New Ripper angle

[Stephen Thomas]

Was Joseph Gorman honest ? I would guess probably 'nobbled' by Stephen Knight. I just think that persuasive authors know how to elicit desired responses from their interviewees. It might not even be conscious.

No, the Gorman story came out first in the Barlow and Watt TV series.

The Knight book appeared about three years later.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Read up on the Viennese informer Jonas, and then try to square it with all the other arrant nonsense swirling around at the time.

Regards,

Simon

[moonbegger]

Hi all,

Warren wrote that he thought Socialists WERE NOT responsible, but he did think that some unnamed 'secret society' was responsible for the murders. I don't recall him EVER mentioning anyone by name as a personal suspect, lest of all General Millen.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ahh ,,, So Warren may have voiced some suspicion's after all
The plot thickens !

[Phil H]

So we almost agree...

In which case I immediately reverse my arguments!!!!

Agreement would be fatal to Casebook - imagine threads full of people trying to help each other, building positively on ideas.... being constructive....

Wouldn't work.

Seriously, I don't think there is much light between us. But with Gorman, I wonder if he knew, in the end, where truth lay.

Phil H

[Rubyretro]

Ha,Ha,( Erich von Daniken , Chariots of the Gods ) close ..

moonbegger .

[/QUOTE]

Ah yes, well I almost said 'Chariot of the Gods' (I remember it, alas, and some lot of aryan greek thetans); Thor was 'Kon Tiki' (rather more 'creative' and low tech)...same date (more or less), and same combat...

[Rubyretro]

I also believe that Gorman believed his own story - it was Knight who embellished and expanded it, until it bore little resemblance to what "Hobo" himself held to

.

So we almost agree...

[Phil H]

On the contrary, I think Netley was one part that Gorman fed into the soup.

I also believe that Gorman believed his own story - it was Knight who embellished and expanded it, until it bore little resemblance to what "Hobo" himself held to. I don't think Gorman' story was true, but I think he relayed it as told to him in his youth.

Phil H

[moonbegger]

Ruby,

Was Joseph Gorman honest ? I would guess probably 'nobbled' by Stephen Knight. I just think that persuasive authors know how to elicit desired responses from their interviewees. It might not even be conscious. Where did Gorman get his info ' on John Nettley ? -at a guess, Stephen Knight.

Yes i totally agree with you about the power of persuasion and subliminal messaging , but to suggest Gorman was unaware of a John Netly before Knight introduced him , is a bit of a leap of faith , but i do appreciate you are actually addressing one of the questions i asked .

Yeah, yeah , you read Thor Heyadel (? spelling).That dates you.

Ha,Ha,( Erich von Daniken , Chariots of the Gods ) close ..

moonbegger .

[Rubyretro]

As far as the ET's , i was referring to the Mayan and Aztec Civilization's

Yeah, yeah , you read Thor Heyadel (? spelling).That dates you.

As for Knight 'hypnotising' Gorman, I am really convinced that when Authors with a 'theory' meet first hand 'witnesses' ...

(... It's not really a 'witness'...I thought it might be 'testifier', and googled it to see if the word existed, and got this :' The words "testimony" and "testify" both have a root in the Latin testes, the testicles on which witnesses would swear in court. You learn something every day. More dear to them than The Bible I suppose. What did women swear on ??...but I digress..)

Yes, well, I think that authors go actively looking for first hand thingumypeople, hoping to bolster their ideas, and then when they find them, they set about feeding them the 'theory' and so deform anything really useful
that might have come out of the interview.

I think that was the case with Melvyn Fairclough viz à viz Reg Hutchinson (and I know that Fairclough received the questions from Greg Baron and Me on the subject, and I think that if he deigned not to answer them, then his silence must be deemed eloquent. He forfeited his right to any objection of the interpretation that I might have of his non-response), and I would bet a large amount that it is the case with Knight & Gorman.

As I said before, it need not be an actively dishonest thing.

Otherwise Moonbegger, I practice Hypnotism, but rest assured, only on myself...(I am quite easily influenced by Me).

[moonbegger]

Very good post Ruby ,

Apart from the bit about Knight hypnotising Gorman ( Look into my eyes , the eyes , don't look around the eyes , 3 , 2 ,1 your under )

Sounds allot like some kind of Knight conspiracy

As far as the ET's , i was referring to the Mayan and Aztec Civilization's

cheers

moonbegger

[Rubyretro]

As far as I know, no current European royal family makes any such claims. The usual genealogical trees used in britain simply go back to Cerdic the Saxon, an Anglo-Saxon raider in the aftermath of the collapse of Roman rule.

The Japanese Emperor claims descent from a god, I think (Ameratsu?).

But maybe you have information about extra-terrestrial beings that is denied me? Are you a friend of David Icke, perhaps? or even part of a conspiracy?

Phil H

This is a side water, so I won't go into it in detail, but it still maybe interesting to consider, if you start thinking about why and how 'The Royal Conspiracy' theory came to be invented, and why it's so popular.

No, of course current Royal Families don't claim to descend from Gods, but if you look at Antiquity, then Egyptian Pharoahs, for example, were looked upon as 'Gods' on earth. By the time you get to the Romans you've got the 'Imperial Cult' (so the Emperor had to be dead before being voted a God ) then it mutates into 'The Divine Right of Kings' (so the King isn't 'God', but has got his Authority). Up until very recently the Royal Family were still something mysterious held in awe by the working Class, and no doubt endowed with privileges and powers that they didn't (and don't ) hold. I would say that pschologically there was a conflict between the Political socialist movements of the 19th century and a deep rooted 'worship' of the Royal Family still....

....and it hung over from the my Great Grandparents and Grandparent's generation into the 20th century. Certainly, I first heard about Jack the Ripper from my Grandad -a working class man working for the Railways in the East End, driving a parcel van (so just a few decades from being a Cart Man). They always voted Labour, and professed to wanting to chop the Queen's head off...

(I will digress a min', and say that I can well remember my Grandad's bewildered and earnest reaction to the IRA bombings...he could not understand why the English coudn't 'simply' drop an Atom bomb on Dublin, as it had worked with Hiroshima...).

...Let's face it the 'Royal Conspiracy' was made for people like my Grand Parents.....and they totally believed in it. My Grand Dad only died about 10 years ago ( well into his '90s). He absolutey believed that Jack the Ripper ' was something to do with the Royal Family'.

Was Joseph Gorman honest ? I would guess probably 'nobbled' by Stephen Knight. I just think that persuasive authors know how to elicit desired responses from their interviewees. It might not even be conscious. Where did Gorman get his info ' on John Nettley ? -at a guess, Stephen Knight.

Steven Knight simply tapped into a very ancient human paranoic nerve....it's the incomprehensible mysterious all powerful authorities above us that are conspiring secretly against us...that was (the) 'God'(s), and it became The Royal Family. The Freemasons were the cherry on the cake.

(to digress -again -I think it terribly interesting that very intelligent people can argue that Prince Phillip is gifted with all the secret powers that he would have to have in order to have machinated the death of Princess Diana...a modern 'Goddess' for many. Plus ça change..)

[lynn cates]

Blast! Where was I?

Hello Richard. Five is a good bit easier to count than thirty-nine.

But, yes, counting is possible--as is a miscount of thirty-eight or forty.

Cheers.
LC

[harry]

Conspiricies abound.People conspire to kill,to rob,to lie.You name it.Visit any court room,read any paper,and it might appear that those who deny conspiricies may be the ones in error.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
If nothing else it mentions that magical number 39.
Yes it has both Black magic significance and religious, that can't be denied.
People laugh at the thought of someone counting the number of strikes with a knife, but it can happen even in a frenzy.
For Example ..[ top of head] Ruth Ellis fired five shots at her lover, keeping the last one for herself, but the gun jammed , and only went off after several clicks of the hammer when the gun was lowered.
She was suffering from diminished responsibility, and post natal stress, but still was capable of counting.
I am not into the freemasons , royal family , Tumblety , angle, that is old hat, but I do believe number 39, had great significance to the killer, and may be a clue to his/her identity , and possible a motive.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

As far as I know, no current European royal family makes any such claims. The usual genealogical trees used in britain simply go back to Cerdic the Saxon, an Anglo-Saxon raider in the aftermath of the collapse of Roman rule.

The Japanese Emperor claims descent from a god, I think (Ameratsu?).

But maybe you have information about extra-terrestrial beings that is denied me? Are you a friend of David Icke, perhaps? or even part of a conspiracy?

Phil H