New Ripper angle

[moonbegger]

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...

Hello Ruby ,

I really had no idea i was endorsing a conspiracy theory with my post .. more of an explanation of a theory on how the Sickert conspiracy theory possibly came about .. did you read my post Ruby? Unless you mean the (Warren not spilling the beans) conspiracy ? I don't really see that as a Conspiracy theory ! Not in the league of sickerts handed down Royal conspiracy theory .. If every time a policeman who keeps certain facts to himself , can be viewed as a conspiracy , there would be a whole lot of conspiracy theories knocking about me thinks

But here is a sure fire one ..

Royalty started off as terrestrial Gods,

According to Ancient Astronaut Theorists , i think you will find they were simply Extraterrestrial being's who were proclaimed as Gods

cheers

moonbegger

[mklhawley]

I'm afraid that I'm not intellectual enough to know another word for 'crap' .....bollocks ?

The sarcasm Rubyretro. It sounds like we have a Parisian implant to the City of Popes.

[Rubyretro]

duplicate

[Rubyretro]

Not to mention, your post has an air of intellectual egotism.

Mike[/QUOTE]

Oooooooh! Wow, that's the first time that I've been accused of either. I'm quite chuffed. (Can I quote you on my CV ??)

In the meantime, I've never heard of a conspiracy theory that I didn't think was total crap ( to date.... )


ps I'm afraid that I'm not intellectual enough to know another word for 'crap' .....bollocks ?

[Cogidubnus]

A very Freudian slip methinks

Our chance to Analise

Hi Moonbegger, thanks for giving me a good laugh mate!

All the very best

Dave

[mklhawley]

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...

Rubretro,

Regardless if I embrace Moonbegger's theory or not, your argument is a logical fallacy. "My opinion is that this is a conspiracy theory; all conspiracy theories are wrong; therefore, you are wrong." Not to mention, your post has an air of intellectual egotism.

Mike

[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...

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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