent to NY, where it is documented in the papers that his business was connected to the Whitechapel murders, not in connection with money laundering or in connection with any Fenian entities that controlled Tumblety or his money?
And most importantly, I fail to see the point of leaking to numerous papers, in cities where Tumblety had acquaintances due to his residing there previously, that his arrest was on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer, if it was just about a police scare tactic toward the money handlers?
The major problem with Tumblety, as I see it, is researchers fail to bring these two entities together, the murders and the possible Fenian background, which includes staying in pro-Irish cities such as NY and San Francisco. Most will use one or the other, while failing to realize that there is a definitive connection.
Let me state that I do not believe Tumblety was the murderer, and neither did the Special Branch. Basic deductive logic tells us this. So why is their leaked information connecting him to the murders, why is he followed after his legal bail and release, and why is he not arrested or even further detained when he arrives in NY, as Inspector Byrnes states he was waiting on the docks to keep surveillance on him? Keeping surveillance on him in NY means one thing to me, they were hoping Tumblety would lead them to someone. And that makes sense out of a whole bunch of messy information.
SJR |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 97
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Stan,
Your second to the last paragraph brought up a good point. The connection between these killings and the Fenian cause deserves more attention. I know of a 19th century Scotland Yard detective who was somewhat outspoken on this topic. I'm trying to obtain more info on him in the hopes of properly presenting him in the future.
You asked me if I thought it was possible for the authorities to have known about Tumblety's $100,000 worth of bonds back in the 1880's. Yes, they did know about it. These were Government bonds and South Carolina railroad bonds that were publicly featured in the NY's Tombs Police Court during the "Tumblety vs Lyons" case. Tumblety falsely claimed Mrs. Lyons confiscated some of the railroad bonds. A subsequent trial of "Tumblety vs O'Connor" was heard because Tumblety accused a broker for improperly disposing these bonds. Brooklyn detectives Frost + Chambers presented evidence against Tumblety at this trial.
Your question concerning why a wealthy man like Tumblety would get himself involved with a series of horrific murders gives birth to other question along this same line: Why would a wealthy man retain such a penchant for slumming? Yet this is what Tumblety did throughout his life. Why would a wealthy man choose the horrible Whitechapel Road to open a business? Tumblety did this, too. In April 1881, Tumblety was thrown in a New Orleans jail for pick-pocketing. Why would a wealthy man do that? Figuring out this man's motives is difficult. I do wonder how much of his wealth was actually accessible to him.
When you made your remark about the Special Branch not believing that Tumblety was the murderer, it gave the impression that Littlechild's comment about Tumblety being "a very likely suspect" has met with your rejection. If it turns out that you're right about the Special Branch's belief, then that would be a very commendable result for you. The only police official we knew of who focused on Tumblety as being the killer was a Special Branch man, Littlechild. Yet you would have been able to correctly turn the tables on this trend of thinking and accurately report that the Special Branch hadn't believed in Tumblety's guilt after all. If you're right about this, hey good going, that'd be very noteworthy.
Your John Sweeney talk was very interesting. I hope more details can be shared about him in the future. As for the Balfour plot, I recall reading a posting here which connects this plot to a man named Walsh who died in Bellevue Hospital. I'll try to re-locate that posting. I haven't come across anything to connect Tumblety with this plot though.
We've got our dates crossed on when Tumblety was bailed. You've got him getting freed on bail on Wednesday Nov 14th and the Evans + Gainey book on page 270 has Fri Nov 16th as the day the bail money was deposited. The sequence being that bail was set on the 14th; Tumblety remaining in custody for two nights; then his two men bailed him out on Friday. Regardless of which account is accurate, 300 pounds was an enormous bail sum for misdemeanor charges. It's a sum that is set for the intention of keeping a prisoner in custody with the aspirations of drawing out a confession.
I'd answer your Andrews question by saying that we're dealing with two agendas with Tumblety. His political ties and the suspicion of him being the murderer. I feel Andrews' pursuit of Tumblety in NY was focused on the Whitechapel killings, and Anderson's open letter to Crowley focused on pressuring Tumblety's political ties.
Finally, Byrnes claimed that the reason Tumblety wasn't arrested in NY during Dec '88 was because there was no charges against him in America and that his offenses in England were not extraditable. I sense you're not buying into that. You're feeling is that Byrnes' real intent for not arresting Tumblety was to purposely allow the quack to roam free in NY with the hopes that he'll lead a surveillance team to a wanted figure. Go for it, Stan. Really, if you feel this is where the trail has taken you, just keep digging into it. I think we all should be encouraged to find out as much as we can about this case. During the process we sometimes end up discovering important info which we were not even looking for. Doggone, you sure put me to work with all those questions! I'll let you have the last word if you want it. Good luck in your future research. It will be interesting to hear how it develops. - Joe |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 202
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Joe,
Excellent commentary and history on Tumblety. I look forward to discussing it with you further in September.
We both have ideas of why, neither of which, I think, are incorrect, as they are not in direct opposition with each others. If I read yours correctly.
My own goal is understanding the murder case, and while Tumblety's history is a part of this case, it is not the most essential part. I believe the movements and actions of the Special Branch are far more important than Tumblety's history, although the two are not indifferent to each other.
As far as the large sum of money for bail, generally in order to receive or produce a confession, what confession could you think this meant? It couldn't have been a confession of the murders. My only hypothesis is it was intended to induce a confession of his complicity, and a production of his associates.
I could be wrong, but why would Tumblety flee? Perhaps because they told him they knew he was involved, and would be watching him the rest of the way? You don't try to get a confession that he was 'JTR' and let him leave on bail. They held people for much longer and for much less than that.
SJR |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 374
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 9:09 pm: |
|
Caroline...Ladyfriend,you said:
"I can't imagine many serial killers would put political awareness near the top of their agenda, considering how asocial their activities are." ---Try Joe Paul Franklin and Joe Christopher,two serial killers who expressed their dissatisfaction with miscegenation the hard way. Try the ZEBRA killings,where Whites were killed by blacks simply to promote their agenda. Try those ritualists from Mexico,who believed that if they ate "Anglo" [ read: White ]brains,they would get smarter and have more powers as brujos...Theres more than a few,my dear.
Going to the Ripcon in Baltimore,by any chance?
How |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1727
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 4:27 am: |
|
Hi How,
I hear you, and maybe Jack's mutilation murders were politically motivated, but the message in that case seems to me about as clear as the graffito.
I doubt if I'll be able to go to Baltimore, although I'd love to.
Hi Nats,
If Jack chalked the graffito (and I believe you're open to that possibility), he had Juwes on the brain at the time. The question would then be why? Was it personal or political or a bit of both?
(If Jack was Jewish, however, I don't believe the graffito was his work - it would be way too much like pooing on his own doorstep, wouldn't it?)
Love,
Caz
X |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 203
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
Caz,
But JUWES doesn't mean JEW in any language. The Chief Rabbi wrote a letter to Warren exclaiming that fact.
SJR |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 78
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 4:50 am: |
|
Natalie,
I was not commenting on the truthfulness or otherwise of Hutchinson,just that surveilance,if it was being carried out,failed to produce any tangible result that backed his story.
Now take the Berner St killing.Coincidental or otherwise,Stride was killed while an organised political meeting was taking place in a room adjacent to the killing.Had surveilance of that meeting been in progress by Special Branch for instance,they would have witnessed the Stride incident,and reported on it,but there is no record that they did.
Aberline,as officer in charge of ground operations,would have organised any surveilance concerning the ripper activities.Had surveilance produced worthwhile results,I'm certain that would have been documented.
If there was an overlap between different forces,one would expect that information would have been exchanged where neccessary.
Therefor the term'Under constant watch"needs explanation,and we do not have it.If it applied to Tumbety,or anyone else for that matter,and concerned the Ripper investigation,then it failed to establish a criminal involvement. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
Harry,
As I mentioned before, pulling off surveillance in Berner Street would be some feat.
To me it would be easier getting an informant or someone inside the club.
Just a view,
Stan,
That if the word is indeed 'Juwes'.
Regards,
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 204
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
Monty,
Interesting. Here's an idea.
Why don't you tell me why you think it wasn't, or might not have been? And I'll tell you why I think it was?
Actually why I know it was, but that sounds arrogant.
SJR |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1622
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Stan,
OK, Ill play.
We have Juwes, Jewes, Jeuwes, Jeuws, Juewes, Juews, Juives or James.
Your turn.
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 206
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 7:18 am: |
|
Monty,
Mine is not really a what else could it have been? It is a more of what it actually was.
The two sources PC Long and DC Halse differed in their opinion, so let's throw them out for a second.
Who was the most important person to view the GSG? Charles Warren. He ordered its erasure. This indicates to me that he actually read the GSG, before ordering Arnold to erase it.
So what does Warren think the word was? Because if we had some sort of documentation of what Warren thought the word was then this whole mess could be cleared up. In fact we do.
According to Martin Fido, Warren made a public announcement that the word "Juwes" did not mean Jews in any known language.
Why make this announcement if the word was not "Juwes"? If the word was something other than "JUWES", as you have given many examples of, why not announce one of those, or even that it could have been something incomprehensible, so that they really could not understand what it was?
More so, we are talking about five small lines, in chalk, on black marble fascia, inside an entranceway, that the police had blocked off. This graffiti could have been covered with a newspaper or a jacket. There was a reason why Warren erased it.
That reason upsets many people, but it also allows others to move forward, past the confusion of what the actual word was, to trying to look for a reason of why it was actually written.
With all due respect, in my opinion, those who are remaining behind to analyze possible wordings, are doing just that, remaining behind. I need to hear a solid argument, which I do not believe there is one, why Warren would announce publicly, to benefit the Chief Rabbi, that the word "JUWES" did not mean Jews in any language?
Warren knew the word and erased the message as a result of it. Plain and simple. There is no justification for his action, and one awful, incorrect and disprovable theory, purposefully planted in my opinion, clouds the actual issue.
Hope this clears some things up.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 954
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
Stan
I need to hear a solid argument, which I do not believe there is one, why Warren would announce publicly, to benefit the Chief Rabbi, that the word "JUWES" did not mean Jews in any language?
Didn't he do it to counter anti-semitism?
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 207
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
Chris,
Yes. That's what most believe, including me. But the point was why did he announce that the word was "JUWES", and that it did not mean Jews in any language, if that was not the word he saw on the wall and ordered erased?
This debate is on the word itself, which you must surely agree that Warren saw, as the GSG site was the only site he visited in connection to the murders. I hope.
SJR |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1623
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
Stan,
Yes, a fair dinkum point.
However, its the interpretation not the actual meaning.
Surely that was Warrens fear.
Regards,
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 208
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
Monty,
So we can move on from what word it was, I would hope, because there are some out there who still can not. And that's not meant to be rude or disrespectful. There are just those who will not trust, despite all the documentation and logic behind it, that the word was actually "Juwes".
As far as Warren's fear? This is the guy who made Bloody Sunday. Do you think a five line piece of graffiti honestly scared him as to whether or not there would be a Jewish reaction? If that were the case why visit the scene? Just have Arnold go back and erase it.
But Warren did visit the scene. Perhaps because he wanted to see the message, to see if it really did say "JUWES". When he saw that it did, as we can logically deduce from his announcement, as well as DC Halse's testimony at the Annie Chapman inquest, he ordered it erased.
Why do you really think he did that? The mighty militarist Warren afraid that a five line piece of graffiti could cause a riot, even though the police were all over the scene by the time he arrived? Or was it something else that made him erase it?
SJR |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
Stan,
As far as Warren's fear? This is the guy who made Bloody Sunday. Do you think a five line piece of graffiti honestly scared him as to whether or not there would be a Jewish reaction? If that were the case why visit the scene? Just have Arnold go back and erase it.
A series of murders on or very near to his patch (2 within mins), constant reports of lynching attempts, the Leather Apron debacle, anti-semetic writing next to the only tangable clue the killer left,
Yeah, I think he was afraid. His jobs on the line here and something occured that could become very dangerous. Its a call only he could make. He is ultimately accountable.
Why do you really think he did that? The mighty militarist Warren afraid that a five line piece of graffiti could cause a riot, even though the police were all over the scene by the time he arrived? Or was it something else that made him erase it?
It would have been a riot that he could not contain. Trafalgar Square is one thing, the warrens, nooks, alleys and passagways of Whitechapel, with is timber structures and united combatants, is something completely different. It would be something the Government would seek to avoid at any cost.
He did it because he was trying to keep some sort of control on a situation that could have escalated into violence, destruction and death of many, many people.
The situation Warren was facing should not be underestimated.
Regards,
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 209
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
Monty,
Fair points.
Why did Warren visit the scene then, if getting rid of graffiti was all he wanted? You do know that Arnold saw the graffiti, informaed Warren personally, and the two of them went back to the GSG. Why? He could have just sent a constable to erase it. The longer he delayed, under your concept, the more trouble that could have occurred.
SJR |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Stan,
Like I say, he was accountable. If I was Warren then I would want to make sure that I had a good reason for deleting a possible communication from the killer.
Having Arnolds word fine yet he didnt order its removal, Warren did. Arnold can advise, presume Warrens reply and even carry out Warrens wishes yet he didnt make that descision himself. Why? Because Arnold knew the responsibilty for the removal lies with Warren.
Its the horse scenario that I keep on banging on about.
Cheers
Monty
PS Stan, just to clarify, I do understand your point and feel its just as valid.
PPS A constable did remove the writing.
(Message edited by monty on May 09, 2005)
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 210
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
Monty,
I see your point and understand that we might never know the truth. From what I know of Warren I lean toward my way of thinking, but I could be mistaken. It does however become perfectly explainable, within my theory, without having to change or alter anything.
You could be right though.
And if Doc Brown hadn't destroyed the damn DeLorean we could get that sucker up to 88 and find out. But he did, the absent minded bastard.
SJR |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1626
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 10:41 am: |
|
Stan,
Fear not, I do believe the TARDIS has returned !
Have a good un, Im off to play Cricket.
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 478
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
So what do YOU think the word was, Stan?
What was the word if not "JUWES" that made the Chief Commissioner get off his butt and go to Goulston Street?
The reason, in my view, is simply that this was the first major clue they had - a graffito seemingly associated with a piece of clothing from a victim. But the writing appeared to those who saw it to be anti-semitic.
What differentiated Bloody Sunday from JtR was that one was a riot, the other was a deepening political embarrassment.
Anyone can criticise the handling of a riot, to a large extent its a matter of judgement. Whatever the popular view may have been of Warren, the establishment approved his firm hand - he remained in post after the Trafalgar Square affair.
JtR though was beginning to engulf the establishment in brown stuff. Ministers were being embarrassed in the House. There had been anti-semitic riots earlier associated with Leather Apron. Warren was probably clearly told to ensure that there was no repeat - so when the graffito was found, he went to make the decision for himself.
'Nuff said, no need to complicate things.
Still interested in what you think the word was and what it meant, in your opinion, to Warren though.
Phil
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 211
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Phil,
I am in a kind of indescrible shock, but here goes.
I know the word was "JUWES". As my clear post above states my opinion, backed up with research and corroborative data.
That's the point. What made him get up off his butt and actually visit a scene connected to the murders was Arnold telling him what the message said.
Well the first major clue, in my opinion, was the body of Mary Ann Nichols. The second if you count Tabram as the 1st victim, which I do. The third major clue would have then been the body of Annie Chapman. The fourth major clue would have been the body of Elizabeth Stride. The fifth major clue would have been the body of Catherine Eddowes, which we can forgive Warren for not seeing, if he had visited the fourth major clue, which he did not.
The GSG, then becomes the sixth major clue, along with the apron found directly under it. This is the first and only site Warren visited. He didn't visit either murder site afterwards, or the bodies in the mortuary to look for clues, yet for some reason he went to see a five line piece of graffiti.
Well Arnold, once he saw the GSG, had someone waiting with a sponge to erase it, but told Warren. Warren then visited the scene, and erased it. Arnold may well have thought it was anti-semitic.
Bloody Sunday was not a riot, at first. nit was a protest of the unemployed. Warren turned it into a riot by deploying troops. So the question remains, why would a man so militaristic in his demeanor, erase a five line message in white chalk, above a piece of apron from one of the victims?
So by this logic it was necessary for Warren to get up off his butt, visit the scene where the message was written, just to make sure it got erased? Was this really necessary? While the officers were less than exemplory surely they could erase five lines of white chalk? Does it really take the Police Commissioner to oversee this erasure? I can't imagine an answer of "he wanted to make sure they actually did it, or did it right" coming, but let's see.
Well in fact the complications are coming from those who need to connect "JUWES" to anti-semitism. It just does not pan out, yet keeps coming back up. From Warren denouncing "JUWES" AS Jews in any language, to knowing that the phrase "JUWES" did actually mean something else, to the fact that if there was anyone in the world who would know this it would have been Warren, to the fact that a disproved conspiracy suddenly changes things that took place 85 years previously.
To me that is the complication.
The easy answer, is that Warren was told of the message, something that Arnold believed was an important clue so he informed him.
He thought the wording was peculiar so he decided to check it out for himself, perhaps even told of the peculiar spelling by Arnold.
As a student of Masonic history, or actually a Grand Master historian within Masonry, he knew of the actual meaning of the word "JUWES", as it related to Freemasonry.
He then ordered its erasure, easily being able to claim that it was due to anti-semitic feeling that made him do it. By this time he had seen the actual word "JUWES" on the wall.
He then began an investigation into finding out if "JUWES" meant Jews in any known language, which he found out it did not.
He then announced that it didn;t, to Chief Rabbi Hillel's delight.
AND HERES THE KICKER
He also knew that no Freemason would have committed these murders and left a message for him that would indicate they did do it.
In fact the message, which is usually misunderstood, doesn;t state the Freemasons did it, it actually states that the Freemasons, or "JUWES" are the men that will not be blamed for nothing. Translation - they will be blamed for something. Why would a Freemason murder these women and then leave a message saying Freemasons would be blamed for something?
He wouldn't. This is way past where most researchers care to tread because the water is too deep.
Conclusion from all this - the message was left by someone who was saying the Freemasons would be held responsible, and blamed for something. Most people, after reading Knight and Fairclough, just dismiss it. Myself, I chose to look further, and realize that Gorman was deliberately lying, and found out why.
SJR |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:47 am: |
|
Hi Alan,
The reasons I do not discount Tumblety are, We do not know why the ripper killed the woman. There was no sighn of sexuall activity. Homosexuall men have killed woman. You can not use modern day profiling, and apply it to a case 116 years old. Society breads there own Killers. The preasures on a homosexuall were far greater in 1888 then they are now. A killer could have totally different motivations.
Chief Inspector John George Littlechild, would have been aware of Tumblety's movements. If Special Branch was following Tumblety, and was aware of his activities, and they had evidence that he could not have been the ripper, then I doubt that Littlechild would have named him as a likely suspect.
Hi Bob,
Tumblety was a suspect at the time of the murders. Even if he did leak his name to the Newyork press, it can not be denied, he was a suspect. People who have a lot more knowledge concerning Tumblety then I do, have suggested that he leaked his own name to the newyork press for publicity. I am willing to except the posibility. However, unless you believe that Littlechild got his information from the Newyork press, and that detectives were sent over seas in pursuit of Tumblety on a minor charge, then you have to believe Tumblety was a suspect.
The first thing that caught my eye about the October 4th, article, was the date. The ripper killed at the begining and the end of the month. Too keep the pattern going, He should have struck around the 1st of October. The second interesting part of the article, was the description given of the man. A rather tall American. Tumblety had been described as an American, and rather tall. The words that the October 4th, suspect used according to the paper, Are you the boss? I am in a real fix now. The words boss and fix, are words that are prominent in the ripper letters. Boss, was a term that was considerd American. The police did send for a sample of Tumblety's hand writing. The name of the October 4th, suspect was not given to the press. Tumblety's name was never leaked to the British press.
In my opinion, The arrest on October 4th, would mean nothing, untill the newspaper report regarding an American Doctor having been picked up an questioned. I misplaced the article. I can not give you the date the article was written. I Believe the suspect was picked up on the 14th of November. The article claims, that the man closely resembled the last man seen with Kelly. The article goes on to say, The man often came by train on weekends, and he was watched on each occasion. He gave a satisfactory account, and he was released. The police were tailing him, he became wise, and gave them the slip. This man sounds like Tumblety.
one part of the article catches my eye. The man closely resembles the last man seen with Kelly. The importance of this is, We have two witnesses that the police believed, Mary Cox and George Hutchinson. I do not think that Cox's man would fit the bill, but Hutchinson's man might. The height and age would be a problem, but the manner of dress may have been what rang true to Abberline. Abberline did believe Hutchinson. The man that was picked up on the fourth, was also discribed as a well dressed man. I believe that Hutchinson came forward on the 12th of November. The police already had there eye on Tumblety because of his arrest on the 4th of October. They watched him. They knew he came by train on the weekends, and when Hutchinson came forward, something about his discription was close enough to Tumblety.
Hi Joe,
I am from florida. It feels like London, it has been raining for two days. I would be happy to send you some horse racing tips.
Your friend,Brad |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
Your thoughts regarding Balfour are interesting, but if Macnaughten had connected the ripper with a plot against Balfour, then could he have connected Druitt to the alleged plot? Macnaughten hinted that Druitt was his preferd suspect.
Your friend,Brad |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
I am interested in your theories, and I am checking into your book. I am a very simple person. I look for the simple answer. I never use a four syllabol word.
You posted something about Tumblety that I had wrong. I did not know they sent for his handwriting at the begining of August. I always thought that they sent for the sample at the begining of October. mucks my theory all up. Thanks.
I enjoy Phil's comments, and I do not mind the arguments you guys have. I find them educational. If Malta Joe would ever join the fray, we would have a three way clash of titans. That would cool.
Your friend,Brad |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 9:48 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Was Tumblety really arrested on August 31, 1888. If so, that would be interesting.
Your friend,Brad |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 3:13 am: |
|
Hi all,
If Tumblety was arrested on July 27th,August 31st,October 14th, and November 2nd, and they charged those four counts together, then why would the October 4th, arrest be associated with those dates. Was the man who was arrested on October 4th, charged with the same crime, or anything.
I always wonder why they suspected Tumblety. Maybe it was because of his behavior around the time of the murders. He was arrested twice just before the Kelly murder,[ November 2nd,7th] Hours after Nicholes,[August 31] and Just days before the Tabram murder.[July 27th] I feel the arrest dates are real close to the days the woman are murderd.
Your friend,Brad
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 480
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Stan - Thanks for coming back. if you wrote less circumlocutiously, we might understand what you say. (That's not a knock at you, just stating a fact.)
You also, as usual, go further than the evidence permits. You write:
[Warren] also knew that no Freemason would have committed these murders and left a message for him that would indicate they did do it.
Where is the proof for this in anything warren said or wrote. This is your IMAGINED thinking on his part. It could be and almost certainly is absolutely false.
...it actually states that the Freemasons, or "JUWES" are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.
Where is your evidence that the word JUWES (if that was indeed the spelling) ever had any association with freemasonry in the English rite, or anywhere (I know of the alleged US usage). Please cite your sources.
Most people, after reading Knight and Fairclough, just dismiss it.
And as I have said repeatedly to you, with good reason. Knight's book misrepresents facts and withholds research and clearly did so deliberately.
I chose to look further, and realize that Gorman was deliberately lying, and found out why.
Again where is your evidence. This is pure supposition and you should say so. You are entitled to your own OPINION of Gorman's motives, but as with Warren above that is pure supposition without some sort of evidence.
A warning to others, please check carefully any assertions Stan makes, as you would, I hope, any and all that I might make.
Phil |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 212
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Phil,
A couple things first.
Circumlocutiously? What in the holy hell does that mean? I have never heard anyone ever use that word. I'm 33 years old, and have read over 500 books. I've never seen it in any book I've ever read. I would try to look it up on the net at dictionary.com, but I'm afraid my computer will laugh at me, and then ask me not to speak in another language. I highly doubt I am the only one who doesn't know and has never heard of the word circumlocutiously.
You know what Phil, you are absolutely right. I do go further than the evidence permits. It's called hypothesizing. Most researchers do it, to analyze a case. You don't seem to have a problem with MacNaghten doing it. What was that evidence he had to prove Druitt was the Ripper? You don't seem to have a problem with Anderson doing it. What was that evidence he had to prove Kosminski was the Ripper?
Please don't answer. I know what evidence you think they had, but it was hypothesis, if you can't prove it. Correct? It didn't stop Martin Fido from theorizing that david Cohen was jack the Ripper, or anyone else who has taken the facts of the case ... and gone to step 2 - analysis and conclusion.
Here's why Warren knew no Freemason wrote the graffiti. It's really simple, but its been missed by everyone.
Graffiti - The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing.
The sentence, as I stated earlier in the same post, states - the Juwes are the men who will NOT be blamed for NOTHING. NOT BE BLAMED FOR NOTHING = BLAMED FOR SOMETHING.
Why I know, not think, not hypothesize, not guess that Warren knew no Freemason wrote the graffiti is because the graffiti actually says - The Juwes (Freemasons) are the men who will be blamed for something. Why would a Freemason murder these women, in secret apparently, then not only call attention to his secret society, but blame them for something in his message? He would not, as Warren could plainly read and understand.
See again - it's a logic problem Phil. If I'm a Freemason committing a series of murders, whether by myself or within the framework of my secret society's wishes, I would not leave a calling card to expose that, or even more illogical, a message stating that my own organization would be blamed for something. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. SO I MADE SENSE OUT OF IT.
What's the logical next conclusion Phil? I know.
Well here's the part where I repeat myself, because my post was not understood. NO FREEMASON WROTE THE GSG. So who wrote it? If a Freemason didn't write it, then obviously someone who was not a Freemason did write it. How would someone who was not a Freemason know about the word "JUWES"? Well there's the trick.
At the time of the murders, 1888, only one book was available, that revealed the secrets of Freemasonry. That was an 1826 book by a Captain Morgan, a book on American Freemasonry. In American Freemasonry, the term "JUWES" was still in use, at least up until the publication of that 1826 book. Now here's another piece of analytical conclusion, which you hate. If someone read a book on American Freemasonry, what could they find? The term "JUWES". Anyone reading this 1826 book, and applying these secret ideals of the American Freemasons, would have easily thought that "JUWES" was a common term for the three men who murdered the Master Mason.
In fact, one step further, the use of the word "JUWES" should be enough to make the logical conclusion that if it were a Freemason term used by the murderer, they would not have been Freemasons in England, and would have read a book on American Freemasonry, available to them, while also not knowing the subtle differences.
Most people do dismiss Knight and Fairclough because the stories they told have been disproved. I have looked past that, and look what I've come up with. You still are not getting that simple fact. I'm not sure if you don't want to get it, or it is too complex.
By the way, in Fairclough's book, guess what book happens to be mentioned? I'm doing your research for you again, but its the 1826 book on American Freemasonry by Captain Morgan.
You don't have to believe my opinions. You don't have to buy my conclusions. You don't have to stand up and take notice when they answer all the questions that fail to get answered within other theories. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of caring and explaining it to you.
As far as your last comment, out of respect to Stephen I will not respond to that. Those who have read the posts understand that you made this some sort of competition Aand was way on the short end of the judges score cards up until it was time for the referee to step in and stop the fight.
Do you really want to start calling my character into question again, by warning others? Those who have read the posts see what kind of sources I have, and should understand that part of a researcher's job is to make some logical analyses from their research.
I wonder if the posters caught that on a victim thread you used information I supplied to you, which you did not know (Monro working the case, Matthews proposing Monro could give a hint). I also wonder if they caught how I predicted you would do just that, in one of my posts to you. In fact I know they did because 2 of them e-mailed me to make me aware of what you did. See, they know.
SJR
P.S. - IF MY POSTS ARE TOO LONG STOP MAKING ME EXPLAIN THE INTRACACIES OF THE CASE TO YOU. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 209
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 8:17 pm: |
|
Stan , I agree with you up to a point. The word ' Juwes ' does refer to Freemasonry , but not to Freemasons.
The ' Juwes ' were the three assassins who killed Hiram Abif , the creator of the Temple along with his father Hiram of Tyre ( Hiram Abif means ' Hiram son of 'ie Hiram son of Hiram ). Hiram Abif is also know as ' Hiram son of the Widow ' which suggests his father began work on the Temple for Soloman but died , and so Hiram the son completed the work.
The names of the ' Juwes ' - also called the Three Ruffians - were Jubel-o , Jubel-a ,and Jubel-um. They were the murderers of Hiram Abif , a figure revered by Freemasons as the Master Builder of Soloman's Temple. They were not proto-Freemasons and could not stand for Freemasons , although their names were used in Masonic rituals.
The story of Hiram and the Juwes was apparently part of the ritual designed to raise a man up to the rank of Master Mason.
I think your reading of the Graffiti is right Stan , the Juwes were the men who should be blamed for something - the murder of Hiram.
The writer of the Graffiti was saying ' I am a Freemason ' and he left part of an APRON to confirm it at the scene of the crime. And the murder of Eddowes took place in MITRE Square. Warren , having excavated the Temple in Jerusalem and founder of a Masonic lodge himself , knew exactly what the message meant.
I've wondered if Warren knew who the Ripper was , and managed to engineer circumstances so he was forced to resign , because he could not do anything to prevent what was going on due to his Masonic oaths.
Melvyn Fairclough spotted that Warren's resignation co-incided with Kelly's murder , but put Warren in on the conspiracy. I don't believe Warren was in on it , but maybe he knew what was going on and he felt the conflict between being a Mason and being a policeman meant that his position was untenable. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 210
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Its been asserted that the names of the Juwes come from the Dead Sea Scrolls , but this is not correct.
They first appear in an English exposure of 1760 but the names and the word ' Juwes ' were dropped from English Freemasonry in the ost-Union ritual of 1816. However , the names were still used in the rituals of American Freemasonry as Stan says !
If somone had a copy of ' The Book of the Words '(1879) by Albert Pike , they would know the names of the Juwes.
Albert Pike ( 1809-1891 ) was a lawyer born in Boston who became a Brigadier-General in the Confederate Army and fought with his troops at Pea Ridge , resigning his commission in 1862 after a scandal over money. He was pardoned by President Andrew Johnson in 1865 and returned to law , moving to Washington in 1870 and becoming editor of the Patriot newspaper.
Its unknown when Pike became a Mason but in 1859 he was given the rank of Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite's Southern Jurisdiction , a rank he held until his death.
Its also rumoured that Pike was one of the founders of the KKK in 1867. Whats true however is that the only statue of a Confederate leader in Washington DC is that of Albert Pike , in Judiciary Square.
------------------------
Here are some interesting quotes I found :
' Shortly after his impeachment investigation began, Albert Pike and Gen. Gordon Granger met with President Andrew Johnson for some three hours at the White House. Soon afterwards, when Granger was summoned before the Judiciary Committee, he was asked to disclose the substance of that conversation with the president. Granger testified:
" They [President Johnson and Pike] talked a great deal about Masonry. More about that than anything else. And from what they talked about between them, I gathered that he [Pike] was the superior of the President in Masonry. I understood from the meeting that the president was his subordinate in Masonry...." '
------------------------------------
" It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry. ... In the eighteenth century freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of the revolution; on its left it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern Germany freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the court of Catherine the Great it was a masquerade reflecting the aristocratic and bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason Empress.
I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study of Marxian economics. ... The work on freemasonry acted as a sort of test for these hypotheses. ... I think this influenced the whole course of my intellectual development. "
Leon Trotsky
My Life: The Rise and Fall of a Dictator
pages 124-127 |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 10:21 pm: |
|
"And the murder of Eddowes took place in MITRE Square."
A question to clarify, Simon: are you implying that Mitre as in a "miter/mitre joint" was a purposeful choice by the Ripper insofar as a miter joint and/or a carpenter's square would have masonry connotations?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 668
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 10:50 pm: |
|
Simon, Stan...
So you claim that the word "Juwes" was used in Freemasonry in the 19th century... Where is the evidence?
Not claims that the Three Ruffians were discussed in the 18th century, not some book written by someone with a clear anti-Freemason agenda in the late 20th century, not some alleged reference to names starting with "Jubel" that have no W in them anywhere. You need some real supporting evidence that the term "Juwes" actually meant something to Freemasons in the 19th century or earlier.
If you ever do get that, please let us know. Without it there's no reason for anyone to accept what you say as true.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 12:13 am: |
|
Irony, definition, Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition: The use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning.
Irony, definition, the Casebook, 2005: Norder telling anyone that without evidence, "there's no reason to accept what you say as true".
Mephisto, Editor
Ripper Boats: The International Journal of Watercraft for Nautical Ripperologists
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 491
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 1:53 am: |
|
Stan - in respect to Stephen's wishes I am backing off on this. All I asked for was evidence, what I got was a rant again. I'm genuinely sorry if my presence provokes you so much.
Two things, before I go, however.
One, my problem with your hypothesis is just that, it is a tissue of assumptions, mental leaps and inspired guesses without any foundation (save perhaps the words of a man who is a self-confessed liar, and a discredited book). I would issue warnings to anyone tempted to sail on a cleverly constructed ship with apparently fine rigging which had not been tarred and waterproofed. Your lack of evidence is the same thing - and as for seeing what your hypothesising has achieved, I cry "The Emperor has no clothes!"
Second, I didn't need you, Stan to tell you about Matthews suggestion (to R-B) that Monro might drop a "hint". That's been something I have debated the meaning of for years - look at your sources and the published works. others of us read too. (Though I'm old enough not to count the number of books I read - better things to do!)
In conclusion Stan, are you really saying that people should not check out what is said here? I would encourage it. I know I make mistakes, from mis-spelling names upwards. It is surely ALWAYS right and sensible to check sources and references. Look at the thread about Donston and the talisman that's running at the moment.
On "Juwes" which Simon takes up: even if a book had been written in 1826 in the US, it is necessary to prove that warren could have had the opportunity to read it, let alone did read it (perhaps by a mention in his writings) before making assumptions about his motivation. It has never been in question that the Juwes were known in AMERICAN freemasonry. But warren was part of the English rite and versed in lore in a far more subtle and sophisticated way. He was the man who's explorations on and under the Temple Mount are still admired. I suspect that he would have known of connections between the history of that place and his beloved freemasonry. I do not question that. But to assume that he would draw his conclusions from a single book, does not do justice to his known character.
Also Simon, the timing of Warren's resignation has long been noted and questioned. Stephen Knight made it a key element of his case in 1976. The fact is that one does not NEED such an explanation to account for the timing of his resignation - internal politics within the Met and between them and the HO are enough to do that.
Finally, a masonic conspiracy (because if Warren was being sent deliberate messages and acted accordingly, that is effectively what it would be) doesn't begin to do justice to the evidence in the case - see the equally circumstantial and interesting, but as yet unproven question of MJK and the Fenians being discussed above.
You cannot just throw out other theories and focus on one, where that does not tie up loose ends; then argue that others cannot equally easily throw out the POSSIBLE masonic links.
But those links remain to me, tenuous, unproven and unlikely.
Phil (departing this thread).
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
