Could the Freemasons have the key?

[Phil H]

Graham - you are quite right about the BBC series, which I know well. It was indeed the starting point for Knight's book.

But I believe it was Knight who majored on and elaborated the alleged masonic aspects. "Hobo" Gorman/Sickert was almost an add-on to the TV series.

Hobo Sickert, of course, later distanced himself from Knight's views, although further revelations emerged later re the so-called "Abberline Diaries" (in which Abberline apparently does not know the order of his given names!!).

My own view is that there had to be some family connection (and truth) in what Hobo said - certainly in regard to the coachman, Netley - though IMHO it is another issue whether he was in any way connected to the murders. There is no reason why Gorman/Sickert could not have been (or believed himself to have been) an illegitimate son of the artist Sickert. But that does not mean that his story was true. I suspect that the man was a fantasist, embroidering his family "legands" for greater effect. he may even have come to believe in them implicitly.

in the same way, Sickert the artists links to JtR, predate the BBC series and Knight - as florence pash and Osbert Sitwell demonstrate. Again - and as discussed in another current thread - that does not make Sickert JtR. (He may have written hoax letters to the police - as Cornwell has suggested - but that is not to say he did the deeds.)

Phil H

[miakaal4]

Phil, I like that we differ. If anything mate, you are a bit of a stopper on my wilder theories, I enjoy your comments and hope that we can continue to debate with the same mutual respect.

[Phil H]

The feeling is reciprocal, miakaal. You have always had my respect, even though we differ.

Phil H

[caz]

Well put, Caz. People who call for 'academic standards' to be applied to anything Ripper don't pose any kind of problem for me personally, except when, for example, in the case of the Diary they accept only the 'research' which backs up their opinion that the Diary is a new hoax, and reject out of hand any 'research' that suggests it isn't. How strange that Rendell and AFI are accepted, but Rod McNeill and Alec Voller are poo-poohed. Kind of reminds me of Melvin Harris and his two (or was it three) books that he claimed were all a hoaxer would need to produce the Diary, but he never actually identified these books. I have a feeling that certain posters to this thread haven't actually read very much about the Diary.

Not for a moment do I accept that whoever composed the Diary was the same person who bumped off whores in the East End in 1888, neither do I accept that it cannot be an old creation.

G

Thanks Graham.

I don't understand why the fact that the diary 'has no standing' makes it (in Phil's words):

'by definition, not a part of general scholarly discussion'.

We can discuss, explore and analyse all the contemporary ripper hoaxes, the letters, the Lusk kidney, the GSG and so on, even though they have the same lack of standing. But this particular ripper artefact and its contents cannot be 'a part of general scholarly discussion' - except apparently when someone is dismissing it as a shabby modern fake of the Hitler Diaries kind. For anyone else it's out of scholarly bounds.

Hi Phil,

You also wrote: '...the usual academic method is that it should be accepted by "peers" as adhering to the general standards of authenicity, provenance etc.' That's all very well but in that highly unlikely event there'd have been little left to discuss! If it's unscholarly and contra the academic method to explore the diary content and debate what it might say about the author, then we have all been guilty, your good self included.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

That's all very well but in that highly unlikely event there'd have been little left to discuss! If it's unscholarly and contra the academic method to explore the diary content and debate what it might say about the author, then we have all been guilty, your good self included.

If I had the temerity to try to explain the historical method to you, Caz, or to suggest that I knew how the academic world works and you did not you would probably accuse me of condescension. So I will refrain from doing so.

That's all very well but in that highly unlikely event there'd have been little left to discuss!

If the diary were never discussed, I for one wouldn't lose any sleep.

Phil H

[Graham]

I've often thought that if the Diary had been presented for public scrutiny by a recognised 'celeb' historian, for example, rather than a Scouse scrap-metal dealer, it might just have been taken a little more seriously rather than being condemned out of hand as a modern out-and-out hoax. Barrett did himself and us no favours at all, but we're stuck with it, and I would say the odds now are definitely against the discovery of its true origins and authorship.

I don't think that it can simply be written of as being of absolutely no historical importance at all.

Graham

[Phil H]

Many forged paintings are actually (almost by definition) excellent works of art - but they have no status.

I don't think that it can simply be written of as being of absolutely no historical importance at all.

To have importance, it either hass tio have instrinsic importance - either related to the author, or the contents; or

it has to have had an impact in some ways on the field of study. Hence the "Hitler diaries" caused international reactions, damaged the reputation of a leading historian and led to a trial. the financial implications were also significant as I recall.

I don't think Ripper studies are important enough, per se, for the "diary" to cause national or international waves.

As to its intrinsic value/importance - we will have to see.

Regarding its presentation, I recall when first revealed and in the run-up to publication, several notable Ripper experts were signed up as part of a confidentiality agreement. It was launched with some fanfare.

But to my mind, in such an artifact, provenance is all. Like a treasure found by metal detectors and revealed out of its context - the "diary's" finding/discovery whatever, remains murky and probably always will. Had it been provavble that it was found in Maybrick's home, and in circumstances that showed it to be of his period, things might have been different.

Phil H

Phil H

[sleekviper]

With Freemasons, the grand lodges would not have allowed women to join, so if there had been a fear of some deep secret being leaked, the bodies on display would have been of the male members. If a member was known to be a killer, they would need to bring that member to justice quick, or else face the demise of being a co-conspirator in murder. As an organization, that would have caused for dismantling worldwide. If law enforcement were involved, these women would have been called domestics, and/or several crazy nut cakes roaming the streets.If anything, it would have called for new and tighter immigration laws. Either way, with Freemasons no one would know who these women were now, and whoever some message was being sent to at the time of their death would only know from the obituary on the last page of a paper. People with secrets want secrets, terror wants public attention, mixing the two defeats the purpose of either.

[Graham]

As to forged paintings having no status, I wish I had a van Meegeren forgery of a Vermeer hanging on the wall of my lounge! Or even a van Meegeren full stop!

The Diary cannot be, per se, a 'forgery', as it is not, so far as we know, a representation of something that is 'genuine'. It's either a fake, hoax, call it what you will, or it was produced at some time in the past for purposes which we do not as yet understand. Had it been the crude production of what Melvin Harris referred to as 'a nest of forgers', it would have been rumbled within five minutes. But it wasn't, and it hasn't been. The burden of proof, so far as I am concerned, lies with those who claim that it's a modern hoax - so prove it!

Same with the watch - the scratches are almost certainly not made within the past 20 - 30 years, yet it is still labelled a modern hoax. Personally, I have more faith in the science of metallurgy than I do in the 'art' of handwriting analysis, so the watch, to me at least, is certainly not new in terms of what's scratched on it, and is thus probably more 'watertight' than the Diary.

Even so, I still can't accept that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.

There was, I honestly believe, something going on in the run up to, and the aftermath of the trial of Florence Maybrick that we in 2012 are not privy to, and probably never will be.

Feldman thought he'd come close to showing that the Diary had been 'found' in Battlecrease House during renovations, but even he had to concede that it almost certainly was not so. Abstracted from Battlecrease by a servant and handed down through the family of Anne Graham? Don't know, never will.
But that's what Feldman came to believe. Mind, if I'd sunk £250000 into one of my 'theories', I think I'd be rather reluctant to admit I was wrong.....

Frankly, we could argue the toss from now until Domesday, and probably will.

Graham

[Phil H]

Two excellent posts, Graham.

My problem with the "diary" is that as a fake (if you prefer that word - to me the forgery element is that it purports to be by Maybrick) it appears actually very crude:

the first several pages of the album missing;

the fact that the handwriting appears to resemble no specimen of Maybrick's; as well as

the fact there there is so little (if any) new material of a factual/researchable kind.

But as you say, people have no invested so much (if not money then emotion, intellectual time and emergy etc) that a solution of any sort will not be easily or readily accepted.

A bit like the Turin Shroud.

Phil H

[Bridewell]

The burden of proof, so far as I am concerned, lies with those who claim that it's a modern hoax - so prove it!

Graham

Hi Graham,

As far as you are concerned maybe. Otherwise the burden of proof lies where it always has done:

http://ohio-archaeology.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/new-documentary-explores-mystery-of.html

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

The link is VERY apt, Bridewell.

An almost exact equivalent of the "diary" I'd say.

Phil H

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

As far as you are concerned maybe. Otherwise the burden of proof lies where it always has done:

http://ohio-archaeology.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/new-documentary-explores-mystery-of.html

Regards, Bridewell.

Yes....and?

Graham

[RavenDarkendale]

Burden of proof in a criminal case lies with those accusing someone. In this case, the guilt or innocence of Maybrick lies with the Diary and the watch. The prosecutors have to prove Maybrick penned the Diary and owned and marked the watch. To assume Maybrick innocent requires no proof at all under law, and those advocating that Maybrick didn't pen the Diary, nor handle the watch are not required to prove their point. Innocent unti; proven guilty. Bottom line.

[caz]

Hi Raven,

I think Graham's point was that anyone accusing a hoaxer or fraudster (named or as yet unidentified) of creating the diary in the late 80s/early 90s is required to come up with the proof every bit as much as anyone accusing Maybrick of writing it in 1888/9.

Until someone proves the existence of the former, they are no more real than Fairy Fay.

Without evidence a 'guilty' verdict is out of the question in either case.

Love,

Caz
X