|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through March 23, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
Stephen Knight's evidence (or lack of):
Archive through March 23, 2001
Author: Stuart Dall
Tuesday, 23 January 2001 - 05:46 pm |        | The late Mr Knight is accused of "fudging" evidence.
Can anyone tell me which evidence exactly?
I've never subscribed to the theory involving the Freemasons; but the book presents many other details that now require some validation before I'd be prepared to take them on board.
Please advise. |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 23 January 2001 - 10:42 pm | | Stuart,
Pleased to have you aboard.
To my mind, Knight fudged in an overarching way. In other words, he assumed that Freemasonry was a fundamental or central part of the case, then proceeded to deduce the Gull/Sickert/Netley story from it. But he never proved any direct connection of his assumption to the evidence. True, much makes sense that did not make sense before. But it makes sense only in terms of something that cannot be shown to have anything to do with the hard evidence. If you could show me one single direct connection of Freemasonry to the evidence, I'd come right out of my shoes to endorse Knight. One single square and compass chalked onto the bricks at a murder scene, for example. But, when you look for it, you don't find it there. See what I mean?
This same kind of assuming-without-subsequent-logical-cashout is also done concerning D'Onston and other suspects.
David |
Author: Stuart Dall
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 06:01 pm | | David,
Thanks for your reply.
I get your point.
Knight claimed that the careful laying out of Annie Chapman's rings and two polished farthings (etc.) amongst the neat pile of her possessions was a reference to great brass pillars supposed to stand at the entrance to Soloman's Temple.
I guess this would be an example of the length he would go to to reinforce a point?
Stu. |
Author: David Barrat
Saturday, 27 January 2001 - 11:15 am | | Stuart,
"The Final Solution" was one of the first books on the Ripper that I read and I was enthralled by it. At the same however I remained sceptical and have followed discussions about the book with interest. The most extensive rebuttal of Knight's thesis is set out in William Beadle's "Jack the Ripper: Anatomy of A Myth".
Most of the factual inaccuracies he draws attention to centre around Annie Crook who of course supposedly fathered Eddy's daughter. He points out that she could not have been abducted from her basement at Number 6 Cleveland Street in 1888, as Knight claimed, because No.6 was demolished in 1887. Nor was she subsequently incarcerated in various institutions but lived with her daughter up until at least 1906. In any case she was apparently not a Catholic as records show her as being Church Of England.
Beadle also claims that the supposed attempt on Alice Crook's life in October 1888 (by being run over by a hansom cab) which was reported in the Illustrated Police News actually involved a nine year old girl called Lizzie Maxwell.
There are a number of other examples of evidence which Knight has either used selectively or simply got wrong. Your point about Annie Chapman's rings is a good one. My own favourite "sleight of hand" is where John Netley is described as "short" which thus matches the description of the man (5ft 5in) seen by Israel Schwartz to have attacked Elizabeth Stride. But we only have Knight's word that Joseph Sickert told him that Netley was a short man and why would Sickert have known this?
On the other hand, Jean Overtun Fuller has provided some support for Knight in her book "Sickert and the Ripper Crimes". She says that her mother was told by a friend of Walter Sickert's called Florence Pash that Prince Eddy did have an affair with Annie Crook and that Mary Kelly who was employed by Walter Sickert as a nanny knew about this, blackmailed Sickert and thus needed to be silenced. Mrs Pash apparently knew Mary Kelly personally. While this story is obviously hearsay I don't think anyone has suggested that Jean Fuller (or her mother) was lying.
So the mystery continues....
David |
Author: David Barrat
Saturday, 27 January 2001 - 11:43 am | | David (Radka),
You issued a challenge: "If you can show me one single direct connection of freemasonry to the evidence, I'd come right out of my shoes to endorse Knight. One single square and compass chalked onto a brick at a murder scene for example. But when you look for it you don't find it there".
Well I'm not so sure. In pitch darkness and in an open square with capture a possibility at any moment, the killer carefully cut two identical triangular flaps into Catherine Eddowes' cheeks. Now, I'm no expert on freemasonry but I don't think there is any doubt that a triangle is an important symbol to that society. Indeed, according to Knight, "The sacred sign of Masonry is two triangles, which represent the alter top of the Holy Royal Arch". Given that this is so, does that not meet your challenge?
David |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 27 January 2001 - 01:54 pm | | Methinks its a case of seeing what you want to see....
The autopsy report states "cuts on the cheek which peeled up the skin forming a triangular flap".
This means that the cuts were a 'V' not a triangle, a 'V' was cut on each cheek, if a triangle was cut then the piece of skin would be removed, it would not form a flap.
And to state that each cut was 'exactly' the same as the other is merely your assumption and likely equally wrong.
But if this is how you choose to interpret the evidence, so be it.
Regards, Jon
Any idea's on what all the other facial laserations mean?, if your argument has merit they all must be reflected in Freemasonary.....or is this another case of cherry-picking the evidence to suit a particular argument.....ignore the rest?. |
Author: David Barrat
Saturday, 27 January 2001 - 03:34 pm | | Hello Jon
I think we both agree that the flaps of skin were "triangular" in nature and this much is clear from the autopsy report. They were actually made by an upside down V cut. When I say that the cuts were identical on each cheek this isn't my assumption but is evident from the mortuary sketch made by Fredrick Foster which shows the two cuts to be parallel to each other and as identical as can be given the circumstances in which they were made.
As for the point about me cherry picking the evidence I think in fairness to me I was responding to David Radka who asked for an example of "one single" direct connection with freemasonry and I tried to give him one to see his reaction (which I still await with interest!).
However your point about the other facial lacerations is a very good one. What DO they mean? In all the theories of the killer's identity I don't think I've ever seen a convicing explanation of these cuts. In fact most writers don't mention them at all. Yet in pitch darkness and in an open square the killer cut these flaps in the skin, nicked the eybrows, slashed the nose etc. What was he doing? What was going through his mind? Dr Crawford's explanation at the inquest that they were done to "disfigure the corpse" doesn't really explain anything but, if so, WHY did he want to disfigure the corpse?
In terms of the freemasonry argument at least it provides an explanation of the triangular flaps but I totally agree with you that it doesn't really help to explain the other facial cuts.
Do you have any answers?
David |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 27 January 2001 - 04:23 pm | | The fact that he went to the trouble of facial disfigurment tends to suggest that he was not as pressed for time as we tend to beleive.
Although it would not have taken very long to do them there is the point that he evidently felt comfortable enough time-wise to crouch over her face and contemplate some sort of lasserations which meant something to him, if no-one else. In one respect he was sending a message, one we have failed to see the significance of, even with 112 yrs to think about it.
Did he disfigure her before he removed her organs? or after?, if so where did he place the organs while he carved up her face?
Someone suggested he made her face to represent a clown....
She was said to be the giggly sort, always a laugh & a joke.......I wonder.
Regards, Jon |
Author: David Barrat
Saturday, 27 January 2001 - 04:45 pm | | That's not a bad thought actually. It could be tears....to make her look unhappy or perhaps stupid. Suggests he knew her.
I wonder too!
Best wishes
David |
Author: Jeffrey
Sunday, 28 January 2001 - 04:58 pm | | Hi Guys !
Its nice to be here. I've been trying just to catch up on some posts and see what is currently being discussed. I must say it all seems so encouraging to see such cooperation and interesting exchange of ideas.
Colleen Andrew census work on another board is quite fascinating, and while being cautious, one could make an extremely good case for the Cardiff Kelly, with Irish parentage as being the girl who was so brutally murdered in Nov. 88
Back to your discussion here; I have long felt that there was something very significant in the facial mutilations of Kate Eddowes. She was the first victim with such injuries and time was not a luxury the killer had a great deal of. This, to me is a fascinating and very pertinent point. The Ripper had no time for fun. He did not indulge himself in any way.
Kates facial disfigurement has to be significant. The Ripper was primarily concerned with the lower-Abdomen. This is a common factor of all the victims, as is the viscious slashed throat, while the victim was horizontal. So why do such things to poor Kates face? There can be only one explanation and a study of serial killers down the years will confirm that it is because of familiarity. The killer could not bare to have the face of someone he knew (probably quite well too, to have any kind of feelings) staring up at him while he is plundering her body. I find it quite interesting too, that the killer would have had his back to the main square, if this situation is to be compared to the other such murders.
Constable Watkins had just passed throught the Square, a short time later a few foreign gentlemen notice a man and a woman talking very quietly at the entrance to Church passage. She had her hand placed on the gentleman's chest, but not in a manner that would appear threatening. Approximately 5 minutes after that, Constable Harvey walks down that very passage and looks into the square. Less than 5 minutes after that the horribly mutilated remains of Catherine Eddowes are found, her face cut almost beyond recognition.
It is true that fact is stranger than fiction. Of all the people near Mitre Square that evening, I would like to talk to PC Harvey, but I've brought this up before and will probably not get anywhere by bringing it up on this occasion either.
The flaps cut into the victims cheeks, as teardrops are an interesting aspect of the facial mutilations. He also cut her nose off (to spite her face ?) and had a piece of ear too! Why did he even bother with the face if the organs were his primary motivation. The thing is, these would most definitely add to the horror that would be discovered. It is the Rippers statement that is significant, not the mutilations themselves. If he wanted to disembowel someone for the pure jolly of it, he would have chosen some place a lot more private. The killer here took great risks not to be caught in the act. Why did he take such risks, it doesn't make sense.
The closest I can come to describe this sensation would be a voyeur. Like a couple having sex, discretely when there are people about. The excitement of nearly being caught while in the act, or of doing something rather openly with noone realising what you are doing. This was Jack the Ripper, and I think Kate knew who he was before she met him that fateful night.
I'll go back to reading. I hope I don't bring another fine discussion to an abrupt halt. I do have a lot of catching up to do but I did want to say how much I have missed reading all your posts, while I have not had access to these boards. My PC doesn't appear as healthy as I would like, even know. I hope I don't disappear offline again, but I did want to say "Hello" to everyone while I could. Thanks for the welcome earlier DR and I look forward to hopefully making some more sense of my ideas here on the message boards over the future.
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 28 January 2001 - 06:13 pm | | I've read somewhere, (I can't remember where or how long ago), that a non-sexual serial killer rarely mutilates a body, but if he get's away with it for too long,--and he's bold enough, some killers may interfere with the eyes of the victim, such as cutting a cross on each eye of the victim. Whether the eyes are open or closed I don't know. It's taken to mean that unconsciously the killer wants to be seen, wants to be caught!. Maybe Jack the Ripper cut the "Vs" or "Arrows" on Kate's cheeks, pointing up at each eye for slightly the same reason. Perhaps he was saying to the police, "use your eyes, you look at me nearly every day,--you don't SEE me!!.
Regards, Rick |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 29 January 2001 - 06:01 am | | Hi All,
It does seem to me that the killer was doing more than simply getting more daring, adventurous or violent. By adding facial mutilation to his bag of tricks, could he have been seeking to stamp more of his own personality onto his victims? If his main aim was to rid himself of the spectre of a familiar face watching him as he worked, he could have hacked more randomly, rather than making his marks so carefully and deliberately. I think it was another control thing, a way of saying, "I can make these women mine, and mine alone, and the world will know about it."
Good to see you Jeff.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Grailfinder
Monday, 29 January 2001 - 01:44 pm | | Hi all:
At the top of this thread, Mr Radka says,
"To my mind, Knight fudged in an overarching way. In other words, he assumed that Freemasonry was a fundamental or central part of the case"
This is followed by Mr Dall's post, which states;
"Knight claimed that the careful laying out of Annie Chapman's rings and two polished farthings (etc.) amongst the neat pile of her possessions was a reference to great brass pillars supposed to stand at the entrance to Solomon's Temple".
Both Gentlemen are quite right to point out Knights errors, He needed to point the finger of guilt at the Masons in order to back up the Sickert/Gull theory.
However, the signs and symbols used by Masons, such as the Triangle, Star etc, are not exclusive to the Mason's and are present in all Gnosticism, Alchemy and Hermetic Societies, and therefore the finger of guilt could point at any number of other weird groups, The Order of the Golden Dawn, or The Rosicrucians for example, the common bond to all these groups being Ancient Egypt.
Knights claim that the rings represented the two pillars of Solomon, is I feel, a bit weak, a far better choice in my opinion, would be the symbol of the 'Vesica Piscis' (see pic below) this arrangement of the rings would fit with the statement made at the time that the items had been placed "as if by design" the word 'design' could have meant Pattern/Symbol?
As for the Eddowes facial mutilations, consider the following.
100 years before the Whitechapel horrors, a group of Masons/Scientist/Mathematicians etc, lead by Napoleon invaded Egypt, he sent pamphlets to the Egyptians containing these words:
People of Egypt! You will be told that I come to destroy your religion. Do not believe it... All men are equal before God; but it is wisdom, talents and virtues that make differences among men ... Cadis! Sheikhs! Imams! Tell the people that we are the friends of the Moslems...
It is then claimed that Napoleon and General Jean-Batiste Kleber were taken to the Great Pyramid of Cheops and, under the guidance of a great Gnostic sage and master, were initiated into the fraternity of Freemasonry inside the Kings Chamber.
In 1863, Salutore Avventura Zola ( a relative to the great French writer, Emile Zola) who was Grand Master of the Masonic Order of Memphis in Alexandria, stated:
In August 1798, Napoleon the Great and Kleber, although already a Freemason, were initiated into the Rites of Memphis by a man of venerable age, highly knowledgeable in the doctrine and customs, who was said to be a descendant of the ancient Egyptian sages. the initiation took place in the Pyramid of Cheops and they received, as only investiture, a ring, as a token of the dignity conferred upon them. Napoleon, as well as Kleber and various officers of his army, founded here the first lodge of Memphis in 1798-99.
Why then, did these men of dignity, who had claimed to the Egyptian people that there religion and culture would not be attacked, then leave the Pyramid and mutilate the face of the sphinx? they cut off the nose and the right earlobe. (see pic below)
History blames this mutilation on napoleons soldiers, who used the Sphinx for target practice, but when we consider the importance of the Egyptian religion and monuments to Freemasonry, then to destroy the face of the Sphinx in this way does not make sense?, unless of course, the mutilation was part of some sort of sacrificial rite linked to the formation of the new Memphis lodge?
Another point of interest to me is that they also removed the sphinx's crown!
Now the hat or crown, was very important to the Ancient Egyptian's, they had a hat for all occasions, One for Upper Egypt, One for Lower Egypt, One for Peace, One for War etc.
Is it then just a mere coincidence that all the Whitechapel victims bonnets were removed, or burnt?
I have mentioned the meaning of the bonnets elsewhere on the casebook before, in the 1800's Victorian Women covered there heads for respectful and religious reasons, so to wear a bonnet equated to decency, but should a woman step out bare-headed! she was a whore.
Now one theory of the Sphinx is that it is a representation of Egypt's first Queen, Isis. Isis was wife to the pharaoh Osiris, legend has it that Isis gave birth to a son Horus (him of the 'Eye of Horus') after her husbands death, by some kind of emaculate conception!
So if the Sphinx is the image of Isis, then maybe Napoleon and his Masonic mates new something about Isis and her strange conception, and the removal of the Widows crown/bonnet was to proclaim her indecent Whoring ways? also, if we look at the image/icon of the 'Eye of Horus' (see pic) this also has a triangular shape under the eye, the 'Eye of Whore's' perhaps?
The shape of the Eye also reminds me of the letter R in Ripper from the 'Dear Boss' letter.
Now I agree that all of the above is wild speculation and total bollock's but, its cool, don't you think?
cheers. |
Author: David Barrat
Monday, 29 January 2001 - 02:29 pm | | Hi Caz
Yes the marks on Kate Eddowes' face appear to have been careful and deliberate but Mary Kelly's face was hacked to pieces. Why??????
David |
Author: LeatherApron
Monday, 29 January 2001 - 05:27 pm | | Stewart,
The reason a lot of us haven't had a chance to buy or read the latest book about the Ripper... well, some of us still have to work for a living. J
Alegria,
I know what you mean when you ask why people think they can behave differently (badly) on the internet as compared to real life. The other day, some guy thought that he would cut into the drive through lane at Krispy Kreme in front of me and 4 other cars behind me who had already been waiting 10 minutes (the line went out into the street). I had to get out of my car and give him a piece of my mind. I asked him if he cuts in front of people when he's in line at the grocery store. He was too scared to roll his window down so I had to shout at him through the glass. He didn't cut in front of me but the person behind me was too much of a wimp to stop him from cheating. That reminds me of that joke, what's the difference between a porcupine and a BMW? The BMW has the pricks on the INside.
Grail,
You said, "History blames this mutilation on napoleons soldiers,"
and then go on to ask if,
"the mutilation was part of some sort of sacrificial rite linked to the formation of the new Memphis lodge?"
The answer is no, it wasn't part of some sacrificial rite until this myth about Napoleon is proven. It could just as easily have been done by the Turks.
There have been plenty of accusations made against different folks to explain the Sphinx nose. Some are:
- Napoleon's troops shot the nose off the Sphinx in 1798.
- British troops shot the nose off the Sphinx during WWI or WWII.
- German troops shot the nose off the Sphinx during World War II.
- The Mamelukes shot the nose off the Sphinx.
- Arab conquerors knocked the nose off the Sphinx in 693.
- An Islamic cleric, Sa'im al-dahr, had the nose knocked off the Sphinx in 1378.
The British and Germans are completely let off the hook by photograph evidence pre-dating 1900. Napoleon can also be let off the hook by the fact that no contemporary records of the time, including British people and newspapers, who hated Napoleon with a passion, stated emphatically that the Sphinx had a nose before Napoleon's arrival and didn't after he left.
I agree when you refer to it as bullocks because this is precisely what Don Rumbelow warned us about when he said Knight's theory basically starts, "'let us suppose that...' and then upon that supposition he builds a fact."
Just something to keep in mind.
All,
About Trevor, I think he had to be under 20 years old, but at least he had the sense to know when to quit.
I am, fellow beer drinkers, your obedient servant,
Jack |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 29 January 2001 - 05:50 pm | | Hi David,
I don't know why Mary's face was treated differently from Catherine's - maybe he lost control when he finally got all the control he wanted?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jon
Monday, 29 January 2001 - 06:31 pm | | Just to emphasize what Jack said above....
The Sphinx lost its nose before Napoleon arrived.
He had the highest regard for ancient monuments and ordered records to be made of all the monuments. Drawings made at the time by the French clearly show the face as it was found, as it is today.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Grailfinder
Monday, 29 January 2001 - 08:06 pm | | Hi Jon
My post on Napoleon and the sphinx, is not part of any theory of mine, so please feel free in shooting it down.
My point was that these symbols Triangles/stars/Vesica Piscis, etc, are not exclusive to Mason's but part of the whole Occult/Gnosticism, Alchemy and Hermetic Societies, from todays Freemason to yesterdays knight Templar. So why pick on the Masons for the 1888 horror?
I would point out though, that there is no 100% proof who damaged the Sphinx, and Napoleon is as good a contender as any other suggested above.
cheers. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 29 January 2001 - 09:02 pm | | No G.F. thats not the point, Ripperology is a pastime for me....Egyptology has always been my No1 interest.
Even Egyptology has it's myth's, I dont take to blaming Napoleon's lot for mutilating the Sphinx, just because he 'first came across it' anymore than I would blame Watkins for mutilating Eddowes, because he first came across her.
Literally hundreds of statues have been unearthed since Napoleon's time, that they never knew about, which are missing noses, hundreds of them, it was a common form of mutilation in ages past.
We cannot prove Napoleon(Watkins?) innocent of mutilation, but because we know their position in life it is highly unlikely, statues unearthed since testify to that.
Regards, Jon |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 29 January 2001 - 11:35 pm | | My considered opinion: The wholesale mutilations on Mary Jane's face were made because he first attempted a second Eddowes-like mutilation, then decided he didn't like it, so he rather "crossed it out." I don't see him as the drooling madman, slashing away at Mary Jane the first chance he got, as others do. I see a combination organized/disorganized type. He mutilated Mary Jane's face first in an organized way, then afterward in a disorganized way. We see only the end result, so we interpret all of it as disorganized. I believe underneath those massive mutilations, a story had been told...
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 03:09 pm | | To eradicate the whore from history...could not the mutilations have been done in regard to a more personal hatred ?
In other words the corpse of Kelly was mutilated to such a degree that it suggests a level of hate and fury beyond merely the objective , that Kelly was known ( or known of ) to the killer and was not merely a victim as the others had been.
Opinions ?
My own opinion of Stephen Knight's work is that he tried too hard to prove his case , that he read too much into certain evidence and that he made hypotheses that were , quite frankly , grounded on sand ( ie his identification of Annie Crook with Elizabeth Cook ). Better research would have disproved quite a few of his points , unless of course he chose to ignore certain evidence... |
Author: David Barrat
Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 04:46 pm | | Just to pick up on Grailfinder's point. Without wishing to appear as an apologist for Stephen Knight, his central argument was that the killings were part of an establishment cover-up of a royal marriage/pregnancy. Given that freemasonry was rife amongst the British establishment in the 19th century it would be more likely that the killings were in line with masonic ritual rather than say alchemy or gnosticism.
Of course, another important part of Knight's argument is that the word "Juwes" (possibly written by the killer on the wall in Goulsten Street) was a masonic term. If this is the case then I would say that the masonic killer theory is at least hanging on in there by it's fingertips. Without it, no chance! However, as discussions (with Simon) on another board have shown, there appears to be no conclusive evidence one way or the other whether the term "Juwes" has ever been used in freemasonry.
David |
Author: Stuart Dall
Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 06:26 pm | | Hi all.
(Wow - some serious to-ing-and-fro-ing happening on this post - good to see.)
Just returning to "Final Solution" for a bit;
Knight claimed/implied that Gull was spirited-away to an asylum and that some other person was buried in his family plot - then - when Gull did eventually pass on, he was buried there next to his wife.
Knight claims that Gull's burial plot is larger than is generally permissable and implies (via a groundskeeper's knowing look) that this is because more than two people are buried there.
?Has anyone been to Gull's plot? Is it true that the plot is larger than generally allowed? If it is oversized - is it uncommon to be so?
... OR is this another example of Knight fudging facts to fit his theory? |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 06:04 am | | Hi, all:
In regard to the story that Napoleon's troops shot the nose off the Sphinx, I believe that this is most assuredly a myth. The following may be helpful, culled from http://www.napoleonseries.org/faq/sphinx.cfm
Chris
FAQ #11: Did Napoleon's troops shoot the nose off the Sphinx?
By Tom Holmberg
Although popular legend blames Napoleon and his troops during the French campaign in Egypt (1798-1801) for having shot the nose off the Great Sphinx, in fact this story just isn't true. I have yet to locate an original source for this myth. The idea that Napoleon was to blame for the Sphinx's missing nose dates at least to the beginning of the twentieth century.
One traveler to Egypt around the time of World War One wrote the following: "To take our photos sitting in front of the Sphinx on a camel was the aim of another. ...And so, repulsing the hordes of robbers on all sides, we came to the wonderful, inscrutable, worth-millions-of-pounds-to-authors Sphinx. The great riddle of the mysterious East. How many reams of rubbish have been written about this misshapen block of stone. Napoleon, a practical man, fired a few cannon balls at its face. High explosive shells were not invented in those days." [From: Sommers, Cecil. Temporary Crusaders. (London: John Lane, 1919) Chapter VI. "19th April."] Another book from about the same time (In the Footsteps of Napoleon (1915) by James Morgan, p 85) states "There is a tradition among the Arabs of the Pyramids that all the scars of time and the wounds of a hundred wars, which the Sphinx carries, were inflicted by Napoleon's soldiers, who used its mystifying and majestic countenance as a target. That, however, is only a legend for the tourist. Long before the discovery of gunpowder, the Arabs had laid iconoclastic hands on the beard of this god of the desert..." Though the Arab guides may have spread this tale, this myth has been perpetuated over the years by countless teachers the world over who have passed this bit of "history" on to their students.
A poll conducted on the Internet found that fully 21% of respondents believed Napoleon was responsible for the Sphinx's missing nose. One of the most recent examples of the persistence of this falsehood was Louis Farrakhan's "Million Man March" speech where he said: "White supremacy caused Napoleon to blow the nose off the Sphinx because it reminded you [sic] too much of the Black man's majesty." And the perpetuation of this myth in "Afrocentric" circles was even the subject of a segment of the U.S. television investigative journalism program "60 Minutes."
This error has persisted in spite of the fact that the truth can be readily found in such common reference sources as the Encyclopedia Americana (Danbury, CT: Grolier, 1995). vol.25, p.492-3 under "Sphinx", which states: "Over the centuries the Great Sphinx has suffered severely from weathering...Man has been responsible for additional mutilation. In 1380 A.D. the Sphinx fell victim to the iconoclastic ardor of a fanatical Muslim ruler, who caused deplorable injuries to the head. Then the figure was used as a target for the guns of the Mamluks." In the book The Egyptian Pyramids: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1990), p.301, the author, J.P. Lepre, adds the fact that, in addition to the 14th century damage, "The face was further disfigured by the eighteenth century A.D. ruler of Egypt, the Marmalukes [Mamluks]."
European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example, when Dr. Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited "the great colossus." "The Sphinx," writes Leslie Greener in The Discovery Of Egypt (London : Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time "no longer [had] the stamp of grace and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200." Greener goes on to say: "this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target." The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French general brought with him a large group of "savants" to conduct the first scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities.
Finally, an article by Ulrich Haarmann, "Regional Sentiment in Medieval Islamic Egypt," published in the University of London's Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental And African Studies (BSOAS), vol.43 (1980) p.55-66, states that according to Makrizi, Rashidi and other medieval Arab scholars, the face of the Sphinx was vandalized in 1378 A.D. by Mohammed Sa'im al-Dahr, a "fanatical sufi of the oldest and most highly respected sufi convent of Cairo." The nose and ears are mentioned specifically as having been damaged at this time. According to one account, Haarmann states, the residents in the neighborhood of the Sphinx were so upset by the destruction that they lynched him and buried him near the great monument he ruined. (Thanks to Ann Macy Roth's article in the online Ancient Near East Digest (University of Chicago, Oriental Institute) for the information on Haarmann's article). |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 06:59 am | | G'day Fellas,
It is Joseph Sickerts claims that are not to be trusted.
In 1984, he claimed to 'The News Of The World' that Peter Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire Ripper), attempted to run him down in his car, because he knew too much.
Then he claimed that he made the whole Ripper thing up, and then claimed it was true again!
Leanne! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 07:32 am | | Sickert certainly appears to have some fixation with people being run down by wheeled vehicles!
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 09:47 am | | Sickert's not related to Mike Barrett by any chance, is he? :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 11:22 am | | Hi, all:
I asked Napoleonic scholar Tom Holmberg who wrote the answer on the FAQ in which he denied the story that Napoleon's troops shot off the Sphinx's nose whether Napoleon may have been initiated into masonry in the Great Pyramid of Cheops as Grailfinder thinks. Holmberg thought not. See below.
Chris George
***********************
Though many in Napoleon's family and circle were Masons, there is some controversy as to whether Napoleon was ever a Mason. It has largely depended on the author's view of Napoleon and the Masons as to whether that writer thinks he was ever initiated. I tend not to trust most writings about Masonry, either from Masonic writers or anti-Masonic writers. Writings from both camps seem to be largely flights of fancy.
The other controversy is whether Napoleon actually entered the Pyramid. There are many myths about some mysterious event happened when Napoleon entered the Pyramid, but these are largely undocumented. I've read that in order to enter the Pyramid it would have been necessary to crawl through a long dirty passage and Napoleon refused, thinking it would be beneath his dignity to do so.
Tom Holmberg |
Author: Jon
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 08:28 pm | | Refreshing to see a bit o'culture on the boards at last :-)
Thanks Chris. |
Author: David Barrat
Sunday, 04 February 2001 - 11:49 am | | Stuart
The subject of Gull's burial plot is discussed in Kevin O'Donnell's "Jack the Ripper: The Whitechapel Murders" (1997).
The author says he visited the plot in Thorpe-Le-Soken with his researchers and that "we traced the outline of the plot. It is larger than an adjacent plot that holds five bodies".
He also names two locals who claim to have always believed that Gull's original coffin was filled with sand or rocks and two further locals who have apparently long believed (i.e. before the Knight/Sickert story emerged) that Gull was connected in some way with the Whitechapel murders.
I obviously can't confirm the truth of any of this.
David |
Author: Stuart Dall
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 03:14 am | | David,
Thanks for that - I'll chase-up this book.
Stuart |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 08:56 am | | Hi, Stuart and David:
I would suggest that the matter of Gull's big burial plot and the coffin filled with rocks is probably in the same category as Napoleon's men shooting the nose off the Sphinx and Napoleon being initiated into masonry by a man of venerable age in the Great Pyramid of Cheops, i.e., very much unproven and most probably hokum. All of these types of things are very much in the mind of the beholder and are probably untrue.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Grailfinder
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 09:03 am | | | Probably! |
Author: David Barrat
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 02:37 pm | | Chris
The statement that something is "very much unproven and most probably hokum" applies, I would suggest, to 99% of the stuff that's ever been written about Jack the Ripper! But we all love the subject and theorise and speculate endlessly. If we could prove anything, the mystery would be solved and we wouldn't be here!!!!!
All I would say about my earlier post is that (if O'Donnell has accurately recorded what he was told and the people of Thorpe-le-Soken were telling the truth) there is a longstanding oral tradition that there was something strange about Gull's burial and also that Gull was linked with the murders in Whitechapel. I don't say I believe it but one would have to concede that it does provide some, albeit limited, corroboration of the Sickert/Knight story.
David |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 11:06 pm | | Oddly enough, Mr. Farrakhan could have found a
more reliable example of Emperor Napoleon's disdain for people of African descent than the
sphinx desecreation canard. Napoleon I captured
Toussaint L'Ouverture, the man who created Haiti,
spirited him away to France, and let him rot and
die in a prison there, with little medical
attention. But I digress.
I have always been enthralled by a Father Brown
story by G.K.Chesterton, "The Sign of the Broken
Sword". It is based on this saying: "How do you
hide a tree?" Answer: "In a forest of trees!"
So how does one hide a body? The answer is, on
a battlefield (a forest of bodies). To hide
the corpse of a man he killed, a general decides
to let most of his troops get massacred in a
purposely botched battle.
Now for many years, I have thought of the Whitechapel killings in a similar way: One murder
is all important (probably the last - Mary Kelly)
and the rest are just camouflage. This is not
a novel theory - others have used it. Knight
used it, by claiming that Gull and Netley were
killing all the earlier prostitutes in order to
hide the real target of Mary Kelly. The Doctor
Stanley theory had a version of this, with the
doctor asking each victim if they knew Mary, and
then killing them.
However, one day I finally saw the horrible photo
of Mary's remains. They are barely recognizeable
as human. In particular, the face is destroyed
totally. So I reconsidered the series of killings, and the changes in the actual mutilations from first to second onward. The
gradual knicking of facial features was notable.
So I began to wonder, returning to Chesterton's
little story, "How do you hide a tree?" "In
a forest!" "How do you hide a body?" "In a
battlefield!"
"HOW DO YOU HIDE A PARTICULAR SET OF MUTILATIONS?"
"YOU MUTILATE EVERYTHING!!!"
In the case of Mary Kelly, unlike Chapman, Stride,
and Eddowes, none of the drawings of the victim
resemble the photos - how can they when the features are so totally wrecked? I have seen
Mary as a pretty looking young woman, and as
an overweight one with a plain face (which I suspect is more likely to be her). But there is
no way of telling.
It looks like the killer wanted to hinder recognition by doing this. Whether this is because of some secret that recognition of the
victim would have broken (leading back to the
killer) or to protect the real Kelly (if she
was in cahoots with the killer, and trying to
use a substitute victim to disappear - which
I find rather stretching it) I could not say.
Anyway, that is how I feel on the issue of the
mutilations. This seems planned.
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 12:45 am | | Interesting theory, Jeff. Thanks for posting it.
Chris |
Author: Stuart Dall
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 05:36 am | | Jeff
Actually - I think what you've suggested is VERY interesting and thought-provoking.
In John Douglas' series of books, he describes the serial killer's inclination for de-humanising a victim because, subconsciously, it reduces post-offence stress.
If JTR was concerned that he was revealing too much about himself - and - if he had begun to disfigure victims for the reason suggested above; I wonder: is it possible that he went to such extremes on MJK inorder to obliterate self-incriminating evidence?
Curious .... |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 05:14 pm | | I was just passing here as a revision thing and I can't help laughing. To think about all those people winning money on quiz shows that depended on a question that goes "How did the Sphinx lose it's nose ?".
I still hold to the idea that it was Obeix in "Asterix and Cleopatra" that broke it off while trying to climb the face.
See you all later
Tris |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 06:35 pm | | Dear Tris,
You are no longer the rookie I once knew...the board have promoted you to Aprentocop second-class
and I think you could be a high-flyer(!).Did you know that the 'cult' of the Sphinx involved
the Juwes, too?
Still crazy,
Er..Ma Rosy. |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 07:48 pm | | Rosemary,
Big, big massive smile. I think we both know why. But I could be totally wrong of course. To prove I'm wrong I ask the question :- I talked to you in the chatroom didn't I ? Someone disappeared to make a call and you make this announcement here. Is it a big coincidence or what ?
Tris |
|
|
|
|
