Archive through 14 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 14 February 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : "No way it was a Lone Serial Killer": Archive through 14 February 2002

Author: cue Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 11:09 am
Graziano bin laden could be nothing but teeth on the desert floor now. We know who he is how did we find that out. Als bookkeeper got him 11 years in Alcatraz. Thanks
Author: Chris Hintzen Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 11:39 am
Hiya Graziano, Yes you are right, it is perfectly reasonable that Jack had an accomplice, and they both got away. I just have one question about it before I climb off the fence on the subject. What is it that links them? Some of my ideas on the subject are this. One it can't be Economical(I.E. The killer paying an accomplice to help him.) After all the reward ended to be a rather EXHORBINATE sum. As well as the fact there was a pardon offered. So not only could this accomplice get paid a Queen's Ransom, but also a pardon, so he/she would never have to worry about hanging. It could be Political. Maybe one promising the other advancement for their help in his/her 'Work'. Maybe Revenge based. Maybe two people similarly wronged lashing out together? One I kinda like is the idea of a Mentoring relationship. One killer tutoring another.(Possibly the Torso Murderer training Jack the Ripper?) You see, something would need to link these two (or more) people together. That way they won't have to worry about the other setting them up for the crimes. Also there must be a reason why if one stopped, the other didn't continue the work. I mean the chances that they were both caught and no evidence of it ever coming to light is a little far-fetched.(Even if they were both caught for different crimes at the same time, it is hard to believe.) The idea that they both went to the looney bin together, is a little hard to believe but possible. Or that they both died together, again hard to believe but possible. So in all honesty, when it comes to a 'More than One' theory you need at least three things: 1.) A link between them. 2.) A reason to Start together. 3.) A reason for both of them to Stop. The idea of a Mentoring relationship fits with me so well that if it could be said that one is tutoring the other, then just because the Jack the Ripper murders stopped, doesn't mean that different types of killings couldn't continue. Just a little food for thought. Adios, Chris H.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 12:32 pm
Hi Chris, If only two were involved, I like the mentor and apprentice idea, or perhaps folie a deux. Could Stride's killing be the work of the tutored, and Eddowes' the tutor showing him how it's done properly? Folie a deux would tie one to the other emotionally (like Brady and Hindley, or the Wests) - at least while they were still together and getting away with what they were doing. One or both could have been bisexual. One could have died after Kelly, or even been killed by the other if he started to pose a threat - either way leaving no one else to tell the tale. Love, Caz
Author: david rhea Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 02:29 pm
Was there a thought out purpose to these murders? Masons-Black Magicians-Artists for material-Protection of royalty-need for body parts for some purpose- imply that.Or on the other hand were the murderers or murderer compelled by an unstoppable urge to kill out of hatred of prostitutes for some reason or other or just a hatred of women-like Bury-Kosminsky-Cohen.Or were they out of jealousy or moral indignationm or rejection like Barnett, Hutchinson, Maybrick.No need to get angry or indignant because of any of these views---How many times have you changed your mind about this case? You will probably do so again. Its hard to get out of a corner once you have emphatically painted yourself into it.Should you strictly go by the facts or should you let your imagination soar.Well, if you did to much of that you could get into vampires and aliens or even mothman.What facts do you accept? Maybe we can all get on the same page.How much imagination do you consider acceptable?It makes no real difference since this is a dead issue-playing 'king of the hill' gives status for a time and hopefully revered remembrance when we are shunted off to the basement, but have no fear the BASEMENT is waiting.
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 04:03 pm
Hi, David: Melvin Harris has stated that Roslyn D'Onston was both a sexual serial killer and a person who did the murders for purposes of black magic rituals. It would seem to me that these two purposes are divergent but apparently Harris believes they are consistent with one another. Best regards Chris George
Author: david rhea Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 04:16 pm
Thanks Chris;I don't understand that though if he accepts the 5 canonical victims and no more in the series.Even if he believes he killed his wife as Ivor does and dropped her remains in the river, that doesn't imply a sexual serial killer. That too implies a reasoned act. I agree with you I don't see how you can connect the two.Is it known for a fact that his family disinherited him because of sexual perversions?
Author: Thomas Bayer Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 05:53 pm
Thanks all for the great feedback. Unfortunately I don't have the time to post today. Chris: Could you please give the source of your quote (the oath)? That'll be too kind. Monty: It is well known that carrot nibblers with long ears cause earthquakes, isn't it? Cheers
Author: Ivor Edwards Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 06:32 pm
David, I do not believe that the motive for the murders was one of a sexual nature. But dont ask me if the killer obtained any sexual kick from the chase,any mutilations,or any aspect of the murders.That is way out of my area.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 06:39 pm
That's all for now folks! [Cue] Rabbit with large carroty mustache? Rosey :-)
Author: Thomas Bayer Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 07:02 pm
Chris: Not that I doubt your quote, but you are using the formula (a variation thereof) which has been accepted in 1986 "after long discussion". The variants of the oath valid 100 years earlier NEVER worded any limitation with regards to law and order. They also contained hideous phrases describing how they are going to remove valuable parts of a traitor's anatomy. In a purely symbolical way, of course. Source? The Grand Secretary The United Grand Lodge of England Freemasons' Hall 60 Great Queen Street London WC2B 5AZ Tel : 0171 831 9811 Fax : 0171 831 5719
Author: david rhea Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 07:16 pm
When you say a large carroty moustache do you think that meant a red one or an orange one ?
Author: Chris Hintzen Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 07:38 pm
Hiya Thomas, Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. The quote of the Master Mason's Oath I've taken is from this source: Finney, C.G., The Character, Claims and Practical Workings of Freemasonry (Chicago: Ezra A. Cook, 1887), 70-74. You can find out the full oath at this website: http://www.bsktcase.com/mason/oaths-m.html Also there are other oaths, as well as a history of Masonry and Anti-Masonry within the U.S. at this same site: http://www.bsktcase.com/mason/ This is a site from Smith College, with a lot of the information coming from Amherst College Library. The Library contains Freemasonry material from around the globe, some of which dates back to 1798. It is true that the oath has varied a bit over age. I'm still searching for older versions of the oath. Eventhough this is an 1887 version, I'd like to find earlier sources to check and see if this line was added in the 1887 version or in earlier versions. Also, since this version is from Chicago, and I'm not sure how Lodges from different countries may differ. I'll keep you posted if I find any. But please, finish writing your theory here on the board. I know I'm not the only one that wishes to hear it all. Maybe not all of us agree with it, but I'm sure there are many out there that do. And I personaly enjoy ANY theory or idea about the case. Thanks, Chris H. P.S. I have also looked at various sites that quote this same oath. Both Mason Friendly as well as Anti-Masonic. If you wish I will gladly post them as well.
Author: Thomas Bayer Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 07:54 pm
I have just received a mail of someone absolutely upset in a very polite manner. He said I was accusing Freemasonry and Freemasons of the JTR killings. Since this is not the case I herewith state as follows (and may my fillings sizzle and my appendix turn pink and be buried in marshmellows if this is not the truth) I don't think Masons roamed or roam the streets carving up hapless women. The murders were not a Masonic ritual but reference to such a ritual. It was not necessarily a Mason who wrote "Juwes" on the wall. Not every Mason in the police force of London was involved in cover-up operations. The killers, however, counted on that - and were wrong in the case of Gwynne E. Baxter for example. In short, someone read what he wanted to read into my post, sent an eMail and forced me to repeat myself. This is something I truly dislike. In return therefore some, well, enlightening quotes from FREEMASONRY IN THE POLICE AND THE JUDICIARY, a report by the HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE of 1997. ...there is some evidence that the numbers (of Masons) may be high in some parts of the judiciary and magistracy, and (ii) some areas of the police (although it seems that in both areas the numbers may be substantially less than in the 1960s and 1970s); ...where there is evidence of criminal or otherwise improper behaviour by freemasons, the freemasons themselves are taking stronger action against the perpetrators than was the case in the past. Hey, finally, in 1997, Masons in the judiciary, magistracy and the police take action against perpetrators even if those are brothers. What progress! The committee duly notes: "...whether or not this is because of increased public interest, we welcome it..." We can only guess at the situation in 1888... So if this is the case, why not at least force them to register? Because nothing so much undermines public confidence in public institutions as the knowledge that some public servants are members of a secret society one of whose aims is mutual self-advancement - or a column of mutual support, to use the masonic phrase. Study this sentence very, very carefully. Am I the only one to read "keep the public in the dark to keep their confidence" into this one? And do you also dislike this tongue-in-cheek use of Masonic phrases in a public report? Thomas
Author: Thomas Bayer Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 07:57 pm
Uh, and Chris, thanks for the addresses.
Author: Michael Conlon Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 07:58 pm
for what it's worth: I confess utter ignorance of Masonic law (lore), but as to the oath proscribing murder and treason (and unlawful acts), it is a well attested historical fact that, during the American Civil War, military authorities had regular and ongoing problems with soldiers who were Masons facilitating the escape of enemy soldiers who were fellow Masons. This was a problem for both Federal and Confederate authorities. These Masons, who had taken a solemn oath before God to serve their country, nonetheless demonstrated where their first loyalties seemed to lie.
Author: Thomas Bayer Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 08:10 pm
I am not familiar with the tradition of US-lodges. There are differences most probably due to different position within the legal framework (the British "Unlawful Societies legislation" in 17??). I'll see that I put up some stuff on a page in the web, but I need my library for that. As for the Anti-Masonic sites, mmh. I know them and yet I am always amazed. They're quite... fancy, aren't they? My favourite? Denver airport.
Author: Thomas Bayer Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 08:14 pm
Michael: That does ring a bell, somewhere in the backs of my mind... That was the reason for the different legislation. If you could provide a reference it could spare me some hours. Thanks (even if you can't) - Thomas
Author: Chris Hintzen Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 08:28 pm
Hiya Michael, Yes there were Masons that allowed fellow Masons to escape from their enemies during the Civil War. But also it is a fact that Family members were responsible for the escape of their fellow family members, even if they were fighting for two different sides. Also, there were Confederate Soldiers that helped Runaway slaves get to the Union. All of these are well documented facts. The Civil War was a VERY confusing time for the U.S. Many of the participants in the war were not sure which side to fight for. Because their loyalties pulled them one way or the other. Many didn't believe in either the Confederate or the Union cause. They just fought, unsure why they were fighting. So there is the possibilty that these 'Mason' soldiers didn't think it was treason to allow their fellow Mason's escape. At the time of the Civil War we're looking at a country in Flux. An Unaccomplished Revolution. After all, they were all friends and neighbors one moment, and the next asked to kill one another. Hi Thomas, Don't worry about those NASTY emails from supporters of Masonry. The Masons have been under fire for a LONG time now that it's caused a bit of paranoia to them. Ever since the formation of Masonry it has been under Religious Persecution.(Much like the Romans did to the Catholics all those millenia ago.) Now there are theories out their ranging from Masons causing the Great Stock Market Crash of the 20's, the assassination of JFK, to modern day AOL trying to control the internet market, as well as this Crazy ENRON debacle.(And all of this is just the theories about what they are up to in the states.) I myself am completely against Secret Societies. Not because I think they are out for World Domination, but because I don't believe that ANYTHING should be kept secret from our fellow man.(Ok, maybe what we're getting our significant other for Valentine's Day can be kept secret, but that's a trifle thing. Waits to be smacked by Caz or Rosey for saying Valentine's Day and Trifle in the same sentence. :-P) But if someone wish to join a Secret Society, then I say go ahead. Believe what you want to believe, I'm not gonna try and stop you. So don't worry about those messages Thomas. They are made by people who feel backed into a corner every five seconds by people attacking their beliefs for the only reason that they do not agree with them.(And No Thomas I don't believe you are attacking the Masons, I'm just stating how there are MANY people out there that do. Some of these attackers are just downright FANATICAL.) After all, if you came under fire every second of every day because of your belief's you just might be a little edgey yourself. Sincerely, Chris H.
Author: Michael Conlon Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 08:45 pm
Hi Thomas. I'll have to dig into my library to find authoritative references, as I first read about this many years ago. I did, however, just recently read a book entitled (I think) John Ransom's Diary, or something like that. It is a genuine diary kept by a Union officer interned in the notorious Andersonville prison, and contains his first hand accounts of Masons helping fellow Masons to escape and I believe he (or the editor) comment on the pervasiveness of this practice on both the Union and Confederate side. Sorry I can't be more help right now. Hi Chris, Yes, the Civil War was a wrenching and, for many, an ambiguous struggle of conflicting loyalties. NONETHELESS, it is (to me, anyway) most telling that individuals who had volitionally sworn solemn oaths of loyalty before God and country to faithfully serve their nation found a 'higher calling' when push came to shove. Best regards, Mike
Author: Thomas Bayer Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 09:10 pm
John Ransom's Andersonville Diary Life Inside the Civil War's Most Infamous Prison by Bruce Catton Yes, I remember it.
Author: Michael Conlon Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 09:14 pm
Hi Thomas, yes, that's the one that mentioned it and reminded me of having read about it in other books. best regards Mike
Author: Chris Hintzen Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 09:36 pm
Hiya Michael, Yeah but what about the Slave Owners who took the same vow of loyalty to the Confederacy helping their own, as well as their neighbor's, slaves to escape to the Union? After all the Confederacy said it was TREASONOUS, for one to allow another man's slaves escape to freedom. But that doesn't mean they didn't do it. And it was still their own 'Higher Calling' that made them do it, eventhough it wasn't Masonry in this instance. Adios, Chris H.
Author: Michael Conlon Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 10:36 pm
Hi Chris, I think we're mixing apples and oranges here. The original point was, I recall, that the Masonic oath did not involve the abrogation of other pre-eminent civil, legal, and social laws and imperatives, and that the Masons valued the gravity of an oath in general, and in particular, would acquiesce in favor of the legal, civil oath were there a conflict. My example seems to show that, in this particular context, neither is true. Best regards, Mike
Author: Chris Hintzen Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 07:30 am
Hi Mike, I get your point, however I don't think you are getting mine. I am not denying that the Masons were technically breaking an oath to their country by allowing prisoners to escape from Prisoner of War Camps. What I am saying is that to them they weren't breaking their oath. They were following their conscience in releasing their friends and neighbors. They were not turning their back on the country they swore their oath to. They just did not agree with what their governments were doing. The same Masons didn't turn around, shoot their Generals, and run to the other side. They just helped their friends escape from the horrors of prison life, because they didn't agree that their friends deserved to live that way for making a bad choice. Best Regards, Chris H.
Author: Monty Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 07:36 am
Thomas, Carrot Nibblers ?!?! Your point is ? Im just dealing with the facts of the case, not masonic law. And there is nothing to tie the 2 together apart from supposition and assumption. Monty I'm wabbit huntin'
Author: Thomas Bayer Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 10:41 am
Monty "Masonic Law"? Hey, it was just a quote by James Thurber. I aimed it at all the "well-known facts" in Ripper lore that always lead to a blank wall (pun intended). You cannot "tie two things" together if you are "not dealing with one of the two". It was also a general note on open-mindedness. Basically you are stating things. Not more. You even argue points no one made, as for example that I work on the assumption "every police officer was a Mason". I didn't claim that, and I won't. But only a steadfast and determined denial of reality will allow you to ignore facts, statistics, demographics and logic. Sincerely, very sincerely yours. Thomas
Author: Thomas Bayer Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 11:07 am
Monty Sorry that the previous post reads as unbecomingly rude as it does. This was not my intention at all. In fact, I'd be grateful if you could point me to a board in which I can learn more of your evaluation of the case. Thomas
Author: Michael Conlon Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 11:41 am
Hi Chris, And I think you are missing my point and the larger issue here. Thomas made the point that if Masons in high places during the Ripper case believed that a fellow Mason was somehow involved, they may have been predisposed and in a position to cover this up. A counter argument to this seems to have been, that this could not have happened insofar as the Masonic oath and membership does not take priority over legal and civil oaths and obligations. My example (and it may indeed be a limited or anomalous one) appears to be a de facto refutation of this. And please note, Chris, that the sole citeria compelling these soldiers to assist their fellow Masons in escaping was membership in a secret society. Confederates who helped slaves to escape to freedom did so out of a universal moral imperative grounded in our shared HUMANITY and not because of exclusive membership in a 'club'. The soldiers who were freed from the hell of Andersonville by these Masons were not chosen on the basis of how ill they were or because of the degree of their need, but rather because they were perceived as the privileged 'us' as opposed to all the rest of 'them'. Sorry, Chris, but to me it seems a case of "the Truth shall set thee free (provided thou knowest the secret handshake)". best regards, Mike
Author: Chris Hintzen Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 02:07 pm
Hi Mike, The argument I make isn't that the Masons won't do anything illegal. After all, we've all had our bouts with Legality, from buying alcohol underage, cheating on our taxes, to even shoplifting. Every one of us are guilty of breaking some law or the other. So saying that the Masons won't do ANYTHING illegal due to an oath is TOO unbelievable. However, as you've noticed that the examples I've given are what many would consider barely crimes. Yet, each of them are prosecutable. This is the idea I'm making about soldiers helping their enemies escape from Prison Camps. To the Masons these weren't awful crimes. They weren't Treasonous or Murderous actions. They were just acts of freeing fellow believers. The same could be said about the Catholics helping their fellow worshippers escape from the Roman Arenas. Not because they knew them, but because they believed in the same God. It wasn't treason in the Catholic's eyes, so why should it be treason to the Masons? Sincerely, Chris H.
Author: Monty Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 03:04 pm
Thomas, I never said that you assumed all policemen were masons, I merely asked the question is that what we are assuming? If you are going to quote me, do it correctly. I guess by your rudeness (believe me, thats not rude, you missed ED didnt you? Now thats rude) that I have either touch a nerve, or totally missed where you are coming from. If the latter then I apologise. I am a simple man as you can tell. Its just that what you stated about Warrens attempt at covering up the graffito, was an absolute failure. I have mentioned this before. Apart from the throat cutting there is no connection between the Juwes and the way that all the women where murdered. Although, reluctantly, I can seen the connection with Kelly. If you are telling me that the murderer was gambling on a masonic cover up then surely that would mean that he assumes all the Police officials to be a mason. That is the reason why I asked that question? If we are not saying that then the cover up fails. I do understand that we have to be opened minded but when we are reading assumed facts (like the murderer wrote the graffito, though there is no proof that he did) into the argument then we are about to ride upon the roundabout that plagues the diary. I am off to London tomorrow so unfortunately I will not be around for you to put me straight. Take care and have a great weekend. Kinky Monty PS We are all making statements one way or another aren't we? Im just being direct. PPS My evaluation has not been evaluated yet. When it is, I'll E-mail you.
Author: Michael Conlon Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 03:05 pm
hi Chris, A couple of things. Soldiers helping enemy prisoners to escape knew damn well that it WAS a treasonous act - men were regularly shot for lesser infractions. The Masons 'concern' for fellow prisoners (and I am forced to repeat myself here) was based solely on an illuminati elitism and not a general humanitarian concern for the suffering of fellow human beings. They did not attempt to help soldiers in the most dire need, but only those in their clique. your analogy of the early Christians (I don't know why you keep saying 'Catholic'), is , again, apples and oranges. Again, I repeat, the whole purpose of my example was to suggest empirical evidence for Thomas' claim that Mason's (at least in the example I cited) WILL violate legal, civil oaths and obligations in deference to a 'higher' Masonic loyalty. I will now state, like Thomas, that I myself do not believe there was any Masonic cover up in the Ripper case. As I previously stated, I know next to nothing about the Masons and interjected my comment as an historical addendum pertinent to the discussion. I have a natural distrust for Gnosticism in all its forms, but I, like you, tend to believe that many secret societies such as the Masons are more silly than sinister. For someone who claims not to be a Mason or to like secret societies, you do, however, seem to be quite their apologist. Chris, you honestly seem like a nice, intelligent guy, but this argument keeps going around in circles and I am getting vertigo, so I'll give you the last word. Peace, Mike
Author: graziano Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 03:33 pm
Chris H., you just answered the first of the three questions you asked me some posts ago. What could be the link between them ? Moral sentiment to act. Solidarity to keep the secret. Moral sentiment that allows them not to recognize as "devil" what the established order imposes as such only to conceal and preserve its very peculiar interests. I remember passing just in front of a house in Berner street one night of may 1888. There was inside a great noise and since I am very curious by nature I went up the stairs and I came into a large room. There was there a very tall, solid and quite long bearded man in his late forties who was standing and speaking before a large audience. I did not stay very long since I am quite delicate of the lungs and the smoke of the cigars a lot of these people were smoking (even some of the scarce -but some quite beatiful- women) was a little disturbing, but I remember clearly these sentences of the guy's very coloured speech: "The feeling of solidarity is the leading characteristics of all animals leaving in society. The eagle devours the sparrow, the wolf devours the marmot. But the eagles and the wolves respectively aid eachother in hunting, the sparrow and the marmot unite among themselves against the beasts and birds of prey so effectually that only the very clumsy are caught. In all animal societies solidarity is a natural law of far greater importance than the struggle for existence, the virtue of which is sung by the ruling classes in every strain that may best serve to stultify us. When we study the animal world and try to explain to ourselves that struggle for existence mantained by each living being against adverse circumstances and against its enemies, we realize that the more the principles of solidarity and equality are developed in an animal society and have become habitual to it, the more chance has it of surviving and coming triumphantly out of the struggle against hardships and foes." Then I am sorry but I began whispering something to a wonderful girl just at my right, she told me her name was Masha and she had come from Paris the year before, being born in Zhupran (somewhere between Belaruss and Lithuania) and having frequented the Real-Gymnasium at Biala-Tserkov, Kiev; for this fact I lost some sentences but then some clapping brought again my attention to this very strong builded guy who went on speaking at this stage very excited: "...Perhaps it may be said - it has been said sometimes - but if you think that you must always treat others as you would be treated yourself, what right have you to use force under any circumstances whatever ? What right have you to dispossess the exploiters ? What right have you to level a cannon at any barbarous or civilized invaders of your country ? What right to kill not only a tyrant but a mere viper ?" At this stage he stood up, took the chair where he was sitting and threw it against the wall. The audience was captivated. Anger but also joy were plainly visible on all these young people faces. Masha's eyes were wet. In a very sure and authoritarian tone, the speaker went on: "What right ? What do you mean by that singular word, borrowed from the law ? Do you wish to know if I shall feel conscious of having acted well in doing this ? If those I esteem will think I have done well ? Is this what you ask ? If so, the answer is simple." At that point he was really shouting and the atmosphere was becoming some kind of aggressive. No one was sitting anymore. one§syllab expressions of consent were launched in the air from every side of the room. But all that with a sense of great gratitude and respect towards this speaker who certainly was some kind of spiritual leader for all those present there. The guy at my left put his hand on my shoulder and launched me some kind of "Diese ist een echte Frächte". I smiled to him but I must say I began feeling a bit unconfortable. "Yes, certainly! Because we ourselves should ask to be killed like venomous beasts if we went to invade Burmese or Zulus who have done us no harm. We should say to our sons or our friends: Kill me, if I ever take part in the invasion! Yes, certainly! Because we ourselves should ask to be dispossessed, if giving the lie to our principles, we seized upon an inheritance, did it fall from on high, to use it for the exploitation of others. Yes, certainly! Because any man with a heart asks beforehand that he may be slain if ever he becomes venomous; that a dagger maybe plunged into his heart if ever he should take the place of a dethroned tyrant...." It was very warm, you know, and I was quite tired to stand there. So I took Masha by the hand and I went away not listening to him anymore. "...These men and women have conquered the right to kill...". If you are still there and not dozing allow me to salute you here and not explain how I spent the rest of that night. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 05:46 pm
A while ago, towards the end of the Thatcher era I think, there was talk of passing a law to order serving policemen to give up their masonic membership, and to prevent any others from joining. There were too many, and masonic rules could contradict the rules of the Police Force, and duty and service expected by the crown and country.
Author: TS Simmons Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 05:51 pm
Forget the Masons. They had nothing to do with this. Stephen Knight started all of this nonsense. The perpetrator was a LONE MALE, much like the serial murderers or "lust killers" of the 21st century.
Author: Stephen Hills Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 07:25 pm
TS Simmons Whether or not the murderer was a lone male is open to debate (though I believe that is the case). In trying to establish why the murders were committed and why they were carried out in the way that they were, we can perhaps start to narrow down the field of suspects. It seems to me that while you may take issue with Stephen Knight's theories (and I would also) it is not the case that you can necessarily discard all he has brought to the debate. I think that even though Mr Knight's theory does not accurately explain what happened, it might contain some truth. You do not need to invent a conspiracy or cover up to draw the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to support the possibility that the murderer was a mason. I believe that there is sufficient evidence that this is the case although it is of course not conclusive. Cromo
Author: Chris Hintzen Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 09:03 pm
Hi Mike, The idea of the Christians(Sorry I put Catholics, I was busy at work at the time I posted.) helping their fellow Christians escape the Roman Empire, is VERY similar to the Masons helping their fellow Masons escape the Prison Camps. I didn't say that the Masons, nor the Christian for that matter, didn't know there would be repercussions for their actions. Just as the Masons would be Shot, so would the Christians be crucified. Different types of deaths true, but deaths none the same. And also the crime they would be guilty of would be called 'Treason' by the courts. However, I'm simply stating that the Masons, as well as the Christians, did not see it this way. They were helping out their Fellow Believers. Yes we can all say what they did WAS Treasonous. Yet in their minds it wasn't. They were both part of a government that they didn't necessarily believe in the same ideals. It was a cost of living to follow under the goverment, or possibly end up attempting to live on the run, as well as subsequently die for their convictions. Many of them chose the former, cause it was much easier to do (if not somewhat more desirable) than the latter. So yes they worked under the government. Yes they swore allegiances with the government. But it doesn't mean that they agreed with what their government was doing.(After all, how many Americans out their agree with EVERYTHING our current President has stated or done? Yet in school, we stood up and pledged allegiance to the flag.) This is manifested in the way they set their 'fellow believers' free. It may have only been because they followed the same word, however men have done much more, for much less a reason. Just as George Washington broke his oath to King and Country, to take part in the American Revolution, thus did these Masons do with the Union and the Confederacy. However, neither thought it was treasonous, just that their ideals differed from the government currently in power. They both believed they were justified in their actions, even if the penalty for them was death. Now I'm not saying 'Jack the Ripper' himself wasn't possibly a Mason. In all prospects he could have been one, just as he could have not been one. And also I'm not saying that Jack probably thought what he was doing was justified in someway, that it wasn't murder, but something else. What I'm saying is that the whole MASSIVE amount of people it would take to do a THOROUGH cover-up would notice the difference. I know this won't settle this dispute between us. And I do agree I feel that we are running around in circles. So we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. Hi Stephen, I agree with you that Knight's research shouldn't be thrown out totally. At least his theories could lead someone to something else. Perhaps spark something in their mind that they didn't think about before. All research to me is vital in the respects that it points me into different areas that I never thought of before. I may not agree with it at all, but it does add a little spice to the mix. And sometimes you need a little spice to stir something up. Graziano, Hehe, VERY intriguing story. This wouldn't happen to be a tale about a Scientologist meeting would it? :-P LOL! Just Kidding. Hi to Everyone Else, I know I've been poking at others theories without giving any of you my own ideas yet. I have a few theories of my own(Don't we all) but they are still half-baked. I haven't had enough information in my spongelike grasp yet to do enough research into them. I'm still on the fence as to whether Jack could have been a Lone Killer or more than one stalker of the night.(Which is something that is IMPORTANT to any theory.) When I come close to finishing them, or if I just get stuck, I'll let you know all about them. Hehe, that way you can tear them to shreds. After all, as the saying goes, Payback's a B....! Adios, Chris H.
Author: Thomas Bayer Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 09:16 pm
The Masons on both sites of the fence in the Federal Concentration Camps were NOT there for being Masons, you know. The guards that broke their solemn oath had been sworn to their countries. And they didn't do it out of humanitarian motiviation but but for elitist reasoning and allegiance. THEY VIOLATED THEIR OBLIGATION! Early Christian were sort of outcasts with no obligation to the Roman Emperor. Nero (and others) used them as party lights mostly due their steadfast denial when it comes to take an oath and accept the Emperor as a Deity. They refused this. THEY HONOURED THEIR OBLIGATION! That is a difference, Chris, please see this. It is not splitting hair you do but air.
Author: David Radka Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 09:30 pm
The Freemason theory is entirely false. David
Author: Thomas Bayer Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 09:35 pm
What exactly is the "Freemason theory", David?
Author: david rhea Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 09:52 pm
What is an esoteric Mason?