There is a field of study among anthropologists called called geo-mythology. It concerns the study folklores and legends and how they relate to geologic events. There is one striking feature of this field of study. Any event or phenomena can spawn a much larger story. The murders were without doubt real, and the question very quickly becomes what surrounding the murders falls in the realm of human embellishment, misinterpretation, deceit, and misidentified patterns? I have no solid answers in this regard, but wanted to point out that we are dealing with a story that has been highly convoluted. Given the very poor understanding of the police of the time, even if an arrest, prosecution and punishment had been present, we could even still doubt the validity of the conclusion. Respectfully Dave
We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!
My first post on The Casebook. I like the OP; am a fan of the Royal Theory. Stephen Knights book was a cracking read and i would so love this to be the final proven theory, but alas i just cant ever see it being proven.
However all the clues pointing to this theory are hard to ignore, so i remain open minded about it. There are lots to discuss on this but I cant help wonder why Warren and other top Scotland Yard officers were called to Goulston Street in response to the "juwes" writing. Surely if it were merely an anti semetic comment the attending detectives could have sorted it, but i see the calling out of Warren as a response to the potential Masonic implications! After all he was a part of the Order as were many of the Top Brass at SY.
However all the clues pointing to this theory are hard to ignore, so i remain open minded about it.
Knight's book continues to fascinate people because, as nugnug mentioned, it makes a very good read and offers a solution to the case, as far-fetched as it may be. It should be noted however that quite a few of its claims have been proven wrong or corrected, including parts of the masonic connection (Dr Gull was not a mason for instance) and the fear of the Royals of a possible danger to the monarchy caused by the alleged marriage between Clarence and a Catholic girl (such a marriage would have been illegal back in the day and thus null and void in the first place), etc.
I also try to keep an open mind about it but as things stand, there is little substance left from Stephen Knight's theory. It's difficult for me to blend out its glaring holes, that's why I rate it as little more than well-written fiction centered around an old murder mystery. I don't doubt that Knight believed in what he wrote, he also was the first to unearth a few interesting tidbits about the case in the official documents he accessed. My personal doubts should not be seen as a personal attack against him, I just think he jumped to conclusions too quickly. That and the inclusion of quotes from the made-up and antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion nailed the coffin shut for me.
~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~