New Ripper angle

[moonbegger]

Hello all ,

I have a quite bizarre theory that's been bouncing around my head for the past few days now , and in the words of a much greater authority than my self , i wouldn't mind " running it up the flag pole " it's nothing new in regards to a suspect but a combination of a well known suspect, a well known theory and a completely new perspective that could link them both together .. I'm sure there are quite a few wrinkles in it , and to be honest , that's why i am posting it , to see if we cant iron out a few of them out ! either that or toss back into the bin.

There has been much written about the Royal Conspiracy and the Freemasons . Books , Films and documentaries have all played their part in persuading a large number of people worldwide that it really is the only Solution ! Did Joseph Sickert make the whole thing up ? I think he was told a story and he believed it . True or not , i think the origin of the story is equally , if not , more important than the story its self . Where would Walter Sickert hear such a story , and who would he be rubbing shoulders with that may have passed it on to him , and why would someone start such a vicious rumour in the first place ?

Who would want to bring the Royal family to their knee's, along with the Freemasons , and who also had a violent hatred of prostitutes ? This got me thinking of a Suspect that could tie it all together. A major suspect that had both the financial clout , along with links to the East End and the West End .. Someone who could have well been the original source of Walter Sickerts Royal conspiracy Slander (which was no doubt embellished and handed down to his son Joseph). The story may well of had had its origins in the Bohemian cafe and bars of Cleveland street , even its gay brothels ! who , and why , would someone start such a rumour involving the Freemasons and the Royal Family ? Maybe someone with not the best of intentions regarding the British Empire .. someone who may well have been disgruntled even furious at being "Black Balled" by the Freemasons ? This would be a clear opportunity to take out two birds with one stone ! Put the monarchy on shaky ground as well as undermine the Freemasons , the pillars of power that be ! As well as picking up a few uterus's for his collection !

Could all this be the work of Irish-American Fenian Francis Tumblety ?

Was these murders committed on the lowest of the low in Whitechapel , some kind of political statement aimed at the highest of the high , were the victims of Jack the Ripper simply accessible and expendable pawns in someones game ? Further more is it also then plausible that such a disgruntled individual or group of individuals would want to point an accusatory finger at the very people they feel are above and beyond repercussion. What if certain false Clues were deliberately left laying about by Tumblety pertaining to the Freemasons , along with the story that had already been spun , implicating Sir William Gull , Warren , Anderson , and Eddy the future King of England !

Baring in mind that the British museum ( where an American doctor was looking to purchase uterus's just before the murders) is literally a stones throw from Cleveland street , home of sickert and the gay brothels that were later to become part of another major investigation.

So is it possible that Tumblety may have had enough knowledge of the brotherhood to make it look like the Freemasons were involved ?

If we look at Martha Tabram Stabbed 39 times ( a hugely significant number in Freemasonry ) then each Murder gradually getting worse and getting closer and closer to resemble the ( four stages of cruelty paintings, by William Hogarth , which depict a Masonic Ritual killing ) until finally we have Mary Kelly in Millers court laying on a bed , which bares a striking resemblance to the fourth painting in the series ( William Hogarth the reward of cruelty ) .. Mary Kelly may well have also been the fourth in a series ! ( i am going on the assumption that Tabram was a warm up and Stride was killed by someone else )

Could this have been the whole point of the murders .. to undermine the powers that be ?

1) Make the killings resemble a Masonic Ritual killing , ( But not quite having enough knowledge in regards to which shoulder to place the intestines on )

2) The Goulston street Graffiti . Was this the main reason Warren may have felt a little uneasy and scrubbed the wall ? Baring in mind i'm talking about HIS perception .. about his own personal deduction of what may be going on around him .
a) The word Juwes . b) The letters J.M.B all lined up . c) written on the inside of the Arch [Warrens own words] d) the associated and bloodied Apron . e) Catherine Eddows being torn apart in MITRE SQUARE ..

But how would Sickert have been aware of the whole story if Tumblety did a bunk ( absconded ) straight after Kelly's murder ? Could Tumblety have already marked out Kelly as his (fourth in the series) before hand ? The story may well of have been all packed up and ready to go long before the Murder of Mary kelly ! It all points towards Sickert hearing a story (first or second hand) then adding a few embellishments and running with it years later .. There may well even be a few semi truths hidden between the lines . how did Sickert know of a John Netly, and what was his connection ? Also the alleged ( scapegoat ) Druitt's suicide ?

I know this is all far fetched and mostly conjecture , but i did think it interesting and worthy of a mention .

[lynn cates]

counting

Hello MB. Thanks for posting this. There is a good bit here, and it is difficult to address every point.

But I would like to remark upon one thing, and that is the symbolism of the Tabram killing.

Here is a real experiment you may perform. Take a pillow and pretend that it is Martha. Let's say you are ready to kill. Now, use a common ball point pen (a Bic will do) as a knife. (Be sure to leave the cap on and don't get TOO zealous!)

Begin stabbing and keep count--from 1-39. Be sure to let your gaze wander about somewhat, recalling you are in a semi-public place and someone could appear at any moment.

A question.

Were you able to keep count?

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

Hello MB. Thanks for posting this. There is a good bit here, and it is difficult to address every point.

But I would like to remark upon one thing, and that is the symbolism of the Tabram killing.

Here is a real experiment you may perform. Take a pillow and pretend that it is Martha. Let's say you are ready to kill. Now, use a common ball point pen (a Bic will do) as a knife. (Be sure to leave the cap on and don't get TOO zealous!)

Begin stabbing and keep count--from 1-39. Be sure to let your gaze wander about somewhat, recalling you are in a semi-public place and someone could appear at any moment.

A question.

Were you able to keep count?

Cheers.
LC

Yes , i do that all the time Lynn just for jolly ( Not really )

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Moon,

My college history teacher said 'all events in history are the result of previous events and circumstances.' Things don't just happen.

As an American who became interested in the Ripper case, I have also been reading more history of Britain. I think the Royal theory, centered on Prince Eddy has its genesis in the unfortnuate situation of his father Albert, Prince of Wales, 'Bertie' who became King Edward VII. In his long wait as a royal prince he created a less than ideal image which was later projected onto his son by some rather unscrupulous people who really had no business doing that. The Freemason bit came in because in the 1970's there was a great anti-establishment wave. Questioning everything and painting much of it with a broad conspiratorial brush. Think Bermuda Triangle. It doesn't really matter to me if Gorman made it up, heard it from his dad, or even if Walter Sickert was his dad I am satisfied the expert demolishers, indeed atomizers long ago debunked it. It might have been exciting at the time.

Tumblety entered the picture when Stewart Evans came across the Littlechild letter and proceeded to write a book. People don't thank Stewart enough for that because Fancis Tumblety, no matter what you think or what role you cast him in, provides a source of endless fascination.

Roy

[Phil H]

I think things do sometimes happen in history. Harold Macmillan's famous quote "Events dear boy!" just about sums it up.

As far as Tumblety had a plan is concerned - it doesn't work for me, I'm afraid.

First, I'm not sure it reflects a C19th way of thinking - much more C20th post -Watergate (exactly when Stephen Knight's book was written and published).

Second, I doubt one man could even think of trying to control such a grandiose plot, and as we know from the ACTUAL events of 1888, things can run off in their own courses.

Third, I don't think that outside a few minds there would be much link between the monarchy and freemasonry - oh, there were always royal freemasons, I think Edward VII was an initiate (though I don't know how active he was); his brother the Duke of Connaught was very much a leading mason... but would an American have known that?

Third - was there more than a single male "brothel" in Cleveland Street?

Fourth - if someone did leave masonic "clues" they weren't very clever. I don't seem to see us all picking these up with abandon and saying "Hey it MUST be masonic!!" Until Knight's book, I don't think anyone had linked the Hogarth illustration to the case.

Knight himself certainly did have a huge hatred of freemasonry and wrote a further book - The Brotherhood" - about police involvement with freemasonry. I think the whole thing started with him.

So sorry, I don't buy it.

Phil H

[kensei]

Didn't Joseph Gorman (who I don't believe was Sickert's son- and it never was proven was it?) admit at some point that the entire royal conspiracy theory was, in his words, "a whopping fib"? I would think that settles it.

[Phil H]

Except kensei that he came back to it with Melvyn Faiclough and the "Abberline diaries"!

The retraction was in connection with the Knight book.

On his parentage - I agree, I don't think anything definitive was ever proved. Though it is possible that his mother "knew" (in all meanings of that word) Walter Sickert. There was also, I detect, a slight facial resemblance to the painter - but that is subjective.

Certainly Gorman got his information (for instance about the coachman/driver Netley) from somewhere.

Phil H

[Lechmere]

It was a fiendish plot that involve diabolical murders, Feinians, homosexuality, Freemansonry, and the Royal Family – cunningly and expertly executed – except in one or two small matters.
It totally failed to destroy or undermine Freemasonry or the Royal Family. Nor did it shake the establishment or help to promote Irish Republicanism.
But apart from that Moonbegger well done for an excellent theory.

[mklhawley]

Hi Moonbegger,

I applaud your ideas and having the courage to allow others to critique. With respect to Tumblety…

In view of the fact that Sir Robert Anderson personally solicited information on Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety from Chiefs of Police from US cities at the peak of the murder investigation and that Chief Inspector Littlechild considered him ‘a likely’ suspect, it is certainly a logical assumption Tumblety might have been involved. Let me add a few points about him that may support or alter some of your ideas.

There were fifteen recently discovered personal letters written by Francis Tumblety to his 1870’s boyfriend, Thomas Henry Hall Caine. The contents of these letters, plus the thoroughly documented history of Tumblety being a loner, shows that whenever he had any kind of relationship with other human beings, he needed to dominate and have the relationship Tumblety-centric. For Tumblety, it was all about Tumblety. He was a narcissist.

It is true that Tumblety was an Irish Nationalist sympathizer, but to call him an outright Fenian seems to conflict with Tumblety’s personality and lifelong self-centered agendas. Being a Fenian connotates that you are part of a group fighting a cause that you believe is greater than yourself, and that was not Tumblety. It is also true that Tumblety was vindictive, but only when a wrong (in his mind) was done to his person.

Would the Fenians have attempted to woo him? Absolutely, since he had money and was an Irish-American. Irish nationalists also lived amazingly close to him in New York City. Littlechild and Special Branch certainly would have been interested in Tumblety for these reasons, and would have definitely had a file on him, but it seems he was never directly involved or we would have had record somewhere of this.

Tumblety also made many visits to England and he seemed to enjoy the West End nightlife, especially the homosexual subculture so prevalent in London. I’m not so sure he had a hatred for the monarchy. He seemed to enjoy socializing with them, and in his interview, his anger was expressed only towards ‘English detectives’. It certainly is quite coincidental that the big Cleveland Street scandal was in 1889 and was headed by Inspector Abberline. Since the Cleveland Street brothel was for the wealthy homosexual subculture, I’m sure Tumblety knew all about it.

One point about Freemasonry in the late nineteenth century in England is not that it was a secret organization with equally secret motives for only a selected few, but it was the construct for a new middle class and upper middle class to socialize and rub elbows. It was the thing to do, and Tumblety certainly would have pushed his way into this…but only for selfish reasons, such as creating his ‘nobility’ persona. He even commented about socializing at the West End Carlton Club and Beefsteak Club in the paper, but he actually socializing at these clubs is another issue. Would he have been upset that he, the Catholic Tumblety, was never allowed to be a member? With the anti-Catholic element imbedded within Freemasonry, I’m not so sure he would have wanted to be a member. It certainly was important for him to have his public persona as an accepted ‘upper crust’ gentleman, but his only passions were to make money (in his younger days), to travel, and to participate in his clandestine homosexual activities with young men.

Just my thoughts.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Hello all ,

I have a quite bizarre theory that's been bouncing around my head for the past few days now , and in the words of a much greater authority than my self , i wouldn't mind " running it up the flag pole " it's nothing new in regards to a suspect but a combination of a well known suspect, a well known theory and a completely new perspective that could link them both together .. I'm sure there are quite a few wrinkles in it , and to be honest , that's why i am posting it , to see if we cant iron out a few of them out ! either that or toss back into the bin.

There has been much written about the Royal Conspiracy and the Freemasons . Books , Films and documentaries have all played their part in persuading a large number of people worldwide that it really is the only Solution ! Did Joseph Sickert make the whole thing up ? I think he was told a story and he believed it . True or not , i think the origin of the story is equally , if not , more important than the story its self . Where would Walter Sickert hear such a story , and who would he be rubbing shoulders with that may have passed it on to him , and why would someone start such a vicious rumour in the first place ?

Who would want to bring the Royal family to their knee's, along with the Freemasons , and who also had a violent hatred of prostitutes ? This got me thinking of a Suspect that could tie it all together. A major suspect that had both the financial clout , along with links to the East End and the West End .. Someone who could have well been the original source of Walter Sickerts Royal conspiracy Slander (which was no doubt embellished and handed down to his son Joseph). The story may well of had had its origins in the Bohemian cafe and bars of Cleveland street , even its gay brothels ! who , and why , would someone start such a rumour involving the Freemasons and the Royal Family ? Maybe someone with not the best of intentions regarding the British Empire .. someone who may well have been disgruntled even furious at being "Black Balled" by the Freemasons ? This would be a clear opportunity to take out two birds with one stone ! Put the monarchy on shaky ground as well as undermine the Freemasons , the pillars of power that be ! As well as picking up a few uterus's for his collection !

Could all this be the work of Irish-American Fenian Francis Tumblety ?

Actually quite a number of years ago Stan Russo was thinking along similar lines, except if I recall correctly Tumblety was the fall guy as opposed to the Ripper.

[moonbegger]

Hello Phil ,

Certainly Gorman got his information (for instance about the coachman/driver Netley) from somewhere.

Yes , so where did that information come from ? According to Stephen Knight the whole story had it's latter day roots in Scotland Yard ( a senior yard man ). The whole , Gorman being related to Sickert malarkey started with Scotland yard.

I think Gorman Distanced himself from the book as soon as knight turned the tables on him and accused Sickert of being part of the murder trio !
But i do think a man that Gorman believed to be the artist Walter Sickert ( whatever the relationship) had told him a story , which brings me back to my original questions . Where would sickert hear such a tale ? Why would he be told it ? and from whom , would have he have heard it ?

was there more than a single male "brothel" in Cleveland Street?

Not sure Phil , but even working on the premise that there was just the one , acquainting well to do men of a certain persuasion with a source of entertainment, would be like a moth to a flame as far as Tumblety's concerned ! Also a stones throw from the British Museum .

if someone did leave masonic "clues" they weren't very clever. I don't seem to see us all picking these up with abandon and saying "Hey it MUST be masonic!!" Until Knight's book, I don't think anyone had linked the Hogarth illustration to the case.

Yes , and how much could have that been down to information or evidence being suppressed ? We all know about the GSG because a lot of people were made aware of it at the time . Our chance to Analise it's it's full potential was lost forever as soon as Warren scrubbed it out .. but it's Warrens own words that raise the alarm for me as to what was really going on in his head . At no time could you describe the Entrance to Wentworth Dwellings as an Archway ! A doorway or an Entrance , but certainly not an Archway . But Warren when describing where the message was placed certainly did ..

The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.

This tells me Warren was thinking along Freemason lines , He is a leading Freemason ! There is no good argument that could excuse his Ignorance in such matters .. He would have looked at the immediate evidence that surrounded him and taken it all on board ( how could he not ? )

But did he make mention at any time that there were certain things that MAY of had some reference in Freemasonry ? The word Juwes . The letters J.M.B all lined up . written on the inside of the Arch [Warrens own words] the associated and bloodied Apron . e) Catherine Eddows being torn apart in MITRE SQUARE .. The Way each Victim resembled the ( four stages of cruelty paintings by Hogarth )

There is no doubt in my mind that he would have had some kind of idea , even the slightest inclination , that someone was poking a finger at him and his Brotherhood .. But he said nothing . Could he and Brothers on the front line have been possibly aware of the fact that a certain group or individual was trying to make it look like some kind of ritualistic Freemason killing spree ? Maybe there were some rings and coins left at Annie Chapmans feet after all ?

Roy ,

It doesn't really matter to me if Gorman made it up, heard it from his dad, or even if Walter Sickert was his dad I am satisfied the expert demolishers, indeed atomizers long ago debunked it. It might have been exciting at the time.

I think if you read my post Roy , you will find that i make no claim that the story handed down by Sickert was true ! But the folks in it certainly did exist.

My college history teacher said 'all events in history are the result of previous events and circumstances.' Things don't just happen.

I couldn't agree with him more Roy !

cheers

moonbegger

[Phil H]

I'm not sure that I'd describe Cleveland street and the BM as "within a stone's throw" of each other - but i suppose it depends on how far one can throw a stone!!

I believe I once saw it suggested that Netley himself might have been "Hobo" Gorman's dad (!!) hence the knowledge about him. There is no necessary connection of Netley to the Ripper murders, of course.

I think Gorman Distanced himself from the book as soon as knight turned the tables on him and accused Sickert of being part of the murder trio !

I'm certain that is right or was what was stated at the time. But, I think a truer psychological reason might have been that with so much publicity, Goman could see his tale unravelling, Knight had so embroidered it. And the "tale" was no longer "his".

But i do think a man that Gorman believed to be the artist Walter Sickert ( whatever the relationship) had told him a story

I have little doubt that Goman knew Sickert personally and that WS was a friend of the family. For that matter, Gorman might be right in believing that WS was his father - but there is no proof of that.

, which brings me back to my original questions . Where would sickert hear such a tale ? Why would he be told it ? and from whom , would have he have heard it ?

Sickert moved in bomemian circles, murder and particularly the "Ripper" case fascinated him. Is there not a account that says that Sickert knew "The Lodger" theory and made notes in a lost book (mentally, I associate that anecdote with Osbert Sitwell, but I may be wrong).

We all know about the GSG because a lot of people were made aware of it at the time . Our chance to Analise it's it's full potential was lost forever as soon as Warren scrubbed it out ..

Sorry, but I think that's rubbish. Had we a photo - and that might easily have been lost over the years like so much else - it would tell us nothing IMHO that we do not now know. There is, in my opinion, not a shred of evidence to connect the writing with the killer. BUT Warren did have a responsibility for public order and acted to protect that.

At no time could you describe the Entrance to Wentworth Dwellings as an Archway ! A doorway or an Entrance , but certainly not an Archway . But Warren when describing where the message was placed certainly did ..

My advice is, don't put too much weight on a single word. Warren was at the Dwellings at night, he may not have paid much attention to his surroundings, and misremembered. He may have written casually with no particular emphasis on what the entry was actually like.

This tells me Warren was thinking along Freemason lines , He is a leading Freemason ! There is no good argument that could excuse his Ignorance in such matters .. He would have looked at the immediate evidence that surrounded him and taken it all on board ( how could he not ? )

I don't find that at all convincing. It was night, he had other things on his mind. Why this obsession with freemasonry - no one in his right mind has ever suggested that Warren was not serious about his duties as Chief Commissioner (whatever his methods) so I believe his mind (quite properly) would have been on the situation and his decision, NOT on his surroundings.

Maybe there were some rings and coins left at Annie Chapmans feet after all ?

"Maybe this, maybe that..." Surely we can do better than this in 2012 in dealing with known facts?

Phil H

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not sure that I'd describe Cleveland street and the BM as "within a stone's throw" of each other - but i suppose it depends on how far one can throw a stone!!

I believe I once saw it suggested that Netley himself might have been "Hobo" Gorman's dad (!!) hence the knowledge about him. There is no necessary connection of Netley to the Ripper murders, of course.

I think Gorman Distanced himself from the book as soon as knight turned the tables on him and accused Sickert of being part of the murder trio !

I'm certain that is right or was what was stated at the time. But, I think a truer psychological reason might have been that with so much publicity, Goman could see his tale unravelling, Knight had so embroidered it. And the "tale" was no longer "his".

But i do think a man that Gorman believed to be the artist Walter Sickert ( whatever the relationship) had told him a story

I have little doubt that Goman knew Sickert personally and that WS was a friend of the family. For that matter, Gorman might be right in believing that WS was his father - but there is no proof of that.

, which brings me back to my original questions . Where would sickert hear such a tale ? Why would he be told it ? and from whom , would have he have heard it ?

Sickert moved in bomemian circles, murder and particularly the "Ripper" case fascinated him. Is there not a account that says that Sickert knew "The Lodger" theory and made notes in a lost book (mentally, I associate that anecdote with Osbert Sitwell, but I may be wrong).

We all know about the GSG because a lot of people were made aware of it at the time . Our chance to Analise it's it's full potential was lost forever as soon as Warren scrubbed it out ..

Sorry, but I think that's rubbish. Had we a photo - and that might easily have been lost over the years like so much else - it would tell us nothing IMHO that we do not now know. There is, in my opinion, not a shred of evidence to connect the writing with the killer. BUT Warren did have a responsibility for public order and acted to protect that.

At no time could you describe the Entrance to Wentworth Dwellings as an Archway ! A doorway or an Entrance , but certainly not an Archway . But Warren when describing where the message was placed certainly did ..

My advice is, don't put too much weight on a single word. Warren was at the Dwellings at night, he may not have paid much attention to his surroundings, and misremembered. He may have written casually with no particular emphasis on what the entry was actually like.

This tells me Warren was thinking along Freemason lines , He is a leading Freemason ! There is no good argument that could excuse his Ignorance in such matters .. He would have looked at the immediate evidence that surrounded him and taken it all on board ( how could he not ? )

I don't find that at all convincing. It was night, he had other things on his mind. Why this obsession with freemasonry - no one in his right mind has ever suggested that Warren was not serious about his duties as Chief Commissioner (whatever his methods) so I believe his mind (quite properly) would have been on the situation and his decision, NOT on his surroundings.

Maybe there were some rings and coins left at Annie Chapmans feet after all ?

"Maybe this, maybe that..." Surely we can do better than this in 2012 in dealing with known facts?

Phil H

Ah but the trouble is that the known facts which many seek to rely on are in fact unrelaible in themselves, thus making it difficult to prove or disprove something which may not be the truth in the first place.

Far to many people seek to rely on uncorroborated hearsay, and innacurate newspaper reports.

[moonbegger]

Hello Phil ,

Thanks for the feedback ,

"Maybe this, maybe that..." Surely we can do better than this in 2012 in dealing with known facts?

For over 120 years we have been looking for the Ripper in the known facts department to no avail . Maybe the occasional sortie between the lines is not such a bad thing .

And Mike ,

I applaud your ideas and having the courage to allow others to critique. With respect to Tumblety…

Thanks for the wealth of information contained within your post , both for and against . Much appreciated .

Trevor ,

Ah but the trouble is that the known facts which many seek to rely on are in fact unreliable in themselves, thus making it difficult to prove or disprove something which may not be the truth in the first place.

Aint that the truth Mr Marriot !

cheers

moonbegger

[Rubyretro]

Hello Moonbegger !

First off, I'm not going to address your Tumblety theory, for the excellent reason that I'm very lazy and I can't be bothered.

However, I am very interested in the psychology behind Conspiracy Theory. It appears to be a human need to blame misfortune, or coincidence, or just uncontrollable events on some 'Higher Being', or 'conspiracy' by either a secret sect, or whatever the Authority is at the time.

People also like to show that they are cleverer than other people in that they have worked this complicated scenario out, whereas you are just a naive fool that hasn't noticed that you are being manipulated, if you dare to disagree. (that's not you personally, Moonbegger, since you probably do agree).

I suppose that when people believed more in God (or the Sun whatever....no not the Newspaper, Robert) they just put every 'conspiracy' down to Divine Workings. Then of course, Royalty started off as terrestial Gods, and then became a distinct Authority over the population -so Royalty became a favourite for blaming conspiracy on.

Nowadays it's 'the Government'.

In short, I think that blaming the Ripper killings on the dastardly doings of Queen Vic and her grandson, is in the same line as blaming the death of Princess Di on some anti muslim plot (instead of accepting that Di got into a car with a drunk driver and didn't put her seat belt on) the Freemasons, the
Twin Towers Plot, The Fenians, the Russians, The Not Walking On The Moon Plot, The Tumblety plot...

Nope. If it wasn't The Cart Man (my first attempt at typing that was too South Park !), or an ex Groom, then it was somebody exactly like them....

Look ! No 'conspiracies' Moonbegger !!

ps -I only skimmed over the rest of the answers...but my mind is still boggling over your excitement over a 'male brothel' "only a stone's throw from the British Museum !" you History buffs.....

pps I see that there is another thread on conspiracy theory...