Archive through 13 February 2002

** 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 13 February 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : "No way it was a Lone Serial Killer": Archive through 13 February 2002

Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 04:19 pm
Hi Bob, Thanks to you also for the kind words. Just post on this thread Bob it should be OK.Best wishes.
Author: Chris Hintzen Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 07:31 am
Hi Simon, Sorry I didn't reply to your post sooner, things have been a little crazy here. I do have a scanner and can easily scan the Maps, however, I don't know how to add a .Jpg image to the Board. Anybody know how? Also I looked at the Maps again and with CLOSE examination Lamp Posts are marked. However if I scan them to be put on the website, the detail maybe TOO fuzzy so you might not be able to see them. John, Sorry if I don't believe in the whole Masonic Conspiracy. I feel that even if the Graffito was written by Jack, that the word Jews, was spelled Phonetically. Hence why it appeared as 'Juwes'.(Ask an illiterate or semi-illiterate person to spell Jews for you and they will spell it similarily.) Also, there is quite the possibilty that it may have also been spelled 'Jewes', according to at least one testimony from Police Officials.(This mistake is probably due because the Graffito was in Script instead of regular Print.) Also, I was looking over Evans' and Skinner's 'Jack The Ripper: Letters From Hell'. In it there is a picture of 108-109 Goulston Street. In it, one can see the Black Dado(or however it's spelled in the testimony...Sorry don't have my Notes handy.) It is the Jab of the Doorway, not actually the hallway. So that does help people who are wondering where the Graffitti may have been. Lastly John, I have a question. Why do you say that there is problem with the Lone Killer Theory when it comes to Hanbury Street? Remember the back door was closed so no one could spot Jack at his work. And even if someone was in the Hallway, Jack probably would have heard their footsteps.(Especially since EVERYONE who resided on the first 2 floors of the house stated they could hear when people were in the hallways.) So even if Jack was worried about being disturbed, he could have hopped a few fences and got away without anyone spotting him. But I do want to hear why you feel otherwise. Who knows you may change my mind on the Masons? Adios, Chris H.
Author: Thomas Bayer Sunday, 10 February 2002 - 07:26 pm
There is no conspiracy here that may be deemed "Masonic" or "Royal". Being a Mason doesn't make someone a bad man. Neither does it make him a good man. Please bear that in mind when reading the following. I will look at some points illuminating how conspiracy theories are "debunked". To be decent we will refer to the group in question as "Compulsive Carpenters". In an interesting essay (http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/freemasonry/stocks.html?show=1) Dennis Stocks writes: "Moreover, private notes and diaries belonging to individuals who were retired officials, or who were otherwise personally involved in the investigations of the murders, or had information pertaining to them, have on several recorded occasions "disappeared" - in at least a few cases within a few days of an individual's death. Dr Thomas Stowell's files were destroyed within hours of his death by his son, who never explained why and refused to discuss the matter at all. Sir Melville Macnaghten's personal files - he headed the CIS and had first hand knowledge of Scotland Yard's entire investigation - simply "vanished" shortly after his death." To Mr Stocks, however, these incidents -- and many others -- are reduced to mere "coincidences". He never asks how on earth such remarkable string of "coincidences" might occur and still be explainable by something pretty basic like, let's say, logic. Mr Stocks also uses the two most popular arguments against conspiracy and/or Carpenter involvement. A conspiracy consisting of millions of Compulsive Carpenters couldn't work. Conspiracy theorists, he says, don't get their facts right - perhaps they should see the next Shop and ask for enlightenment on the subject. Oh-oh. These two arguments, though almost always swallowed by the public without complaint, are nevertheless absolutely worthless. They are also pretty pathetic. A Carpentric conspiracy would not imply all Carpenters. The republican conspiracy of Richard Nixon was not known to every republican in the US. The Holocaust was not known to every ordinary party member. Many of Brutus' friends were not informed about his plans concerning Julius Caesar. And so on and so on. Let's have a look at the form of Carpenters prevalent in Great Britain, the Great Unified Shop (GUS). It still is a vast, spidery web firmly rooted in the British class system and "Old Boy" network. In 1988, 100 years after the notorious murders, 800.000 people were members of the Shops. Among those are most of the higher police officers. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? "Police" magazine wrote that year that being a Carpenter will surely fire up your career in the service. "Tatler" on the other hand (not my favourite) called the system "unhealthy". Hundred years earlier things were not different. Macnaghten, Anderson, Warren were Carpenters. Warren even was the first Master of Quatuor Coronati Shed No. 2076. What Carpenters reveal about themselves is somewhat flattering. They are a derivate of the dwarf as drawn by Tolkien; dignified, honourable men with a nack for assembling in their inner chambers, with a nack for curious dresses and singing. Every Carpenter claims to be a member of an organization of purely philanthropic character. Astonishing. Every member of the rich, very rich and very influential is member of a society that meets on a regular basis to do good. Mmmh. How comes that in the country where this society is most influential there were slums that shamed humanity? How is it possible then that in England, of all nations, existed the East End, the most wretched place known to men? In all of Europe the conditions of the poor were worst in England. In Prussia, for example, later the Second Reich, things were better since people were funded in times of unemployment and sickness and were receiving a pension when old. George Bernhard Shaw once described the kind of philanthropy displayed in Great Britain: "Such is the stark-naked reality of these abominable bastard Utopias of genteel charity, in which the poor are first to be robbed and then pauperised by way of compensation, in order that the rich man may combine the idle luxury of the protected thief with the unctuous self-satisfaction of the pious philanthropist." Jack London was making similar strong comments. It is bad for democracy when a servant of the state is bound to an organization, whose inner doctrine is secret and which demands an oath of allegiance and silence that might or might not result in conflicting loyalities. Period. When confronted with this statement, your average Carpenter opens his innocent eyes and seems hurt. "Nothing could be less true" he cries and claims that any information is open to every outside. A reporter of the "Spiegel" (S) tried to cash in this bold claim once while interviewing the Supreme and Sublime Commander (or whatever his title) of the German GUL-branch, Mr Pinkerneil (P). S: Would you support tendencies to be open for outsiders? P: Freemasonry has no secrets. It has no secret superiors. There is nothing any citizen could not learn - if he only becomes a member of a lodge and gets initiated into the craft. S: You are not only protecting your meetings. You hide the very nature and the goals of Freemasonry. P: People we consider proper are invited to discussion meetings. This was unthinkable in earlier times. Fifty years ago a mundane (sic) was not allowed to enter a temple. S: One can get invited on recommendation. What about those without such recommendation? P: We also want to rouse their interest. We plainly speak of what we want. S: Where do you speak plainly? When do you speak plainly? And who speaks plainly? P: My predecessor Theodor Vogel and I have agreed on my inauguration... S: ... that was last fall. You only be in office for one year, that is until fall this year. P: You address the problem of continuity... And so on. Never any answer to a simple straight-forward question. It's just like nailing a pudding to the wall. Over three pages any information as to the nature of the craft eluded the reporter and his readers. If you walk through the Ripper-case you stumble constantly across Carpenters performing remarkably at odds with their usual abilities. This case is brimming with these guys. Naturally Carpenters don't like to be reminded of that and mumble something of "Ripper-being-the-first-police-totally-at-a-loss". If some author (not me) then throws in some clues that might point into their direction they unsheath their second deadly argument, namely that the conspiracy theorist in question has no idea of rituals and is mixing up degrees and/or names etc. This kind of sleight-of-hand is often applied when it comes to facts linking Carpenters to the murders. The "Juwes" inscription for example. Stocks argues here: "As for the word "Juwes" itself as a collective term for the murderers of Hiram Abiff - it had been dropped from English Masonic ritual in the early nineteenth century." Agreed. "Juwes" lost its significance at around 1820. So it held no meaning for your average Mason in 1888. It held much less meaning for your average non-Mason in 1888. So if indeed "Juwes" had been written on the wall, which is still in debate, logically only a Mason learned in the history of the craft could have written it. Since this cannot be the case in Mr. Stocks opinion, the graffiti must have spelled differently. Case closed. I am not a follower of Knight or Fairclough but suggesting a dash to the next temple for information-gathering is somewhat lurid. To get this right; some author thinks he has discovered analogies between the murders and certain Masonic rituals. To check this he should ask the next oath-bound temple-librarian. What will said man's answer be? "Here you are, Mr Knight, Illustrated edition of our Holy and Sacred Rites to Take Over the World, and here, The Secrets Unveiled second edition with hand-coloured paintings". If one investigates a possible conspiracy of these "fiendish Carpenters", all information they voluntarily give has to be treated as highly questionable. Proper journalism, proper research does not allow any other approach. If it did we still would believe that Nixon is your regular guy with a weak spot for little dogs. Magna est Veritas, et praevalabit.
Author: Chris Hintzen Monday, 11 February 2002 - 09:33 am
Hi Thomas, You do bring up some interesting points. I do agree that more research should be done into the Masonic, or as you call it the 'Compulsive Carpenter's', theory. However, my reasons aren't for proof that the Conspiracy exists, but rather to debunk the rumor. I'm sorry if I can't believe in it, but I will give you my reasons. One, you say that the Masons are so secretive, hiding their business from all eyes.(Especially those that pry.) However, you appear to have names of Current as well as Past Masons.(By the way I'd LOVE to know where the information that Warren and the others were part of the 'Carpenters', I still have yet to see any official document of their involvment.) Also, I know a few Masons here. I've even seen several of their records.(One of the Secretaries to a Local Chapter has a Granddaughter who works for me. And since he's a BAD typist, she types A LOT of his documents.) I've listened to Masons talk about their so-called 'SECRET' dealings, and yet here I am Not a Mason. I mean aren't SECRET Societies supposed to be, um, SECRET? However, you believe that they will always keep their 'Secrets' hidden. Well wouldn't a LOGICAL thing for one to do is to infiltrate the orginization? Become a member and learn all of their so-called 'Secrets'? I'm sure there have been others that have tried it in the past. I remember tales of researchers doing this in the past.(Most notably that comes to mind is the Israeli Jewish Reporter that infiltrated a Neo-Nazi Club as a member.) I know you'll say it would be nearly-impossible for someone to get into one of these societies. However you yourself says one of the local chapters in your area has 800,000 members. I know there are similar chapters here that go 50,000 to 200,000 strong. So it doesn't appear to be too hard to get in. But even so, if your convictions behind the Mason Theory is true, then you won't mind sweating a little blood to help prove it. After all, GOOD Research takes QUITE a bit of HARD WORK. I'm sure Misters Begg, Fido, Rumbalow, Sugden, Skinner, and Evans will agree with me here. Next I come to your 'Juwes' statement. You say 'logically only a Mason learned in the history of the craft could have written it.' Is it not just as logical that it could have been written by an illiterate or semi-illiterate person?(Whether that person be Jack the Ripper or Not. After all no one is refuting that the Grafitti DID exist.) And as to all the debate on how the word 'Juwes' was spelled(or misspelled) I personally feel that the reason everyone is mixed up is because the writing was in script. So whether or not it was spelled Juwes, Jewes, Jews, or even Jwes, that information will forever be lost to us, for even the Police Records have it spelled several different ways. But either way, why cling to this one piece of evidence,(which is one of the MOST debated topics of the case.) instead of searching for more to prove the theory? Or at the very least something that isn't as debatle? Every Masonic Theory I have ever heard uses the Graffiti as POSITIVE Proof that it had to be a Mason. Well even if you could somehow prove that a Mason DID write it, there is still the debate whether or not the Graffiti was written by Jack the Ripper. However, I would like to hear your comments on why the Ripper stopped for at least a minute to write the Grafitti in the first place, as police whistles are sounding out in the air from his most recent kill? Next I come to the missing documents that have plagued many a ripperologist over the past century. When many of these documents resurfaced, such as Dr. Bonds notes on Mary Kelly's Demise as well as the Littlechild Letter, it is often revealed that these items were in the posession of some private collector. The media of 1888 helped prove the Mass Marketability of anything associated (or even thought to be associated) with the Ripper. The entire neighborhood of Hanbury street was charging admission to view the murder sight. There were wax museums claiming to have new sculptures depicting the murders, however these were just older attractions rearranged for the foolhardy. Newspapers were selling like Wildfire. And even the Posh West-Enders could be seen gawking amongst the crowd of East End. You speak of logic in your above post, so is it not Logical that someone took many of these documents to pawn them off to the highest bidder? I mean who wouldn't pay HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of pounds for a diary of a Police Officer. Or even the official Police Files. What about the most recent disappearance of the Suspect Files, that disappeared in the 70's or early 80's? Did the Masons suddenly figure out they missed a piece of evidence and stole it from the records area, AFTER it had been partially documented by Journalists? I mean if the Masons were in control of the Police Force, they would have known of the files existance in the first place, so why leave it there for some nosey researcher to find? Or is it more logical that a private researcher or maybe even a collector, has it hidden in his collection of 'RIPPER' memorabilia? However, I do agree with you that I am upset that Stowell's son did burn his father's research. But is it not possible that the young man did it because he was angry of his father's obsession with the case so many years after the case had been closed? Maybe Daddy didn't give him enough attention and he blamed it on the research? There are plenty of other possibilities that one can hail asides from, 'The Masons Did It!' Lastly, you speak of how the Masons are Philanthropists, and yet the East End was so Horrible. Yes it is true that the Masons do have Philanthropic affairs. And yes the East End was a Monstrosity to Human Society. However, areas like the East End still exist. Look at West Hollywood, or Harlem, both of these areas just as Dismal as many of the areas of the East End. And yet there are Celebrities Galore near the areas, trumpeting their most recent donation to the poor. Modern day Society is really no different than London of 1888. We're no better off now than we were then. We're no better to each other than we ever were. However, if you believe that because the Masons were so Philanthropic, and yet the area of East End was in such bad shape, which in turn led to the 'Ripper Murders', then I guess we will be hearing how Hollywood Celebrities are responsible for the Manson Family. Or maybe how Mr. Hurst had the SLA kidnap and brainwash his daughter? Maybe the New York Police Department knew all about 'Son of Sam', but let him run the streets causing amok by killing whoever the 'Dog told him to'? (Each of these cases have missing files, but I don't hear anyone trumpeting any MASS Conspiracy over them.) Or better yet maybe EVERYONE in London was responsible for the deaths of those unfortunates in 1888? Yes I much more prefer that one, after all wasn't it London's fault that Polly, Annie, Liz, Catherine, and Mary were walking the streets just to survive. They had to sell their bodies in the night, just to have a roof over their heads and a bit of food to partially fill their empties bellies, all in the name of society. So is it not the entire society to blame for their deaths?(As silly as this may sound, I've heard this tale cried out after many a drive-by shooting, or drug overdose.) However, I still have yet to receive a reason on why would the Masons kill prostitutes?(Asides Knight's version of Mary Kelly and her Band of Merry Blackmailers. Who were all starving, hence showing they weren't very good blackmailers since they never got paid. And yet not one of them came forward to reveal their tale after they started dying ONE BY ONE. I mean hey, if ya gonna die, you could at least go out with a full stomach in a nice hotel, that the papers would have GLADLY paid for, for such a GREAT scandal.) So why would the Masons kill these women? Maybe to overthrow Sir Charles, who as you claim was a Master Mason? But why kill thes unfortunates who no one cared about? I mean Emma Smith was BRUTUALLY raped and murdered earlier in the year, and there was barely a ripple. Martha Tabram was VICIOUSLY slaughtered, yet the papers reported little about it compared to other more 'pressing' matters. Why wouldn't they try and do like the Ratcliffe Murderer? Kill honest hard working families in their own homes? That would have rallied more cries against Sir Charles. Or maybe start up another Riot like the one in Traflagar Square, forcing Sir Charles to relive his INFAMOUS 'Bloody Sunday' past? Both of these would have been much more effective to the 'Minor Masons'(or should we just call them the 'Juwes'?) plot to overthrow their leader. I would like to hear why you think the Masons, or at least ANY Mason, had a reason to kill these prostitutes? But excuse me if I take the whole 'Conspiracy' with a grain of salt. I've heard so many conspiracies about everything from the CIA selling cocaine in Compton to Church's Chicken putting Salt-Peter in their chicken to keep the African-American Population down. Sincerely, Chris H. P.S. A little Monty Python to give us some levity, '...And your bleeding Masonic Handshakes...You wouldn't let me join WOULD YOU, you Blackballing B******s. Well I wouldn't become a Freemason now even if you got down on your lowsy stinking knees and Begged Me!'
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 11 February 2002 - 09:58 am
"...nailing a pudding to a wall"! Very apt. I once tried it with tripe with similar results. I now buy my haggis. Rosey :-)
Author: Thomas Bayer Monday, 11 February 2002 - 11:15 am
Chris, You have a lot to say and it is well considered. Please forgive me if I only answer shortly, since I am NOT promoting a Masonic theory. Warren has been claimed by Masons for a century now. He has been working all of his life for Masonic-influenced organisations like the PEF, which makes this claim quite plausible. If you really investigate a conspiracy of Masons -- which I don't -- you can't trust their official statements and docs. I would not do undercover work in a Lodge since I would feel bound by oath. Sorry but my moral standards demand that. "Juwes" - if it HAD indeed been spelled like that, a learned Freemason would be the logical source. Poverty and the gap between rich and poor in modern Western society -- Europe and Northern America -- are worst where a certain "philanthropic" society is most influential -- the Anglo-Saxon countries. Regards Thomas
Author: Chris Hintzen Monday, 11 February 2002 - 01:28 pm
Hi Thomas, Thanks for the info on Sir Charles' Masonic connection, you're the first one to actually try and step up and show where this connection came from. However, I'll have to disagree with some of your ideas again. The whole idea of a Secret Society had actually been researched by Scotland Yard. In Chapter 16 of Evans and Skinner's 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion' contains many official documents on one theory that the Police were greatly inquiring about. Apparently it was all started by a gentleman in Vienna calling himself 'Jonas'. In it he reveals that he is a part of a Secret Society and that he believes a former associate of the Society may have been responsible for the murders. He requested funds from Scotland Yard to go to London with a fellow member of the Society to hunt down the man and turn him over to Scotland yard. He had received some funds from Sir A. Paget of the Britsh Consulate in Vienna, however after a trip to London he requested more, which was never received.(Due to the fact that the Police were not sure if they could trust him with such an exhorbinate sum of money, and since they hadn't seen any progress from the first sum the man had received.) Now this Secret Society probably was not the Masons. For the only reference about what the Society were brief mentionings that it as a Socialist group.(I don't believe the Masons are Socialist, but I could be wrong.) However, I feel for one, that if the Jack the Ripper killings even had the slightest bit to do with any form of Masonry, then these documents would have disappeared as well, since it could eventually cause some researcher to look into their Society. Secondly, the idea that the Society would hide a criminal in their midst is foolish.(This exact same debate had been brought up during the last quarter of the 19th Century, about whether or not if the killer was a Jew, then his fellow Jews would hide this fact from the arms of justice.) The idea was absurd then, just as it is absurd now. For even if the Society did feel it was 'Above the Law', it would not allow a maniac to walk about for fear of causing harm to the Society itself. More likely the Society would bring him to justice themselves to prove their own grandoise. Essentially making themselves seem even more about improving society.(Which the Masons have always declared that they are for.) Next I consider your reasons behind not wishing to do research within a lodge yourself. I greatly admire you convictions behind your morals. However, since the Masons have always claimed they have nothing to hide, that they have always been out for the betterment of man, as well as they supposedly do no wrong in their Secret Group, then you would never have to challenge your morals. And if they had done something immoral, then they themselves have broken their oath, so again your morals would not have to be challenged, for your conscience would guide you to do what is right, and let the world know the truth. Next we move onto the 'Juwes' subject. I am not going to completely deny that the grafitti was written by a Mason. However, I merely state that the writing could have just as logically been written by some illiterate person. Either way, we still don't know whether or not the writing was made by Jack the Ripper, nor will we ever, for the fact will always remain debatable.(The most obvious debate is that, why would Jack pause in his fleeing from the scene of a crime to etch some words on a wall?) Then we shall move onto your sumation of the idea that the worst displays of poverty are in Anglo-Saxon countries where a certain 'Philantrophic' society is most influential. However, I feel the media would disprove this theory. Let's look at the poverty in Afghanistan, the desperation of the people of Somalia, the massive hardships of the Cambodian people under the Khmer Rouge of the 60's, even the starving people in some of China's outer reaches. None of these countries are Anglo-Saxon. Nor are any of them under control of an Anglo Government. And I'm pretty sure it would be hard to find a Powerful Mason's Lodge in any of them. Every Society is responsible for the hardships it has brought upon it's own people in the sake of it's own form of Civilization. There is no secret plot to Dominate the World. Yes it is true that Stronger Governments do tend to bully the smaller ones. However this concept has been in effect since the Dawn of Recorded History.(Such as the Egyptians putting the Hebrews into slavery.) And lastly, I'll discuss your reasoning that the Masons wouldn't have trustworthy documentation. Every group throughout history has attempted to hide certain aspects of its past, this is something I would not refute. However, there is always something that slips through the cracks. Some person who questioned the ethics of his fellow men, and documented it in a way to cover his/her own a**. I'll even point towards a person who's name you brought up. Look at Nixon, he bugged his own office, in hopes that it could save him somehow. Yet the tapes did more to ruin him than any other thing. Yes there were the 18 minutes missing, but the point is, there was still enough information to burn him and his organization down to the ground. His own ego was his downfall. His own belief in his neverending Reach and Power brought about his fall from Grace. And if the Masons are supposed to be as power hungry as the conspiracy theorists believe, then why should they be any different? After all if there was a Conspiracy, there would be A LOT more evidence to support it, than just some scribbling on a wall. Also if a conspiracy did exist, it would me MUCH easier then trying to find a LONE assassin. For then there would be MUCH more than just one needle in the preverbial haystack. Sorry to put all of this on you eventhough you don't believe in the Masons Theory. I'm just trying to say more research should be done upon ANY theory before we start pointing fingers at ANYONE! Regards, Chris H. P.S. Steals a bit of Rosey's Haggis, and writes on the wall, 'The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing....Signed, The Masons!':-p
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 11 February 2002 - 01:29 pm
Dear Thomas, 1. A Warren of Masons? 2. A conspiracy of Masons or a conspiracy of non- masons...or a conspiracy of masons and non-masons? 3. Reminds me of the apochryphal meeting of Commies that later transpired to be a meeting of Government agents infilterating the organisation - the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing! By the way, I liked the story of the Israeli who infilterated a Neo-Nazi group...WHY? 4. So, why was the word "Juwes" dropped from the Solomonic Tale? 5. Anglo-Saxons! They think they rule the BLOODY world. Rosey :-)
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 11 February 2002 - 01:42 pm
Dear Mr Hintzen, Wink. Nudge. Steer the conversation away from matters pertaining to...(you know who!). Know what ya mean. Rosey :-))
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 11 February 2002 - 01:56 pm
P.S. "The Egyptians putting the Hebrews into slavery"? WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN THESE LAST FIFTY YEARS!!!! Rosey :-)
Author: Thomas Bayer Monday, 11 February 2002 - 02:28 pm
Chris: Secret societies in Vienna and Munich, especially after WW ONE (edited, sorry) - one of my favourite topics, but we really shouldn't dig into that. Perhaps in a different board discussing Skinner and Evans. Quote: For even if the Society did feel it was 'Above the Law', it would not allow a maniac to walk about for fear of causing harm to the Society itself. Yes, they hunt him down and finally after the fifth victim they GET him. Again, not my idea. Just a speculation to answer the speculation of the musings in the Inner Circles of Secret Societies. Additionally this again touches the problem of conflicting loyalities I have written about earlier. Undercover Man: If secrecy is part of the oath and if there are differences between public and inner teachings then an oath would nonetheless bind me since it would imply the protection of the sanctified teachings. This would be a moral dilemma, one I don't want to face. To bring up Afghanistan and the like is completely unjustified. I spoke of the worst conditions in Western civilization, and if there is one thing Bush and I agree - Somalia does not belong to that circle. I have worked in Sweden, France, Germany, Scotland, England and California and passed some time in Canada and on the East Coast. In the US the gap between rich and poor is worst. I didn't speak, however, of SPDW (Secret Plot to Dominate the World). I just pointed out that the lot of the poor in the Western World is worse where Freemasons play a prominent role. This doesn't even imply it's their fault. It just makes you wonder how philanthropic these VERY rich and POWERFUL really are. To show that the affair is smelly; Dennis Stocks downright refutes the claim that Masonic symbolism was part of the killings. I believed him, gullible as I am, until Master Mason J. M. Kinney (San Francisco) stated: Connections are suggested by the nature of the killings, which at first glance bear some resemblance to certain traditional Masonic penalties every Mason should know are entirely symbolic. This, of course, is very cautiously worded since he belongs to the club. How much weight you put on these analogies depends, I guess, on your intention and additional information. It should suffice that it is definetely existent. (http://www.srmason-sj.org/council/journal/kinney.html) "Juwes" (again): To suggest illiteracy is definetely far-fetched. There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion. This only denotes a person without much practice in writing with chalk on a wall. It also shows that he/she wrote very carefully to make it readable. Suggesting illiteracy is a rather desperate conclusion, only one step from "there never was any graffito". Having been a teacher I can state that illiteracy is usually not in the company of a good schoolboy's round hand... in proportion. People that cannot spell (or only badly) normally have a rather unintelligible handwriting. You can take my word for that. Therefore we have some resemblance to certain traditional Masonic penalties in combination with a graffito revealing a well learned Masonic background. Were I Fairclough or Knight I could take one coincidence. But two? Rosey: A conspiracy in which some Masons and no Royals were involved is what I can ascertain at this moment. I still need to verify a lot of material gathered over the years. I admit I'd like to see the rebirth an independent Scotland.
Author: Chris Hintzen Monday, 11 February 2002 - 02:34 pm
Rosey, The tale I was mentioning is that of Yoran Svoray who was a Freelance Israeli Reporter in Germany writing an article on Neo-Nazism. Due to some mix up during an attack by a Neo-Nazi gang upon a Turkish Refugee Camp, he was mistaken as being a Nazi symphathizer. Well due to the mix-up he was allowed access to the gang and used that to learn quite a bit about the Neo-Nazi orginization and just how powerful Nazism still was even decades after World War II. I can't remember exactly where his articles were published, which is sad cause they were VERY Eye-Opening! I believe Time Magazine may have printed some of his material, but as I said I am unsure. Eventually a TV-Movie was made about his story entitled, 'The Infiltrator'. It's LOOSELY based on his work, but then again, that's Hollywood for ya! Now as to your question about where I've been the last fifty years, well lets just say I've been in seclusion in my nice little Hermit Lair, just like every good Sasquatch like moi should be. Hehe, but I get what your hinting at with the question. ;-) By the way, please call me Chris, or since there are so many Chris' here then Chris H. Hehe Mr. Hintzen is my Father or my Grandfather...:-P Best Regards, Chris H. P.S. Steering my conversation away from you know who...Hehe, Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge, Say No More!
Author: Chris Hintzen Monday, 11 February 2002 - 03:33 pm
Hi Thomas, Sorry to keep debating you on this, but it still doesn't make any since to me. You agree that if a member of a secret society was responsible for the Jack the Ripper murders, then his fellow members would hunt him down after the fifth victim. However, in previous posts you imply that the secret society has been hiding the evidence all these years. Why would they do that, when they themselves wish to bring justice to one of their own? After all, most of this evidence disappeared WELL after the case was closed. So what would they have to lose then, if they had brought justice to the one who was responsible for the crimes years earlier? I will not refute the possibility of Masonic Symbolism in the murders. I myself have read about the 'Juwes' mythos. However, I can do the same thing, pointing it to a good Catholic. First we have the murder of Polly Nichols on August 31st. This is the feast day of St. Raymond Nonnatus. The Saint being called Nonnatus because he was removed from his mothers womb by C-section. Now Polly didn't have her womb removed, but many have believe the Ripper was disturbed in his act. Next we have the murder of Annie Chapman on September 8th. This is the feast of St. Adrian. Adrian was martyred by his limbs and head being cut off, after being disemboweled. Now Annie wasn't missing any limbs, but some of the Doctors did believe the ripper may have tried to take her head. Then there is the night of the double event of September 31st. This is the feast day of St. Jerome. Two of St. Jerome's most cherished friends and helpers in his work of translating the bible were both women. One of them was divorced, much like Catherine Eddowes, while the other was widowed, just like Liz Stride. There is even speculation that St. Jerome died from a Kidney disorder.(Catherine's kidney being taken.) As well as the fact that it was recognized that St. Jerome had become blind in his later years(possibly from diabetes). And let's not forget Catherine's eyelids were cut open. Perhaps a killer's fantasy of helping her always see, just as Jerome's blindness was combatted by one of his female friends to help him finish his translations. Lastly we end with Mary Jane Kelly's death on November 9th. The feast day of St. Theodore Tyro. This Saint was martyred, by first his flesh being torn off before being burned in a furnace. Mary Kelly's flesh had been torn off, and there was QUITE a powerful fire burning in that little room at 13 Miller's Court. Then there is the fact that all the murders took place within a block or two of either a church of a mission hall. And as stated on Casebooks site, the area of Whitechapel had at one time been a Religious Sanctuary. Now does this mean that Jack was a Religious Serial Killer? Possibly, if we go by your conclusion that since there is correlation between the mutilations of the victims to these stories. And if we want to get into a disputed writing as more proof, let's look at the letter accompanied with the Lusk Kidney. It was started with From Hell. The idea of a Hell is mainly a Catholic belief. And since the Kidney may possibly have been Catherine Eddowes, then the letter MUST be FROM the Killer.(Just like since the Apron found next to the Goulston St. Graffitti was Catherine's, so it MUST have been written by Jack the Ripper too!) Of course NONE of this do I believe. Yes it is possible that Jack may have been a Mason, but it's even more possible that he was some Religious Fantatic gone mad. I don't believe the Lusk Kidney was genuine, save for the idea that it is a Genuine Hoax. I have serious doubts about the Graffitti being written by Jack, but I still remain on the fence about the subject. I myself have helped to teach semi-illiterate people how to write. Yes the graffiti was written in a good school-boy hand. However, Jews isn't something you would normally spell in grade-school.(Which is typically the furtherest extent most illiterate people go through in school.) Besides, don't you think it's odd how they said it was in a 'School-boy hand'? Possibly meaning they found it a little strange in the way it was written compared to the writing an average person makes on any given day? Or who knows, maybe it was written by some child of the neighborhood? Even Sir Charles stated that the Chief Rabbi of the area had stated that the spelling of the word was the same as if it had been written in the Yiddish Dialect. So which seems MORE far fetched. One, that it may have possibly been the writing of possibly a child of the neighborhood, or some other semi-literate person of the area? Or that Jack the Ripper, on the run from the police, stopped for a minute(on a street that not 1 but 2 police officers walked down), wiped the blood off his hands from his most recent murder(this would have taken a little while since there wasn't even the SLIGHTEST bit of blood smeared on the graffiti, otherwise this would not be such a debatable topic.), then pulled a piece of chalk out from god knows where, writing a message in a GOOD school-boy hand in minimal light(let's remember according to all the testimonies it was a rather dark night. As well as many believe that the apron may have been there and 2 seperate police officers had missed the sight of it), doing all of this just before Jack disappeared into the night? So we have the possiblity of a religious killer due to the matching of the mutilations to the deaths of certain Saints whose feast days are on the same days as the murder, as well as a letter written about a place that is predominately only believed in by Catholics. Kinda sounds a little like your theory doesn't it? Sincerely, Chris H. P.S. The only reason I brought up Afghanistan and the other areas is to show that Western Civilization isn't the only group that massacre's it's own people. I agree whole heartedly that is is ABSURD that there are poor and homeless in countries that are the richest. But the difference between the poor and the rich is similar in countries all around the world. And if you think it's bad in Western Civilizations, why don't you ask the people of the Oil-States of the Middle-East? Whose leaders live in houses with rooms made of SOLID GOLD while there are poor starving children just a few blocks away.
Author: Thomas Bayer Monday, 11 February 2002 - 06:10 pm
Dear Chris, Do you have a law firm or a pack of ghost writers? Or just on holiday? Oh, well. Okay. Let me just point out that though I really appreciate your input - I guess this is clear from my postings - I'd even appreciate it more if you would read just a bit more thoroughly. I did NOT agree that the Masons would bring down one of their own. It was, I stated earlier, a speculation to answer a speculation. Not more. I didn't buy the initial guesswork. Aren't there any irony signs? §irony§? Would that work? Your playful guess at a Roman Catholic is well educated and entertaining but rather pointless. To speak of a Catholic conspiracy you need some Catholic keyplayers to cover up. §Incidentally§ all those positions were held by Freemasons. Which - together with a host of inept officials - initially brought Knight and others to investigate the Masonic angle. Don't saddle the horse from behind! Besides, the big fire in Kelly's fireplace is even more hotly debated (no pun intended) than the Goulston Street graffito. Since no Catholic keyplayers are on the horizon, this does NOT "sound exactly like my theory". Which is, I say for the third or fourth time, not my theory after all but just a little illustration of the Jesuite practices with which conspiracy theorists are "debunked". I may add, by the way, that the constant repetition of things I have never said is one of these practices, though I give you the benefit of doubt. As for a Catholic religious fanatic gone mad - I wouldn't buy the lone serial killer. During the apron-letter-kidney syllogism I have to admit you lost me. I like steak-and-kidney pie, though. Semi-literate persons don't have well-rounded letters. They simply don't. Their handwriting is mostly angular, lanky, sketchy. Especially when writing on a wall or other rarely used surfaces in the dark. This was a literate person paying special attention to keep decipherable though it had to be written on this kind of surface. Why? A warning to fellow Masons not to look too deeply into that matter? Could be a reason, but, read carefully, I don't think so. This is far less far-fetched than a semi-literate East Ender carefully writing on a wall with a perfection he could not possibly have achieved even in broad daylight. This is a point you cannot possibly score - "well-rounded in the dark" does not go with "semi-literate". It does not now and it won't even after the tenth repetition. Instead of a dash to your local temple for information-gathering I just advise you to visit your local community college. Have a look at illiterates learning to write. Then grab one, give him a piece of chalk and let him smear on a wall in darkness. If he has to write "Jews" by the way, he would model his spelling on other words known to him, like "news" or "use" or "glues" or "juice" or "goose" or "loose". Why he should spell it "Juwes" of all possibilities eludes me. "-uwes" is rather rare in English. As for the rabbi's verdict; you will remember that Warren did NOT use "Juwes" which is what the debate is all about. Quote: I may mention that so great was the feeling with regard to the Jews that on the 13th ulto. the Acting Chief Rabbi wrote to me on the subject of the spelling of the word "Jewes" on account of a newspaper asserting that this was Jewish spelling in the Yiddish dialect. Now a though especially for you champions of the LSK-theory; why are you so opposed against Jack being the author of the graffito? After all your theories rely on Jack being mad. So why are you always claiming that no sane person would stop after the double-killing to write it? You don't think he was a sane person. We conspiracy theorists think he was. By the way - chalk you can quite easily transport in your pocket. No need to wonder where it suddenly came from. §Audi, vide, tace, si vis vivere in pace.§ Thomas
Author: Thomas Bayer Monday, 11 February 2002 - 06:30 pm
Chris - how to post your maps. SLASH image CURLY BRACE Text description CURLY BRACE Upon posting, you are prompted for an image file to upload. Images must be either GIF or JPEG format. Images must be saved on your hard disk. Your browser must support form-based file upload. §Hey, shouldn't a computer technician be able to manage it?§
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 11 February 2002 - 07:27 pm
Dear Thomas, Bejasus! You are quick on the draw.You'll be knowing me cousin...Math Ap Mathonwy...who knew no more than I? Rosey :-)
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 11 February 2002 - 07:43 pm
Don't mention Britain , Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge in the same breath..oops sorry not supposed to know about that ! Simon
Author: Chris Hintzen Monday, 11 February 2002 - 07:46 pm
Hiya Thomas, Sorry if I hit a sore nerve. I wasn't trying to state that you were a Masonic Theorist, I was simply trying to point out the flaws in the ideas of it. I've never actually heard anyone debate that there was a large fire in Mary Kelly's room. Especially since Abberline reported that he found clothing burned as well as the spigot of a kettle fell off after the heat melted the solder holding it in place. Just as you stated earlier, that you were not a Masonic Theorist, I am just as equally not a Catholic Conspiracy follower. It was just a way to point out how flawed the idea of the killer following a certain symbolism(that many believe could have ONLY been Masonic), since the injuries of the bodies can actually be said to follow so many other symbolisms that exist.(Such as the other theories as to disembowelment was a Jewish Symbolism of repenting for sleeping with a Catholic Woman, as well as the idea that Uteri can be used in ancient German rituals to make 'Thieve's Candles'. All of these ideas are nonsense, however the symbolisms are the same.) I don't believe the idea that it was some religious fanatic, and I even less believe that it was a group of them. I was just merely pointing out the flaw in logic. The whole graffiti-apron-kidney-letter idea was just a way to show that if your gonna believe that the Graffiti was real due to the Apron, then the Letter had to be real due to the Kidney. This is yet another case of FLAWED logic gone awry, but I guess you didn't pick up on that. Now as to your idea of me going to a Community College to look at the writings of semi-literate people, well I hate to tell you Tom, but I happen to work at a Community College. And I have helped illiterate people to read and write. Now I will admit, not all of them write in a GOOD HAND, however I've seen some that have. A good handwriting doesn't necessarily mean that the person is HIGHLY educated.(I'm sure you've probably noticed how there are MANY Doctor's out there with the most ABHORRID handwriting.) Just as I have seen those with VERY little education have a handwriting that seems to be nearly Artistic.(Check out the work of several Graffiti Artists. Now only a few of them are only semi-literate, however those that are, have a talent with the written word to be admired.) I will also admit I've never seen anyone spell the word Jews the way it was spelled in Goulston Street. However, I have seen people spell the word news as 'NUWES'. For a common illiterate mistake is to spell things Phonetically(for they typically believe things should be spelled the way they are sounded, much like a child does), so they believe that there must be a U in there somewhere. And if you go on the street and ask a homeless person how you would makes something mean more than one in writing, they will reply, 'add ES'. Now I'm not saying EVERYONE would spell it this way, I'm just saying it is a possiblity. The other problem to the idea that the graffiti was written by a well-educated man is the fact that the phrase contains a double negative. Now it is true the writer may not catch it, however if it was Jack, and it was his one way of speaking out to the world, then I think he'd want to make sure that it was as correct as could be. After all he spent so much time to make sure that it was written in that GOOD School-Boy Hand. However, the main point I was getting at is not how the word was spelled, as to the fact that ANYONE could have wrote it. Even, a child who happened to find some chalk to play with. The police themselves have admited that they were UNSURE as to when it was written, they merely stated that it was POSSIBLE that the Graffiti was written sometime in the night.(Which could mean just about ANYTIME.) The other point I was trying to make about the darkness of the night, was simply to point out the fact of how long it would have taken the killer(if he had written the graffiti in the first place) to write it, since the writing was considered to be in a GOOD School-Boy hand. If you wanna test this out, sit in a dark room with either a candle on the far side of it, or maybe even a light in a nearby hallway. Then find out how long it takes you to write a sentence with the capitals all being 3/4" and all the rest of the writing is in proportion. Afterwards do it in regular light and you will see it will take you a bit longer to do it in the dark. I will admit my comment about the chalk was a bit in haste, I had people nagging me to get off the computer during my post. For that I do apologize. I simply was trying to make the comment that there was no blood smeared on the writing, which if you've ever handled chalk you'd notice how even the smallest pollutant can smear it. Even if you have wiped your hands off just before handling it, and if you had handled anything that stains, such as blood does, you will notice how you may get a distinct discoloration in the writing. I won't refute that Jack may have been perfectly sane at times.(After all, he would have had to be to not arrouse suspicion.) I know very well that people can be sane one minute then a raving lunatic the next.(Look at Berkowitz, the Boston Strangler. One minute he was a loving, hard-working husband and father, and then the next he was strangling women and in some cases mutilating the remains.) All I'm saying that whoever the murder was, he did have some insane fantasies that were being enacted out through his killings. I have heard many people state that Jack couldn't be a lone assassin. However, I've never heard any succient proof on the fact that he may have been more than one killer. I have heard some state that the women were seen with several different men before their demise. Yet these women WERE prostitutes after all. And prostitutes do tend to be with more than one man in a night. Some of these theorists may want to TALK with one of these 'Ladies of the Night'. Or at least talk with a few cops in the Vice department about what they've seen and heard about prostitutes. It may help them understand the victims better. But I would like to hear your argument on why there would be more than one Jack. After all, that's the whole reason this debate started in the first place. My asking of why someone believes Jack was more than one person. I still haven't gotten a reply to the question. Perhaps I never will? Again I apologize if I may have seemed to be attacking you, or even if I seemed to throw you into the same category as the Masonic Theorists. I thought I had made it clear in my previous posts but I guess I hadn't. Sincerely, Chris H. In the immortal words of Shakespeare, 'Please forgive us if we do offend.' P.S. Thanks for the help on posting .Jpg's on the boards. I was well aware of how to scan and save them, the problem was this board is of a different format than ones I used to writing on(The ones I've used actually have an attachment button. It's a handy little tool, but a PAIN in the BUTT to program!), which I thought I had stated previously. And by the way, ask any Computer Technician, or someone who's studying to become one, if there is a such thing as a person who knows everything about computers. They'll tell you, 'The More you Learn, the more you find out that you actually Know A LOT LESS than you first thought!'
Author: Thomas Bayer Monday, 11 February 2002 - 08:09 pm
Uh-uh. Wasn't sore, still am not. Just short. (Message edited after dinner...) Your attempts at proving flawed logic are fruitless since any conspiracy theory derived from the wild speculations - I called them "playful" - would lack the necessary clout in higher places. Don't compare Catholic apples with Masonic plums. I didn't say good handwriting = good education. I said illiteracy = bad handwriting. Graffiti artists are not writing - they are painting, which IS a difference. Your attempt at explaining the spelling "Juwes" by illiteracy ends up in "Jues". I agree that an illiterate person may spell "Jews" like that. He/she would not spell "Juwes", however, and that is my point. The police was not "unsure". Two totally contradicting descriptions exist. One by City cops and one by Metro Police. I happen to believe the first since the report is as concise as it is precise and since the Metro cops destroyed this (possible) piece of evidence. It took me exactly 72 seconds to do it in my hallway. Looked fine in light, it did. But then, I flatter myself of having a somewhat solid education and being a good writer. How can we state that colourings were absent given the simple fact the graffiti was destroyed ere daybreak? Ever thought the double negative had a meaning? Didn't mean to tease you with your computer skills. Thomas
Author: Thomas Bayer Monday, 11 February 2002 - 08:21 pm
Regards from Llew, Rosey.
Author: Chris Hintzen Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 10:01 am
Hi Thomas, Ok aparently you keep missing my points so I'm going to try to explain them again. The main point to my argument is that one should not build a theory based on the debatable. Just like one would not build the foundations of a house on quicksand. One should always build any theory they have like one would build a house. On something stable and solid. Again let me state that I know you aren't a backer of the Masonic Theory, I'm just stating that building a theory on something that is debatable, which I don't believe you are doing either, is dangerous. Because then the theory is not solid. And like a house built on quicksand it will easily topple and fall apart. The reason I threw the whole Catholic Conspiracy in the mix was not because I believe in it. It was my way of proving how many theories are based on but a few minutes of research.(All I had to do was look up a few dates on a Saint's Calendar, and bam I had a half-backed theory.) And instead of continuing the research and delve deeper, they stop and add conjecture and speculation to the midst. This of course makes the theory unsound, which allows others to dash it upon the rocks. I understand your argument about good-handwriting does not actually egual good-education, which I thoroughly agree with you. However I have seen the poorly educated with as fine a handwriting as some of the best I have ever bore witness to. This inlcudes the illiterate, for just because they aren't used to writing huge tomes of knowledge, doesn't mean they haven't attempted writing anything in their lives.(Let's remember that an illiterate person may still have a bank account, and they will need to sign a little paperwork there.) Graffiti artists aren't always as people perceive them. They don't just walk around with cans of spray paint. They will use brushes and chalk in their work to liven it up. Not to mention they typically sketch out their works before they paint them, and even at times, sign them. In my previous post I stated how I've seen semi-literate people spell the word 'NEWS' as 'NUWES'. All one would have to do to change it to 'JUWES' is replace the N with a J. Plus if you listen to the word Phonetically you will here a Wha sound, which is why the illiterate will guess that there is a W in there somewhere. Also there were actually 3 different versions of the writing. All supposedly taken down on the spot. One was Detective Halse of the City Police, his version was, 'The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing. The other was Constable Long of the Met., his version was, 'The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing. Lastly we have Sir Charles in his memoranda about the 'Juwes' writing stating that he himself took a copy of the writing which was, 'The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.' Long himself stated that an Inspector on the scene believed the MUCH debated word was spelled 'Jeuws'. However, Long stated he, 'entered into his book what he believed was an exact copy of the words.' Now Long and Sir Charles correspond more than Halse does with either, but only because Halse has the word 'NOT' in a different place. Long admitted that the word Jews could have been spelled differently which is probably why Sir Charles spelled his 'Juwes'. However in the same memoranda, Sir Charles also spells the word 'Jeuwes' as he states in the memoranda about his talk with the Chief Rabbi. So the topic was EXTREMELY debatable back then, and is even more so now, cause we have no idea how the writing was actually spelled or even where the word not appeared in the graffiti. Jews could have been spelled any number of ways, especially since there were at least 3 different opinions on how it was spelled by 3 different eyewitnesses. But the question that bugs me is, if the handwriting is in such a GOOD hand, then why can't they agree on how the word was spelled, as well as to the postioning of the double negative? I don't expect an answer, cause again this will cause another debate that will continue on and on. The point is, is that the WHOLE topic of it is SO DEBATABLE that it will probably never come to a resolution. There will always be a hundred different versions of what the graffito stated, as to how it was spelled, as to when it was done, and as to who it was done by. This makes it a LOUSY foundation for any theory, because there are so many opinions on the graffito that it will cause the theory to crack in a thousand different directions and eventually falter. I'm Happy to see you tried my little 'writing in the dark' experiment and that you did it so quickly and in such a good handwriting. Now let's add to the experiment. Next time you have to cut up some beef, hopefully you aren't a vegetarian, and you have blood on your hands. Take a towel, and go into a dark room with a pen and paper, more preferably a slate and chalk, but a pen and paper will do. Now wipe the blood thoroughly off your hands, and write down your message in the dark. Now you may not get all the blood off your hands in the first attempt so you may smear some on your writing, so you will have start the experiment over.(But who knows you just may get it right the first time.) But however many times it takes you, whether it be just once or a couple of times, do time yourself and see how long it takes. Now remember if Jack did write the graffito it would take him a similar amount of time, as well as he is under the strain of being hunted for his life. Now I'm not saying that is UNREFUTABLE proof that Jack didn't write the graffito, after all he may have been cocky enough to think the cops would never catch him no matter what he did. It is just that it is this reason that will keep me on the fence of the subject of the graffito. I state that there were no colourings in the writing due to the fact that there was light for the police to see it. After all everyone knows that the police of the day carried lanterns with them to see into dark passageways. Even Constable Long himself stated he, 'Shined his light onto the writing.' Now it is true lamp light isn't as reliable as daylight. But if there had been a discolourization, they would have recognized it, due to the fact that the people of the time, were used to reading under lamp light. I have thought quite A LOT about the possible meaning of the double negative. However, the only reason I stated against it was the fact that we were discussing whether or not the writer had to be 'WELL' educated to be the originator of the graffito. And I was merely attempting to make the point that it is much easier to make a statement for others to understand if it is clear and concise, hence without double negatives. Yet, the writer could have just wished to remain unclear as to his true intentions of the graffito. I just believe that if it was Jack's only outlet for public announcement, he would have wanted his thoughts to be clear. But then again, I could be wrong. I know we probably will continue to argue this point over and over again. But I will agree with you to disagree. After all that is the TRUE intention of my debate with you. To show how DEBATABLE the subject is. And as I've stated earlier, it's not good to base a theory on something that is debatable. Not saying that you are basing any theory on the graffito. Just stating it for our viewers, so that they won't spend years of research on their theories to have it dashed upon the rocks by retractors in a matter of seconds. Sincerely, Chris H. P.S. I know some may ask, 'Well what isn't refuted in this case.' Well the easiest way to state is that there are AT LEAST two victims that everyone agrees were killed by the same hand. That is Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman. (Some discredit Catherine Eddowes due to the facial injuries, Mary Kelly due to the ferocity of the mutilations upon her body, and we've already heard dozens of reasons why they discredit Liz Stride.) Also the wounds upon the bodies haven't been deeply debated. This may not give you much to start with, but hey, at least it's a start.;-) P.P.S. A moment of levity brought to you by the Monty Python boys, 'They said I was DAFT to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it anyways. It sank into the swamp. So I built another one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That burnt down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up!'
Author: graziano Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 10:58 am
Chris Hintzen, The 6th of November 1888 Charles Warren sent a report to the Home Office saying, among other things, about the Goulston Graffito: "I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy* of which I enclose a duplicate."* This is enough (for any serious researcher) to stop every possible speculation about the nature of it. If only you spent 10 percent of your time in thinking about the case instead of writing about it you would be more useful one hundred time to yourself and to the same case. Unless, of course, you plan to make money with the case writing books, going on TV shows, making movies or publishing reviews. Or unless you want to show how much culture you have. The former aims are after all very legitimate and followed by many (and certainly not criticized by me). The latter begins to become boring on these boards. For the evidences about the existence of Jacks, you would have better going through the various threads instead of waiting for someone to bring the bread to your mouth. If you are not able to do it because your capacity of analyzing and deducing is near to zero or because this would be a lot of work and you prefer a priori to believe in the lonely lunatic killer because it does not need brain stretching, as a lot of people here do, please do as you please, but do not contemplate yourself in the mirror stating that there is no evidence about it. It makes you pathetic. Bye. Graziano.
Author: John Patrick Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 12:43 pm
Dear Chris Hintzen, There is a 'slight' flaw in your feast-day analysis and explanation: On any given day there are a number of Saints from which to choose. So how do you know which ONE was Jack's favorite? Answer: by choosing the one that best fits your current theory. Later, if your theory needs alteration, simply choose a different Saint. Oh - but I forgot it only took you a few minutes research to find the Saints that best fit the Ripper murders. How lucky, considering that this research was only done to show how FLAWED other theories are and had NOTHING to do with your own. My best, John P. S. Couldn't you do a little better with St. Jerome
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 12:54 pm
DeSalvo! DeSalvo! The Boston Strangler was Albert DeSalvo. Not "Berkowitz." David Berkowitz was the Son of Sam. David
Author: Chris Hintzen Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 01:24 pm
Hi Graziano, I get your point about Sir Charles Memoranda. However, Constable Long stated he copied the writing down as an exact copy of what was written on the wall while he was at the crime scene. Just as Halse was questioned at the inquest, 'Read out the exact words you took down in your book at the time,' His reply was, 'The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing.' So unfortunately it's not so easily solved because 3 different eyewitnesses saw 3 different things. I've looked through the various threads but nobody has ever attempted to explain where the evidence of more than one killer is. Also I thought this thread was supposed to help prove the whole MORE than ONE killer theory. After all it does say, 'No way it was a Lone Serial Killer!' I'm not fully against the idea that Jack could have had an accomplice. The only ideas I've ever heard about it is someone saying, 'well the geography of 29 Hanbury shows that it couldn't have been a lone killer.' They don't say WHY, they just say it couldn't have been a lone one. Asides from that is the idea that the women were seen with more than one man, however doing a little DEDUCTION as you say I apparently lack, one would recognize that these women ARE prostitutes after all, so of course they will be seen to be in the company of more than one man. And the whole point of my posts is to get people to THINK about their research instead of just BLINDLY writing anything that they've read in only ONE source, and contemplated for less than half a second. And lastly I haven't stated that there ISN'T any evidence that there is more than one killer. It might exist and I've missed it. But I thought the whole point to the Boards was to help each other find the mistakes we've made, draw attention to ideas others have missed, as well as to voice our own opinions and support theories we believe in. But I guess you don't like that idea. So no one else should have any opinion asides your own. So Graziano, maybe you might want to stop your childish name-calling and use a little reasoning yourself. Maybe stretch those powerful brain muscles of yours and help us Simple Peons understand the case as well as you say you do. After all it could save us all A LOT of time and trouble to play 'Follow the Leader' with such a Brilliant Mind, instead of forming our own foolish opinions as well as ask for help in doing our own research. Adios, Chris H.
Author: Chris Hintzen Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 01:46 pm
Hiya John, Like I said my ideas of Jack aren't that he was some religious fanatic. I don't believe in the idea that he was killing on the feastdays. I was just showing that there are many symbolisms that one may match the mutilations of the victims to. Whether it be the Masons reliving the execution of the 'Juwes', some type of Black Magic ritual, or a match up with Saints Feastdays.(By the way I am well aware that there are typical 5 or 6 different Saints Feastday on any given day, it was just a way to postulate that ANYONE can take ANYTHING and twist it to suit there own needs. I'm glad you caught onto that fact.) The few minutes research I did on the subject was just inspired in my finding flaws in the Saints Theory, as well as what Proponents of the ideas might say about it. A typical research of those for and against. Just like I've done my research on the Masons. And on the various suspects, like Chapman, Tumblety, Barnett, etc. Not that I particularly believe or disbelieve in any one of them. I'm just looking for as much information as I possibly can about every facet. At this time I don't exactly have a favorite theory. I'm just going through others research and building a little bit on it, to see how well formed it is. By the way, sorry I couldn't do better with Saint Jerome, but it being as screwy as I put it, helped me to prove my point. Hi David, Yes your right I mixed up Berkowitz with DeSalvo, I guess that's what I get for having a billion things running through my head at once. Thanks for the correction. Sincerely, Chris H.
Author: Thomas Bayer Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 01:53 pm
Chris I would never speak as harshly as Graziano, but still there is some merit to his posting. Mainly that you should really, really read before answering. I never took your Papal theory seriously. I instantly attributed it with "playful". I even verbally underlined this in my second answer. Just some other thoughts Though the coppers on the beat had lamps doesn't mean they would have noticed slight discolourings. Their lamps were no Maglites(TM) and the underground was black. "And prostitutes do tend to be with more than one man in a night." Not these, sorry. Otherwise they wouldn't be in dire need of sixpence to get a shelter for the night. The work situation was highly competitive and four of the canonical five were on the verge of becoming venerable. As someone already has said; if you're seen in the company of a murder victim fifteen minutes prior to her death you're in for a hard time. The witnesses are basically the only firsthand evidence that came down to us. Everything else is filtered. Carefully reassessed they strongly suggest Jack to be more than one. I guess, Mr. Medine's Quantico-training would not deny this. I will not repeat my thoughts in detail, I've posted them before in this thread. . Prove the witnesses wrong, Chris, prove them wrong, but please don't use obscure memorandas etc. of people whose intentions are questionable. Stick to firsthand evidence. As long as you can't do that, any lone serial killer theory is a wild speculation unsupported by witnesses, nay, even denying the witness statements. One point you raise, however, is very, very interesting: But the question that bugs me is, if the handwriting is in such a GOOD hand, then why can't they agree on how the word was spelled, as well as to the postioning of the double negative? Yes, Chris. Indeed why? Because one of the parties involved deliberately tried to force a false version on the public. Who had a motive? Re-read carefully the exchange during the Eddowes-inquest and visualize it. Try to hear those people speak. Let the words live I always tell my students. Whom do you trust? Graziano Did you really deem it necessary to write a post like the one above? I agree with you a to a certain extent, but I really think the slightly abusive tone was not in order.
Author: graziano Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 02:53 pm
You are right Chris H, calling names and hinting as I do is not the best way to explain or give out arguments. But there are not only Simple Peons here around. What I discovered coming to this boards is that the case is already solved. What is going on is business. I suspect the case has been solved quite a lot of time ago. But had the solution to the case been published would it have been possible to write myriads of books these last years ? Going on publishing reviews and making TV shows and conferences ? Making movies ? Explaining becomes a loss of time. Don't look for evidences. The one which could be used have been intellectually altered. Others probably have been hidden (my opinion, but a strong one). Not by the Police or by a Masonic/Royalist conspirations. By businessmen. This expert believes Schwartz to be a reliable witness ? He doesn't. This other says the murder has been committed east of the Board School ? He knows it is impossible. A third one says Mrs Richardson was not reliable ? Rubbish. He knows she is the solution to the Chapman's case. Are they liar ? No. They just respond to the logic of business. Evidences there were more than one killer ? A lot. Depending on which case you are interested. It depends on what you consider an evidence. The Inquisition considered an evidence of your guilt the fact that two persons were ready to swear on the Bible that you were guilty. Blood between legs, skirts lifted, bruises on the chests and hands but also contradictory testimonies, too detailed descriptions (no, not the Hutchinson's one), spontaneous appearances in Police station (no, once again, not Hutchinson), different handwritings among other things (not least the murder's sites), all could be considered evidences of more murderers taking a role if you use reasoning. Or discarded if you don't want to. As far as I am concerned, the best of all is to be found in the Stride's murder. Pipeman ? Oh no, Pipeman just never existed. But the destruction of the testimony of Fanny Mortimer is just a masterpiece of criminal intelligence. So, sorry of only hinting and not explaining but after all what's the problem ? Just say I am a joke. There are plenty here around. Bye. Graziano. P.S.: Thomas, do not pay attention to the tone, it reflects more the fact that I am very unconfortably standing while writing than anything against another poster (Chris H in this case).
Author: Chris Hintzen Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 03:41 pm
Hiya Thomas, I never did fully think about the writing being on the black dado as it was, as well as the possiblity that it may have been partially smeared from the elements. I recently looked at a picture I have of the site in Skinners and Evans, 'Jack the Ripper, Letters from Hell'.(Of course the picture is more modern, but it is VERY helpful.) And looking at how the jamb of the doorway is positioned, I think you may be right about them not noticing any discolouration. It would also help to explain why people felt the word 'Juwes' was spelled differently. However, I do disagree with your thoughts on why these women couldn't have been with more than one man an evening. You yourself have stated that they needed sixpence for a bed. Do we agree on this? In all of my reading, I've found that a price for a woman's services in that time was usually 2 to 3 pence. So if they wanted to have a bed for the night they would have had to sleep with at least two men. Unless by some miracle these girls met up with a BIG spender that would give them DOUBLE the highest fee that is typically paid.(This of course denotes that they wanted to sleep in a Double Bed, since the cost for a single was I believe only 3 pence.) But I will do as you ask, I'll go back over the inquests and the various witnesses. As well as going over the City Police records only, what few of them I do have, any idea where one might be able to obtain a better list? Since most works cite Scottland Yard rather than the City Police.(It is the City Police that you wish me to look further into due to the fact that you believe Scottland Yard's files are all tainted in some way?) By the way thanks for pointing me towards some EVIDENCE. Your the first person to ever do that, and I greatly appreciate it. Thanks Again, Chris H.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 04:25 pm
Dear Graziano, Da case ain't solved until de Fat Lady sing! An I ain't singin de blues fo yo until them saints go a marchin in...brother. Rosey :-))
Author: Thomas Bayer Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 06:28 pm
Is the "Juwes"-myth the leitmotif in the case? I wrote recently that I believe in a conspiracy with Masonic involvement, not a Masonic conspiracy. The involvement, however, is so blatantly obvious that many people believed and believe in an exclusively Masonic conspiracy. "Connections are suggested by the nature of the killings, which at first glance bear some resemblance to certain traditional Masonic penalties every Mason should know are entirely symbolic." (Master Mason Kinney) That means. Of all possibilities to cause carnage, the team deliberately chose a method with Masonic involvement. To clarify on "some resemblance". Kinney referred to the "Jubila, Jubelo, Jubelum" which is a ritual reference to the "Three Ruffians" (yes, also known as "Juwes"). I will reprint it in part here. Everyone will see that a connection might exist. O that my throat had been cut across, my tongue torn out, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea (...) O that my left breast had been torn open and my heart and vitals taken from thence and thrown over my left shoulder (...) O that my body had been severed in two in the midst, and divided to the north and south, my bowels burnt to ashes in the center, and the ashes scattered by the four winds of heaven, that there might not the least track or remembrance remain among men, or Masons, of so vile and perjured a wretch as I am. Coincidence, many say. Okay. Jack murdering with reference to the "Juwes"-myth shall be taken as coincidence - for now. The "Juwes" reference then appears next in the Goulston Street Graffito. However you read it - deliberate, misspelling, whatever - no one can deny the fact that via this graffito a second time a reference to the highly obscure Masonic lore of the "Juwes" entered the case. Coincidence again? Now you're stretching imagination. Freemason Charles Warren has this possible piece of evidence destroyed. Not only that, he also had the public servant under his command PC Long, copy down a falsified version. The man is not to blame given the food and command chain in London. During the inquest Long was cornered and got rather defensive and finally admitted to the spelling "Juwes". Mr. Crawford: What is the entry [in your Notepad]? Long: The words are, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." Coroner: Both here and in your inspector's report the word "Jews" is spelt correctly? Long: Yes; but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt "Juwes." Coroner: Why did you write "Jews" then? Long: I made my entry before the inspector made the remark. Coroner: But why did the inspector write "Jews"? Long: I cannot say. Coroner: At all events, there is a discrepancy? Long: It would seem so. The double negative has a meaning Despite zillions of posts and tons of highly educated literature - the double negative was not used for naught. It is not the result of bad grammar. As Godfrey Howard has pointed out in his Good English Guide(MacMillan): "To present-day ears this (the double negative) nearly always sounds uneducated." NB: to present-day ears... Several people have tried to capture the essence of the message while taking out the double negative. Try it and you will see, it does not work, you will always end up with a slightly different meaning. The double negative is used for emphasis here. So another version of the graffito could read: The Juwes are to be blamed, and with good reason. Freemason Charles Warren gave a damn for pauperized East End Jews So Warren instantly recognized the Masonic connection. Even if we accept that "Juwes" has dropped out of the ritual at around 1820 (Dennis Stocks) we can fairly assume that Warren, archeologist, learned man, first master of a research lodge, was well aware of the meaning. To his ears, the sentence, which seems to befuddle many a mind attached to present-day ears, carried a message crisp and clear. It was a warning. Any Master mason -- and higher police officials mostly were -- would have instantly recognized: "Fellow masons at work". And any good and true mason would have acted according to that venerable motto of the United Grand Lodge of England: "Hear, see, be silent, if you would live in peace." (UGLE coat of arms, 1815). "You must conceal all crimes of your brother Masons...and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him. It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you're keeping your obligations. (Ronayne Handbook of Masonry, p. 183). That was my point when I wrote of "conflicting loyalties". It was not his sudden tender care for those poor devils that send Warren on the scene or that let him stubbornly use a version definetly falsified during the inquest (see above). He even sent out copies of his false version to get support from a Rabbi. Of course the misled Rabbi agreed to Warren, since he never saw the true spelling. Warren's activities betray he not only DID get the message - he was covering up even before the double event. We will see this in greater detail later. Two references to an obscure Masonic Myth, a high-ranking Master Mason destroying one of these references and deliberately misinforming the public and some poor rabbi - and all this is supposed to be co-in-ci-dence? Sure. But there is even a clearer reference to the "Juwes" myth. Someone has to be wiped out. The ultimate target of the team, as I have stated that there was one. Mary Jane Kelly. She was literally wiped out as person so that there might not the least track or remembrance remain among men, or Masons, of so vile and perjured a wretch. All that was left of her was an artwork of carnage her former lover could only identify by the ears. It was not a Masonic ritual, however, it was wetwork done in ritual fashion. [To be continued, but now I will have something to eat].
Author: John Patrick Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 07:44 pm
Hi Thomas, Naturally, I agree with most everything you have written. And if the writer was an occultist, might there be another meaning hidden within? Perhaps there was an emphasis on the word 'nothing'? My Best, John
Author: Thomas Bayer Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 08:11 pm
John I don't think the writer was necessarily an occultist or a Mason - he just had access to knowledge. This is a bit complicated, I know. Your suggestion as to the hidden meaning - could you elaborate on that? Thomas
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 06:17 am
Hi Thomas, Your post of yesterday, at 06:28 pm, was one of the most fascinating I have read here for ages. I'm dying to know more about MJK being the ultimate target (in fact I'm all ears), and if the previous victims were also hand-picked. And why the team used Masonic clues that Warren would pick up on, and whether they wanted Masons to be implicated, and so on and so forth. Thanks for a very interesting read. Love, Caz
Author: Monty Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 08:44 am
Brothers Why a conspiracey ?? There is no indication of a conspiracey. Dont give me the masonic bull about Jubelo, Jubelum and Ju-dy Finnigan. If Chuck wanted to destroy knowledge of the graffito then he did a poor job of it because we all know about it. If he told Long to falsify it then he forgot to tell Halse because he had spelt it correctly. A pretty dopey mason with it, so Freemason Charles Warren has this piece of evidence destroyed. Yep, gone for all eternity....into the ether and beyond...never to be seen again....until I read my copy of the sourcebook tonight. Are we assuming that every police officer and official was a mason ?? I guess we are. Monty
Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 08:51 am
Dear Thomas, You write: "there might not the least track or remembrance remain among men, or Masons, of so vile and perjured a wretch." The only problem with this is of course MJK is well remembered by practically everyone. If the intention was to kill her so that she would not be remembered she would simply have dissapered. yours Bob Hinton
Author: cue Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 09:20 am
Hi If jack had a partner or partners he would have been caught. Other people who know are always a criminals downfall. Thank You
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 09:52 am
Thank cue, That is what some people feel about the Maybrick diary and watch hoaxes too. If either of the forgers did it in modern times, and there are others alive who know about it or helped, it will very likely prove their downfall - eventually. Love, Caz
Author: graziano Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 10:06 am
So cue, tell me why you can't catch Bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Haven't they any partners ? Hasn't any offer been made to these partners ? Tell me the name of one partner of Al Capone who was his downfall. Thank you. Graziano.
Author: Chris Hintzen Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 10:49 am
Hi Thomas, VERY interesting and not to mention intriguing theory you have there. I DEFINITELY can't wait to hear the rest of it. I myself tend to enjoy reading ANY theory based on the case. Whether it be Pro's or Con's. That's one of the reasons why I enjoy these boards so much, cause it gives me access to A LOT of people's theories as well as their ideas about other theories. As I've stated before I'm not on either side of the debate on whether or not Jack could have been more than one killer. The possibilty does exist. The only real reason why I asked for evidence of it was simply to help ground the theory more. Also I don't doubt the possibilty that Jack the Ripper, or Rippers, could have been a Mason(s). After all there are more than a Million Residents of London at the time, so it's not completely against the ideas of logic to say that a Mason could have been involved. However, I'm not entirely convinced by a Conspiracy involving Police Cover-up, simply because they are Masons. True the Police have been known to cover-up instances of their fellow boys in blue, or even politicians and celebrities, inpropriorties. But the fact that it was a Mason cover-up is a little far fetched. Yet please continue your research and theory, I am GREATLY interested in hearing it. I've done a little research on the theory that you have given thus far, and let me show you a few flaws in it. Perhaps you have a way of explaining this, or maybe you may wish to research further and prove that these truly aren't flaws. First, we will come to the Disimilarities between the 'Juwes' mythos and the Jack the Ripper Mutilations. First is that the tongues of the women were not cut out, however that is only a minor thing. Secondly we have the placing of the heart and vitals over the shoulder, which you yourself have placed in Bold print to add emphasis. However, the problem with that, is for one the Heart was only removed in Mary Kelly's case, but aside from that the intestines were placed over the RIGHT shoulder, not the left. Now you've stated that the Police or Scottland Yard were covering up, so maybe the Metropolitan Doctors were in on it to. But you have said that the City Police weren't in on the conspiracy, correct? Well the City Police, as well as their Doctors stated that Catherine Eddowes Intestines were on her Right Shoulder. Also the drawings made of the crime scene(including the injuries to the body) were made by Frederick William Forester, the City Surveyor. These drawings also place the intestines on Catherine's Right Shoulder. But then again, maybe they are all in on the conspiracy as well? Or maybe Jack didn't know his right from his left? Now we move further on into the Mythos, We have the dividing of the body, 'to North and South'. Not FROM North TO South, but 'to North and South'. That means the cut should be Horizontal, not Vertical as in the cases of the murders. But then again the Murderer(s) may have been confused on that point as well. Then we have the burning of their bowels at the center, which never occurred in any of the cases. I could continue on this note, but then I'm analysing every little piece of the mythos. The only parts that I see correalate with the case is the throat cut, and the intestines removed. Other then that it seems like the rest of the mythos has been thrown away, especially the fact that all of this is supposed to be done to traitors of the Masons. For the Juwes were Masons who murdered their Master because he would not reveal his secrets. And the whole excerpt that you have taken is their own claims of what should be done to them for their betrayal to their brother Masons.(Not for the betrayal of others against the Masons, but rather a Mason betraying a fellow Mason.) Next is you have stated yourself that Sir Charles is a Master Mason, Correct? And he being a Mason and finding the Graffito decided to cover it up, cause it gave the tones that a Mason may be Jack the Ripper? You also say that the Oaths of the Masons is binding, and that if you have taken the oath, then no matter what you must stick by it, otherwise you will be expelled(or murdered, take your pick) from the Masons because your Oath was invalid? You quote from writings of the Masons, so I will also quote from them. This is an excerpt from the Oath that a Mason must take before he can become a Master Mason, "Furthermore do I promise and swear that a Master Mason's secrets, given to me in charge as such, and I knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own, when communicated to me, Murder and Treason excepted; and they left to my own election." (Master Mason's / 3rd Degree Oath of Obligation) So yes the Oath does state that they shall hide secrets and their fellow Masons, however it also states that 'MURDER AND TREASON' are exceptions to the rule. Hence, if a Mason is responsible for either Murder or Treason, then you may reveal this without contradicting your oath. So if Sir Charles was such a Good Mason, then he broke his Oath by covering up for Jack. I'll try not get into the spelling of the word 'Juwes' in this post asides from stating that I have recently found out that there is a fourth person who wrote yet another version of it. Again I speak of the City Surveryor Frederick William Foster. His version is, 'The Juws are not the men To be blamed for nothing.' Now it is possible that he may not have been at the scene, but he was a witness at Catherine Eddowes Murder Site, for he was the one responsible for the drawings of the injuries to her face. Also as I've asked before maybe he is in on this whole Conspiracy, since it appears everyone else is in on it as well. But I will state that Foster's version of the graffito does correspond more closely to Detective Halse's version.(I do believe that you agree that Halse's version is the accurate, uncorrupted version, right?) For both Foster and Halse place the word 'not' in the same place. So if Halse's version is the correct one, then the graffito stated, 'The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing.' Now you yourself, have stated in your theory that the double negative is IMPORTANT, cause it adds emphasis. But when you you move the word 'not' to where it is placed by Halse's testimony then they saying doesn't seem to be saying, 'The Juwes will be blamed for something, and with good reason'. But rather, 'The Juwes are the men that will be blamed for something'. This doesn't neccesitate that they are guilty of something(however, it could be possible that they are), just that they will be blamed for it. And we've already seen that the Jews were being blamed for the killings(as well as other things) LONG before the graffito was written. But then again we're speaking of a different group of Juwes aren't we, since the spelling of the word is differet? Lastly is about Sir Charles giving a damn about the Jews of the area. Now I will admit Sir Charles probably didn't give one iota for what may happen to the Jews had the graffito been seen. However, I do think Sir Charles did care about his Political Career. Let's not forget Sir Charles was responsible for 'Bloody Sunday', the Trafalagar Square riot that ended in a massacre. So if yet another riot happened over the Graffito, and Scottland Yard was called in to quell it, as well as the eventual people being harmed(possibly killed) by the police much like Trafalagar Square, then it's resonable to surmise that it would be the END of Sir Charles' Career. I'm not saying Sir Charles was a Good Man, but I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that he was into the same idea of 'Self-Preservation' that we all have. However, I could be wrong. These are the problems I found in your theory. Perhaps you may have answers that will put the problems to rest, that is one of the reasons why I am stating them in the first place. But as I've said, I'm not totally against the theory of a Mason or Masons being the killer. Just like I'm not against the theory that Jack could have been more than one killer. I'm just finding the Pro's and Con's in any theory. By the way, please continue your theory. I do find it MOST interesting, and would like to hear the rest of it. Hiya Graziano, I will agree with you that A LOT of the evidence is missing in the case. Vast files as well as diaries have apparently disappeared off the face of the earth. And I also agree with you that the reason is because of profit. However, I don't believe that it is some conspiracy by the media to keep books, movies, and TV specials selling. But rather because there are rich people out there that will pay HANDSOMELY for anything at all that deals with the case. We all know that the rich can be 'Show-offs', and what nicer thing to show off than official 'Ripper' documents, or even the diaries of those that were part of the case? Also, just because a case is solved, doesn't mean that media merchandise won't sell. Proof is in the fact of John Wayne Gacy, the Manson Family, 'Son of Sam', and the 'Boston Strangler'. These cases were closed back in the 60's and 70's. And here we are 30 years later, new books, movies, and TV specials, are still being released and sold about them. And they are all selling well. I will agree with you that there is TONS of debate on EVERY facet of the case. And even if it was solved, the debate would still continue. But I think that is what makes it interesting. Isn't that one of the reasons we all post on the boards? To voice our own opinions as well as hear others? I don't think your a joke. You've got a level head on your shoulders there. I just happen to agree to disagree with you. ;-) Sincerely, Chris H.