Jack the Ripper

[Liberator]

Nov 22, 2009 6:56:35 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Well FfF,
I'm relieved you didn't advance the "Jill the Ripper Theory", with Jill being some extremist feminist!

I have seen that a very long time ago in some long-ceased publication. Again, it is just about feasible. It runs that she was a nurse who contracted syphilis from her lover and killed the prostitutes she assumed he had caught it from in revenge. Being a nurse allowed her to go unnoticed by either police or victims. Though I'm not so sure about that - East End prostitutes probably had no illusions about women being the gentler sex any less dangerous than men.

There is still the inscription "The Juwes shall not be blamed in vain" or whatever. Then again, could that be a deliberate attempt to throw suspicion towards the Freemasons since the Police chief would have recognised the reference. Or is it coincidence because somebody could not spell Jews?

It could just be some religious nutter who believed he had a mission to remove prostitutes (like Sutcliffe). Mad Bishop anyone? Actually that's not necessarily as daft as it sounds because a clergyman would be somebody the police might try to protect and could have Masonic connections.

But there are things that have never been considered that would not have come to light at the time. There is a turf war possibility, that these prostitutes refused to let a pimp handle them or were victims of a war between pimps - pour encourager les autres. Maybe there was some anti-prostitute vigilantism.

Could the murders have stopped suddenly either because somebody got Jack and he ended up in the Thames or because he was well-known and somebody had a word in his ear to get on a boat?

[gabriel]

Well, I'll tell you what I think about the Jill theory. The victims were prostitutes. They were after money and a roof over their heads. They got their money from men. Not women. From all we know about them that's the case. They took johns up dark alleys, wherever, for paid sex. Not women. Nothing I've ever read about this case has ever suggested that the victims went with women.

Jill the ripper is an ingenious solution but that's all it is. An ingenious solution.

You've got lots of good ideas in your post, FF. I'll have to come back later to discuss them.

[♫anna♫]

Nov 22, 2009 21:14:01 GMT gabriel said:

There are a few stories that were doing the rounds right from the time of the murders themselves. Jack was a doctor, a policeman, a Jewish butcher. If you'd asked any ordinary person in 1905 who Jack was, they'd probably be your top 3 answers.

There was a small group of people who remained seriously interested in Jack, including a young bloke called John Gordon Whitby, an amateur Jack hunter, who took a remarkable series of photos in Sept '61 of where Jack's victims were killed. He also photographed other related murder spots and successfully located exactly where Frances Coles' body was found. These are contained in a fascinating book called The London of Jack the Ripper Then and Now by Robert Clack and Philip Hutchinson.

It really wasn't until Stephen knight and his PAV, Dr Gull and the Freemasons theory came roaring onto the scene in the mid 70's did Jack suddenly begin his journey to becoming this huge industry now built on the deaths of 5 prostitutes.

And I still like to discuss suspects and motives because I really want to know who Jack was.

The entertainment industry of course has it's own version to present.
I watched the film "Murder by Decree" last night with Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson pursuing the Ripper. Of course all this Juwes freemason stuff is played up. I wonder if the films presentation of the following legend has any foundation in reality!

www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/fiction/murder_by_decree/handshake.html QUOTE:
Holmes: "Well, when they were brought before Solomon, they confessed to their guilt and Jubala said, 'Oh that my throut be cut across,' and Jubalo said 'Oh that my left breast be torn open, my heart and vitals taken and thrown over my left shoulder,' and Jubalem said, 'My body severed in the midst.'"
Watson: "My God, that poor women’s body was mutilated in just that savage way. Now assuming, as you say, that there is some connection between those ghastly murders and the masonic ritual, in what way were these wretched women involved?"

[gabriel]

OK I can reply to both of you. Masonic conspiracies involving the government and royalty? Not until Stephen Knight and it's not long after his book comes the very enjoyable Murder By Decree. Watched it any times. Enjoy it immensely. Load of hokum but such good actors.

The Juwes reference in Goulston St. None of the ordinary coppers who saw it thought anything other than it was poor spelling. I've read nothing by any of the senior officers that ever indicated they knew anything differently. But I'm not an expert and I'm guessing that if they were Freemasons they would have kept really silent.

But I really, really doubt it. Yes, many of them, like Anderson, had their own agendas but they would not have included colluding in the deaths of 5 women. I'm certain of that.

And here's a thought and as far as I know no-one has ever followed this. How far did all of these people involved in the Masonic plot ever rise? Gull died shortly afterwards, Nettley as well. So did PAV.

Got any more facts to bear this idea out?

[♫anna♫]

Nov 23, 2009 10:49:00 GMT gabriel said:

OK I can reply to both of you. Masonic conspiracies involving the government and royalty? Not until Stephen Knight and it's not long after his book comes the very enjoyable Murder By Decree. Watched it any times. Enjoy it immensely. Load of hokum but such good actors.

The Juwes reference in Goulston St. None of the ordinary coppers who saw it thought anything other than it was poor spelling. I've read nothing by any of the senior officers that ever indicated they knew anything differently. But I'm not an expert and I'm guessing that if they were Freemasons they would have kept really silent.

But I really, really doubt it. Yes, many of them, like Anderson, had their own agendas but they would not have included colluding in the deaths of 5 women. I'm certain of that.

And here's a thought and as far as I know no-one has ever followed this. How far did all of these people involved in the Masonic plot ever rise? Gull died shortly afterwards, Nettley as well. So did PAV.

Got any more facts to bear this idea out?

This freemason stuff seems to be just entertainment. I know that the condemned "Juwes" Jubala, Jubalo and Jubalem aren't mentioned in the Bible. If they are mentioned in the Talmud or masonic writings it would be entertaining to take a look. I imagine the part where these 3 describe how they should be "ripped up" was an invention for the film"Murder by Decree".

[gabriel]

I think you're right.

[♫anna♫]

Chapman/Klosowski has to stay on the suspect list though. This podcast from the Casebook site confirms that Chapman tried unsuccessfully in 1888 to obtain poison. If Chapman was jtr maybe poisoning was the preferred killing method and the messy mutilations a 2nd choice?
www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=88

[gabriel]

I'll go back to my and many others' objections to Chapman. Because he poisoned. Poisoning is such a domestic, intimate crime. You know who you're aiming to kill. You give it out, a bit at a time, then wait for your victim to die. You watch them getting sicker, day by day.

Jack went throttle, slash, rip.

[♫anna♫]

Nov 24, 2009 10:55:24 GMT gabriel said:

I'll go back to my and many others' objections to Chapman. Because he poisoned. Poisoning is such a domestic, intimate crime. You know who you're aiming to kill. You give it out, a bit at a time, then wait for your victim to die. You watch them getting sicker, day by day.

Jack went throttle, slash, rip.

Dearest Gabriel!
The US serial killer edmund kemper murdered female hitchhickers and switched his MO to murder his own mother. The Wardlaw sisters burned a man to death and later switched to poison.

True most serial killers are essentially "copy killers", who got their murderous idea from another serial killer. Such killers are rather stereotypical! It's unlikely that jtr was a "copy killer" or where do you think he got this murderous idea.

[gabriel]

Nov 24, 2009 11:35:43 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Nov 24, 2009 10:55:24 GMT gabriel said:

I'll go back to my and many others' objections to Chapman. Because he poisoned. Poisoning is such a domestic, intimate crime. You know who you're aiming to kill. You give it out, a bit at a time, then wait for your victim to die. You watch them getting sicker, day by day.

Jack went throttle, slash, rip.

Dearest Gabriel!
The US serial killer edmund kemper murdered female hitchhickers and switched his MO to murder his own mother. The Wardlaw sisters burned a man to death and later switched to poison.

True most serial killers are essentially "copy killers", who got their murderous idea from another serial killer. Such killers are rather stereotypical! It's unlikely that jtr was a "copy killer" or where do you think he got this murderous idea.

anna, Jack wasn't a copycat. Who could he copy? I know about Kemper (what a creep) and the Wardlaw sisters(major weirdos).

But Jack was unique. Which is why I find him so fascinating. Such a small killing field. Same victim type. Even when they knew who he was hunting the victims went out again.

[♫anna♫]

Nov 24, 2009 12:14:26 GMT gabriel said:

Nov 24, 2009 11:35:43 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Dearest Gabriel!
The US serial killer edmund kemper murdered female hitchhickers and switched his MO to murder his own mother. The Wardlaw sisters burned a man to death and later switched to poison.

True most serial killers are essentially "copy killers", who got their murderous idea from another serial killer. Such killers are rather stereotypical! It's unlikely that jtr was a "copy killer" or where do you think he got this murderous idea.

anna, Jack wasn't a copycat. Who could he copy? I know about Kemper (what a creep) and the Wardlaw sisters(major weirdos).

But Jack was unique. Which is why I find him so fascinating. Such a small killing field. Same victim type. Even when they knew who he was hunting the victims went out again.

The fact that jtr wasn't a copy killer indicates possibly an "evil creativity", which would make an MO switch easy.

[gabriel]

Nov 24, 2009 12:14:26 GMT gabriel said:

Nov 24, 2009 11:35:43 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Dearest Gabriel!
The US serial killer edmund kemper murdered female hitchhickers and switched his MO to murder his own mother. The Wardlaw sisters burned a man to death and later switched to poison.

True most serial killers are essentially "copy killers", who got their murderous idea from another serial killer. Such killers are rather stereotypical! It's unlikely that jtr was a "copy killer" or where do you think he got this murderous idea.

anna, Jack wasn't a copycat. Who could he copy? I know about Kemper (what a creep) and the Wardlaw sisters(major weirdos).

But Jack was unique. Which is why I find him so fascinating. Such a small killing field. Same victim type. Even when they knew who he was hunting the victims went out again.

They knew the risk they were taking but they went out again. And again.
This guy was a serial murderer and had an identifiable pattern. Thurs through Sun from midnight on. He stalked prostitutes in Whitechapel.

[Liberator]

They probably had no choice! In any case there were not many victims and there were probably far more disappearances, whether murders or abductions at and before the time than have ever come to light. The police were not much more yet than thief-takers and riot-quellers and unpopular with upper and lower classes alike. It's quite possible that Jack ended up in the Thames with his own throat slit.

[gabriel]

Nov 25, 2009 12:19:06 GMT Liberator said:

They probably had no choice! In any case there were not many victims and there were probably far more disappearances, whether murders or abductions at and before the time than have ever come to light. The police were not much more yet than thief-takers and riot-quellers and unpopular with upper and lower classes alike. It's quite possible that Jack ended up in the Thames with his own throat slit.

I agree with a lot of what you say. About the cops, yeah, I'd say you're right. About Ripper victims, well, state a number. I stick with the canonical 5 and I will be sticking with that.

Druitt? Go back over my replies and you'll read what I think.

[gabriel]

Anyway. Back to Jack. And no, I don't expect any replies. I'm happy posting to myself.

Stephen Knight's book was published in '75 if I remember correctly. I read it serialised in a newspaper and that started me on my interest in Jack.
How could he kill like that, in the open, and not be discovered?

Knight's conspiracy theories made a lot of sense to me then. Now they've been discredited but that's what all the movies are based on.

But I'm ready to discuss suspects if anyone's interested.

[Big Lin]

I've read Knight's book and I didn't find it all that believable.

Of course, people go on and quote it as if it was fact - but then far too many people don't seem to be able to tell the difference between speculation and fact.

I'll try and respond on Jack when I've got a bit less to worry about on the home front, Gabriel.

[gabriel]

You've got other things on your mind. Don't worry about it.

For anyone who's interested and hasn't read Stephen Knight's The Final Solution, he's the one who started the Masonic conspiracy angle. The Duke of Clarence and Avondale, eldest son of the Prince of Wales (so he was heir presumptive) married a poor Catholic girl in Whitechapel. They had a daughter. This was illegal because any member of the Royal family under the age of 25 can't marry without the sovereign's consent and they can't marry Catholics(certainly not back then).

So to wipe out this 'threat' to the monarchy, a group of high ranking Masons turned to one of their own, the Queen's physician ordinary, Sir William Gull. The Catholic girl was lobotimized or something similar and sent to an an asylum. The child was adopted out. And the 5 prostitutes who knew about the story were killed in Masonic ritual by Sir William, who was driven around in a coach by John Nettley.

Great story. Just no real, solid, can stand up to any investigation facts to back it up.

[Liberator]

It's the Masonic link that always revives interest in Jack and the tendency to revive his name when other serial killers come on the scence. Maybe if there'd been never been a Jack they'd be called Mac after Mack the Knife. But the Masonic link is as tenuous as the Illuminati owls concealed in full view in architecture. It's the sort of lurid conspiracy theory that sells copy and is never going to be challenged. It fits nicely with the idea that senior police were Masons themselves so covered up for him but idea is all it is, the sort of thing the dear old Weekly World News used to publish and before it British magazines like Titbits.

My guess is that it's time and place. Jack is just the first to come to public attention. The police were just getting organised, still highly unpopular and the East End was 'a law unto itself' very dangerous for anybody without the connections to ensure that if anything happened to them there would be repercussions. It remained so well into modern times and perhaps still does. It's likely enough that there was nothing so unusual about people going missing in any big city, especially prostitutes, until Jack. this is when the police have enough strength and interest to poke their collective nose into former no-go areas. It hits all the right prurient buttons for the time.

It's worth remembering that PM William Gladstone was strongly linked with prostitutes so it was in the public mind , like paederasty today. I think it was something that the media could get stuck into and thereafter made a sort of reference point the way Hitler does for oppressive regimes.

Hoo-ey - maybe Gladstone was Jerk the Dipper!

[gabriel]

So, you have Stephen Knight with his conspiracy theories in the mid 70's. This was the start of the Jack phenomenon. Jack was pretty much forgotten by then. Knight then went on to write another book attacking the Free Masons but unfortunately he died shortly after from a tumour in his brain.

The 'Jack' industry that exists today wouldn't have existed if it weren't for Knight. I wouldn't be as interested in Jack, as I am, if it weren't for Knight.
He fired up a lot of people's fascination in the subject and for many, like me, it hasn't lessened. I want to know who Jack really was. Just to put a name and a face to the tag.

[gabriel]

And I was in my local library today and there was a very old copy of Knight's book. His wild stories really began what drives the interest in Jack today. I might start to look at Jack as a social phomenon. Not just as a serial killer.

My flashback, at the moment. Having lunch as the East India Docklands. Having visited the JTR exhibit. And I went back again a few weeks later.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Maybe I shouldn't be looking at Jack at the moment but the area and the social environment.

[mouse]

So to wipe out this 'threat' to the monarchy,

but not a great threat..as these types of marriage had happened before and by victorias uncles.......it would have been uncomforable for the monarchy...but nothing which couldnt have been fixed and wouldnt have brought the monarchy down at that period in time

[gabriel]

Jan 23, 2010 14:07:40 GMT mouse said:

So to wipe out this 'threat' to the monarchy,

but not a great threat..as these types of marriage had happened before and by victorias uncles.......it would have been uncomforable for the monarchy...but nothing which couldnt have been fixed and wouldnt have brought the monarchy down at that period in time

You're absolutely correct. The Prince Regent married Mrs Fitzherbert and she was Catholic. Bye-bye Mrs Fitz. Their marriage was just swept away because he was under 25 and she was Catholic so, according to the Royal Marriages Act, it never happened.

If Prince Albert Victor had tomcatted his way through a quarter of the Catholic prostitutes in London and they'd all had kids to him, it would have been embarrassing but not a cause for murder. Or a series of murders.

Dorset St wasn't wide enough for a carriage to enter it. Does anyone seriously think that a carriage with the Royal Coat of Arms on it, would have waited for hours on Commercial St, in the rain, and no-one to have noticed it? That's what royal conspiracy backers would have you believe.

Meanwhile, this insignificant guy that no-one looks at twice, dressed in dark clothes, moves off quietly into the morning.

[gabriel]

As a social phenomenon, Jack is just as compelling as he was a serial killer. Jack IMO wouldn't have existed 50 years earlier. He just had to get all those bits of timing right. The Industrial Rev and the movement to the cities; the resulting over-population in London; the hide-bound govt who weren't going to help the poor and the desperately poor come whatever. The rise of literacy among the lower classes - whoever told them they could read and then taught them!

The rise of Marxism in Europe and the dangerous idea that people should be able to think for themselves instead of always obeying their 'betters'. The pogroms that drove the Jews out of Russia, Poland, Europe towards London and the intense dislike the people already entrenched in London felt towards these newcomers.

Easy scapegoats who could be blamed for many things, including Jack's murders.

And Jack is dressed in his dark clothes that hide the bloodstains, as he slips quietly away to blend into Whitechapel.

[mouse]

You're absolutely correct. The Prince Regent married Mrs Fitzherbert and she was Catholic. Bye-bye Mrs Fitz. Their marriage was just swept away because he was under 25 and she was Catholic so, according to the Royal Marriages Act, it never happened.

prinny wasnt the only one to contract morganic marriage at least one of his brothers did the same

[gabriel]

Jan 25, 2010 19:58:21 GMT mouse said:

You're absolutely correct. The Prince Regent married Mrs Fitzherbert and she was Catholic. Bye-bye Mrs Fitz. Their marriage was just swept away because he was under 25 and she was Catholic so, according to the Royal Marriages Act, it never happened.

prinny wasnt the only one to contract morganic marriage at least one of his brothers did the same

Surely. But he was the only one that mattered at the time. You're thinkg of the Duke of Clarence and Mrs Jordan?