Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I can’t seem to find ‘mumbling buffoon’ through the Ngram viewer, and yet it seems to have taken off in the 21st century.

    Perhaps we have three independent coinings: 1830s/1920s/2000s.

    Perhaps Shakespeare wasn’t such a one-off after all.

    Comment


    • Just to say there could be explanations which make the actual wording of the diary less contentious. You see Maybrick was a high degree Free Mason. And a frequenter of the gentlemen's clubs. Therefore he would have had access to literature and conversations that would not necessarily be in common use. The word Juwes being an example. Bumbling buffoon could have been a nickname or a phrase used by a foreign Brother unused to English. I heard an Indian guy once call someone a "bloody bastard sod!" Maybrick would have enjoyed being so in vogue.

      Comment


      • This could be down to my poor memory but I seem to recall it being stated that Juwes wasn’t a word used by Freemasons? Has information come to light to challenge that?

        Comment


        • It appears the word was used by those in the know only. The slang for the 3 ruffians/assassins of the first master mason Hiram Abiff. The contention is that whether Warren knew it or even if it was in use during the important time. I believe that as Warren worked on the actual murder site doing mason work when he was a Captain, he would certainly know about the 3 assassins and their nickname. For JtR to use it, "could" be a message or a signal to Warren that Jack was on a Mason job. Bruce Robinson thinks it was to bait Warren. Funny thing is, the 3 killers were executed in ways not dissimilar to the ripper killings. Each one getting progressively worse. Intriguing if nothing else.

          Comment


          • This is an informative read regarding the three ruffians

            https://freemasonry.bcy.ca/ritual/three_ruffians.html

            Comment


            • Interesting read. I'm not going to dispute it but I don't think academic work gives enough credence to "old boy" gossip Club chats or upper class boasters. He could have known the term. And it could have even come up in a Club chat. Someone, knowing of his work might have asked about the term or mentioned he had heard it. Warren had it quickly erased when he could easily have cordoned the area until it was photographed. His excuse was futile.

              Comment


              • I see silly season is here again.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post
                  Interesting read. I'm not going to dispute it but I don't think academic work gives enough credence to "old boy" gossip Club chats or upper class boasters. He could have known the term. And it could have even come up in a Club chat. Someone, knowing of his work might have asked about the term or mentioned he had heard it. Warren had it quickly erased when he could easily have cordoned the area until it was photographed. His excuse was futile.
                  But there couldn’t have been ‘old boy’ gossip about a phrase that didn’t exist in the first place and the piece that Yabs posted isn’t the only time that this has been said. Therefore the only possible reason for the erasure of the graffito was the one stated. To be honest, after reading Robinson’s book when it came out, if he told me JTR was a human being I’d start investigating the wildlife. You can find a conspiracy anywhere if you’re intent on finding one and Robinson certainly was. Even his language shows him to have an ‘all those corrupt posh bastards’ attitude. The ripper was just an unpleasant, deeply disturbed man with an issue with women or specifically prostitutes.

                  Comment


                  • Bruce Robinson's book is hilarious.

                    Spends the prologue trashing the reputation of Ripperology.

                    Then peddles the same old Masonic twaddle.
                    Last edited by Harry D; 08-30-2020, 09:12 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                      Bruce Robinson's book is hilarious.

                      Spends the prologue trashing the reputation of Ripperology.

                      Then peddles the same old Masonic twaddle.
                      Hello H,

                      Hope you’re well?

                      Couldnt agree more. He’s basically saying “how can you believe something as ridiculous as Jack The Ripper was just a serial killer when it’s obviously a complex Masonic conspiracy.” Just like the Knight story it’s laughable nonsense. David Orsam did a great job shredding the whole farce on his website. Robinson’s book can sit alongside Knight and Fairclough on the shelf with a sign saying ‘good for a giggle.’

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        But there couldn’t have been ‘old boy’ gossip about a phrase that didn’t exist in the first place and the piece that Yabs posted isn’t the only time that this has been said. Therefore the only possible reason for the erasure of the graffito was the one stated. To be honest, after reading Robinson’s book when it came out, if he told me JTR was a human being I’d start investigating the wildlife. You can find a conspiracy anywhere if you’re intent on finding one and Robinson certainly was. Even his language shows him to have an ‘all those corrupt posh bastards’ attitude. The ripper was just an unpleasant, deeply disturbed man with an issue with women or specifically prostitutes.
                        Not even persuaded by “specifically prostitutes” they were just an easy target is certainly an alternate that is open on the known facts.
                        G U T

                        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GUT View Post

                          Not even persuaded by “specifically prostitutes” they were just an easy target is certainly an alternate that is open on the known facts.
                          That could certainly be the case GUT.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            That could certainly be the case GUT.
                            For what it’s worth I just think he may have simply been a gutless b who had a desire to kill. Whilst I think he probably targeted women in particular and prostitutes were an easy target I am still looking if there were any disabled people killed around the right times,
                            G U T

                            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                            Comment


                            • I must say I am truly amazed by the knowledge and true detective work above. The phrase didn't exist. Why didn't it exist?
                              "Well I read it in some book didn't I". And it can't be a Mason because some other bloke says so. It was just some woman hating nut! Case solved.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post
                                I must say I am truly amazed by the knowledge and true detective work above. The phrase didn't exist. Why didn't it exist?
                                "Well I read it in some book didn't I". And it can't be a Mason because some other bloke says so. It was just some woman hating nut! Case solved.
                                I’m not claiming any great detective work and I admitted that I can’t recall where the information came from (perhaps someone else can help?) But I can certainly recall modern day Freemasons being asked or researchers into Freemasonry and they were adamant that the three had never been referred to as ‘juwes.’ Have you ever seen the word ‘juwes’ used anywhere else.
                                Now, as a conspiracy theorist, I’m sure that you will now use the classic CT phrase “well they would say that wouldn’t they?”
                                If you claim that a theory is true then the burden of proof is on you. Show us evidence that the word was used by Freemasons (Stephen Knight doesn’t count by the way) Until then we should assume that the word is not Freemasonic.

                                What is is wrong with the idea of a ‘woman hating nut?’ It’s pretty much a definition of a serial killer (which is what Jack was)

                                . And it can’t be a Mason because some other bloke says so.
                                And it can’t be a conspiracy just because a looney like Robinson says so either.
                                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-31-2020, 10:16 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X