Could the Freemasons have the key?

[miakaal4]

I have started this thread in the Maybrick section, because I believe that as he had known links to the Masons, his case should be a good starter.
Much has been said about the links to the Masons and indeed to Royalty.
It seems to be a good scapegoat and conveniant dead end for some investigators, and to be frank, I have paid little heed to it all.
However, I do remember reading a theory somewhere that Maybrick could be be linked with many of the repeated suspects such as, Stephen, Druitt, and the Royal Prince through a Masonic trail?
Policemen have talked about someone "high" up in society being involved, and we have all heard of the Royal cover-up tales, but where did this all come from?
No-one in their right mind would infer a Royal killer without some grounds for it! Or would they? To be fair, I know that Anarchists could have spread the rumour to create further unrest, but they would be using very weak ammo if they thought the population would rise up over the killing of a few whores.
I know there is also a theory around some royal bastard being born in the area, in fact this tale is still going very strong, and has been discussed here.
But would that really lead to mass murder? Putting all the whores in an asylum might be an easier option. Or if they had to die, a secretive poison, something less noticable anyway.
But with Maybrick it all seems much more plausible.
A quick dip into the "What if" school of thought...
What if James some how gave it away that he was Jack to his brothers? He was in a sorry state at the end and told us through the diary that he wanted to confess to Florence. What if he also felt the need to tell Michael because he expected it all to come out after he was dead? Told him about the diary, the reasons he commited the murders, (fully blaming Flo)maybe even mentioning the watch? Michael can see disaster looming, he searches the house for these and anything else that may incriminate James. He feels that having Florence convicted or the murder of James might be the best way to keep her quiet; if she starts talking about the Ripper he can claim she is insane? Michael tells another Mason about his worry that James could be exposed, and this news flashes around the London Lodges like cannon fire.
Druitt, Stephen and other prominant Masons start a damage limitation exercise, (perhaps Druitt was a weak link and...) they ask the police this and that, giving some cops the idea that there is a cover up in progress etc.
It does all make some sense, but there are still gaps to be filled.
Any thoughts?

[Jason]

i might need to think this one over.....alot to consider

[miakaal4]

also

Once a secret organisation becomes involved, the list of who is trustworthy becomes unstable, does it not?
If the Masons were involved, and if Maybrick was the killer-which they knew just before or after he died, they would have to cover it up.
Their secret rituals would be suspected, and it would take very little for them to be seen as motivators for the murders. I have read of much that poses the idea that the killings were ritualistic. This is not something I agree with, but would not rule out.
The Masonic lodges in London might well have included top policemen: Swanson? Big Mac? Sir Rob? Those aside what about Dr Gull? Judge Stephen?
The big question here is would the Masons feel that, because the killer was dying or dead, they could be justified in covering his identity?
Considering what they had to lose I think they would.
The loss of the diary and possibly the watch would have been a real 'bitch', but even so, if I am right, they were successful.

[Phil H]

I considered the Masonic theory quite a bit (as I suspect many others may have done) in the late 70s after Styephen Knight's book was published.

As Knight argued the case it seemed, at first sight, appealing.

But then, so much of Knight's research has been discredited (and rightly so); and the man appears to have had a definite grudge against the Masons - see his book The Brotherhood about the police and masonic connections. so one has to ask, where is the evidence.

It appears to rest entirely on the GSG - the connection of which to the murders remains wholly unproven.

Further, the term "Juwes" claimed by Knight to refer to the "three ruffians" who murdered Hiram Abiff has, despite many attempts, never been shown to be a masonic term in use in Britain at the time or since (there was some suggestion that it might at some point have been used in US masonic ritual).

Knight's claims that victims were murdered and their belongings and entrails "arranged" in a way consistent with masonic lore does not stand up either - the pile of rings at Chapman's feet etc, were mythical.

So where does that leave us? There is no real evidence of a conspiracy, so we have no need of conspirators. There is nothing to link any of the Ripper murders to freemasons.

Warren was a notable freemason, it was a major interest of his throughout his life, he established lodges and held senior positions - but no doubt the same could have been said about many senior people in the period. Some of Knight's claims in that regard have, I believe, been shown to be false.

On the royal connections, again the Prince Eddy idea appears to have been proven untenable, as does the "cover-up" theory associated with him. It was never soundly based given the Royal Marriages act, and the popularity of the royal family at the time was misrepresented.

Gull? Leaving aside the maunderings of Lees, where is there any link to this aged and sticken man?

So I find the whole masonic thing a bit passe. We have been there, seen it, got the T-shirt and left it behind as an improbable relic of the post-Watergate belief in major conspiracies. If any one can produce any SOLID grounds for reviving the notion, I'd be interested to hear them.

Phil H

[Barro]

So where does that leave us? There is no real evidence of a conspiracy, so we have no need of conspirators. There is nothing to link any of the Ripper murders to freemasons.



Hello Phil,

Click my link and scroll down to 1880,s.....just for Jolly !

Another cover up ? another denial ? or just coincidence ?

Ha Ha Ha Ha....catch "them" if you can Mishter Phil.

http://www.doric933.com/Lodge_History/lodge_history.html

[Phil H]

Barro

The link simply confirms that freemasons are often businessmen and trade in the area concerned. As Dutfield's yard was used by businesses, someone had to trade there. Equally, wasn't it almost inevitable, if not certain, that there would be at least one Masonic lodge in the area?

The final line:

Our only comment is that these coincidental, tenuous links do not prove that "Jack the Ripper" was a Freemason, or that his actions were in
any way connected with Freemasonry in general, or The Doric Lodge No. 933 in particular!

So WHAT - cover up? OF WHAT? WHAT denial ? WHAT coincidence?

I fail to see the point you are making.

Phil H

[Barro]

Chil Phil Chil.....

My comments were not attacking ones !

I was just pointing out that there were many connections in many different ways...

This wasnt a shot across your bows !!

Lusk and Two Serving Officers on the case are fellow lodge members and then a body, one of a number in the very case they are investigating, lands in the very yard belonging to their mate and fellow lodge member Dutfield !!...do you know what the odds are of that happening by coincidence ?

Also....the word play in the Doric Lodge history pages are worth a second look.

Let me know what your opinion is on that...

Love and Luck Brother.

[Phil H]

What are the odds of it turning out that Swanson and Anderson's likely suspect, Aaron Kosminski once appears to have lived or been connected with a property near Berners Street (see the latest article on him)?

In a small area, such as Whitechapel/Spitalfields, almost every incident can appear striking (and the odds are not, I suspect, so great as you claim). Look at the claims that "Jack" was making a a point by murdering women close to sites significant to the Jewish community (The Duke St synagogue and the IWMC); to which it has been countered that, at that time, it would have been difficult NOT to kill close to such a site.

The issue is, surely, how do we determine what is a coincidence?

Warren was a known mason. Does that in your view mean ALL his actions were predicated on his masonic interests? or none? or some? If the latter, how does one determine which? Once Warren was appointed it is no longer a "coincidence" that he as a mason might have known X or Y - it follows as night day. But to be worthy of serious dicussion, it has first to be demonstrated that Warren did not wholly differentiate between his private interests and professional duties.

Also....the word play in the Doric Lodge history pages are worth a second look.

I regard that as about as convincing as proposing that anagrams might indicate that carroll was "Jack". Word play is in the eye of the beholder - it is subjective, unless you can first show that there was an intent to include such word play.

I hold by my view that there was no conspiracy over JtR, masonic or otherwise and no cover-up. I do not,however, rule out the possibility of a political "fudge" if there were a Fenian link to any or all of the murders.

Phil H

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

John Hamill, former Librarian and Curator of United Grand Lodge, wrote in a copy of Stephen Knight’s Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution contained in the Library and Museum of Freemasonry—

‘This volume is to be treated with caution. The Marquess of Salisbury, Sir William Gull and Sir Robert Anderson were not freemasons. The masonic information has been largely culled from “exposures”. In particular, the Royal Arch “oath” has been taken from an American early nineteenth century exposure and has never applied in England’.

Regards,

Simon

[Barro]

Phil.....Im beginning to feel ive caught you on an aggressive day.....

What I was getting at is the there is masonic linkage a lot stronger than people think....not along the lines of a royal nutter running about in his bedsocks with a penknife.....(as for knights book id not even use it for toliet paper).

Police as well as every other walk of life are masons,they meet, socialise and talk shop...this happened back then and it happens now so the statement there is no masonic linkage is wrong...the case was riddled with masons....the story of a masonic conspiracy being the basis of the case is not one I beleive or support.

Lets talk Jack.....

Who the fook is Jack ?

No one...didnt exit...didnt exist becouse he was the figment of the imagination of a letter writer....a bogus letter.

Now that letter states I am jack....i killed and will kill....so.....

now everyone assumes and still does that we now have a bloke....a singular person....a nutter thats brilliant and cunning, scary as fook wiping out anyone he likes when he likes and vanishes like a fart in the wind !!

Cack...absolute cack !!....this is all based on the letter is real assumption.

Yeah witnesses saw one bloke....yeah witnesses saw two.....jesus...theres so many discriptions there could have been a whole fooking football team of knife waving loonatics on a jolly boys outing !!

Someone...somewhere knew the truth....someone, somewhere repressed, heldback, manipulated or removed evidence....that means there was some sort of cover up....for what reason and who by I dont know.

The word play......

The statement from the doric lodge history ledgers .....(and ive seen the originals and yes I am a mason)...is correctamundo....yep...its spot on correct...becouse they or any member of their lodge did not have anything to do with jack the ripper or any of his work....becouse....hes a figment of a jurno,s imagination and there is no proof he is one and a guilty one !!....
he did not exist !!

The whitechapel murders are real.....we all know they are.....murderer acting on something other than mindless killing and with reason definately....murderers probably.....controlled and abetted, for sure, why and who for and for what reason ....i dont know.

the final point im trying to get across is......

I dont know who did it or why it was all carried out or why it stopped but....i,ll bet my last penny someone...somewhere knew and knew why !

[Barro]

Bullseye Simon....correct!

UGLE.....United Grand Lodge of England.

Archives are just relentless......out of curio....anything you would like researching ?.....im like a kid in a sweet shop up there !

I even found out my grandad who was as quiet as a mouse and a lovely old skool cardigan wearing cuddle machine to us kids........

went in to a nazi bunker, machine gunned them all to bitz and then went back to his unit and moaned that someone had drank his tea and nicked his biscuit !!

im half glad he liked me !!

[RivkahChaya]

In a small area, such as Whitechapel/Spitalfields, almost every incident can appear striking (and the odds are not, I suspect, so great as you claim). Look at the claims that "Jack" was making a a point by murdering women close to sites significant to the Jewish community (The Duke St synagogue and the IWMC); to which it has been countered that, at that time, it would have been difficult NOT to kill close to such a site.

The issue is, surely, how do we determine what is a coincidence?

Warren was a known mason. Does that in your view mean ALL his actions were predicated on his masonic interests?

Phil is right. Maybe I can offer a couple of things to back him up. There will always be crossover among groups of people, and when something is as ubiquitous as the masons, you can expect to find them everywhere. Unless groups are mutually exclusive, such as Roman Catholics, who if I recall correctly, are not allowed to join the masons, you can expect to find masons in just about any group. There are masons in the Army reserve, in the PTA, in the local numismatic club, and holding public library cards. You can't infer anything from that any more than you can infer something from the fact that you can probably find people in all those groups who have red hair, or who have read The Bell Jar.

It's possible to make anything sound sinister if that someone's goal, but you need to step back and make sure you have all the information. Someone I know who is a big advocate of home births, and of women giving birth without any kind of pain medication recited some statistic like "98% of autistic children are born to women who had pain relief during labor." So what? If the number of women who had pain relief during labor was very low, like 8%, that stat would be impressive, but it's not-- I can't find the actual number, but it's very high-- approaching 90% if you discount home births (looking only at the US), so you would expect that most autistic children were delivered to women who had pain relief.

Then you need to be aware of an error called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," or, assuming a causation because of a correlation. The pain relief --> autism, aside from being an error of numbers, is also an error of attribution. But people make errors of attribution all the time, when the circumstances are difference, for example, when the sample is small, or when the numbers look like they match, like in the pain relief --> autism. If the stat really were low, like 8% of women receiving pain relief, it might look like a better case for pain relief actually causing autism, but until you do double-blind, controlled studies, or find a mechanism for cause, you can't come to that conclusion.

Then, there's this kind of attribution error: if you know that I am Jewish, and you see me buying dog treats, you might think "Jewish people buy dog treats," because you are unaware of the fact that I have a dog. That's a silly example, because most people have enough real-world experience to know that buying dog treats implies having a dog; however, if I am buying something you don't know much about, like the kind of milk that can be stored at room temperature, and costs twice as much as the kind you have to refrigerate, you might assume something about that kind of milk, and Jewish dietary rules, when the truth is that I'm going on a camping trip, and I just want milk that won't spoil while it's in my ruck sack.

In the history of serial killings, I don't think there has ever been a conspiracy to commit them, unless you count mob hits, and who would take out hits on these women, really? The Annie Crook story is laughable at its face, because Prince Eddy wasn't free to marry just anyone he liked on a whim. Conspiracies of two, I suppose, may count, like the murders of the Hillside Stranglers, or the DC snipers, but a conspiracy seems to suggest a goal other than thrills, and I don't think there was any other goal here, except possibly terrorism of the "Zodiac"/DC snipers' type.

[Barro]

yes I agree.......then again......i say.....im right......lol

do you know that it is a known fact....UCH (university col hospital) did a damming report on rats ,bites and afflictions, and the effect on hospital resources !

i hear you thinking wtf !!

it stated that in london in 2012...you are never a metre from a rat if outdoors maybe 2 metres if inside a building.

After a very sad and costly old bailey murder trial there was an investigation done to expose the depth of masonic infiltration in the british legal system.

it threw up some high ranking and very respected men that are , was or still, massive fund raisers for very very good causes....nothing else. ;-)

but it also stated ....everyone is never ever 6 people away from a mason in natural life living, inc of family and fiends ....sorry...(friends).

thoughts ?

[RivkahChaya]

Define "infiltration." That word implies that members of the masons are disingenuously joining the ranks of the government for nefarious purposes, similar to the way spies for other countries, or members of terrorist organizations infiltrate other organizations in order to sabotage them. If you just mean that pretty much every department that is part of the legal system (I take it you mean "criminal justice" system) has employees who are masons, I wouldn't call that "infiltration."

The university I went to had a student there, who was in federal prison until he committed suicide, trying to rally up an anti-Semitic, and otherwise racist, organization, who used to talk about the way Jews has "infiltrated" the university, and he'd hand out fliers that listed all the departments, and the number of professors each one had, who were Jewish, and gave an estimate of the number of Jewish students based on the attendance of the High Holidays services, and talked about how the campus had a "chief rabbi," by which he meant the rabbi employed by the campus Hillel, which was a privately funded place that served the needs of Jewish students, and was no different from any other student ministry.

There was a Catholic student church, with a priest, the Episcopal church had a priest who was specifically the pastor to the campus, there was a big building with a sanctuary, that three or four different Protestant denominations staffed together, with a couple of ordained ministers from different denominations. None of them had any official association with the university, not the rabbi, or any of the priests or ministers. The most the university did was keep numbers on file at the student health center, so if someone came in with a health crisis, and asked for a person from a specific denomination, they would be given a phone number. For people not from the US, I went to a state-funded school, so this was a matter of law that the school not promote any denomination.

This guy later dropped out of school, then moved to Chicago, where he opened fire on people walking home from synagogue on a Friday, then drove back down to Indiana, and discovered that the FBI and state police were ahead of him, and had barricades and squad cars at the local synagogues, and the homes of the three rabbis in town, and the chair of the school's Jewish studies department. So he went to the Korean Methodist church, and killed someone leaving a Saturday even service there instead.

"Infiltrate" is not a benign word.

Did the masons actually do anything to upset the legal system?

As much as I may have a little derision for grown men who symbolically build treehouses with "No girls allowed" signs, then climb up to read comics and eat Twizzlers, or whatever they do, I just can't see them as dangerous.

[Phil H]

....i,ll bet my last penny someone...somewhere knew and knew why !

Well, yes! The killer knew!!

But, if I take you as meaning SOMEONE ELSE knew - we know that too - or at least people thought they did. Druitt's relations for one group. Someone who saw "Kosminski" for another.

As for "accomplices" I see neither any need for one, or any evidence of one. These crimes, at least Nichols, Chapman and Stride were pretty squalid, brutal attacks and were probably done by a deranged local man. There is IMHO no reason to suppose and no evidence to suggest otherwise.

On masonry - my experience is that membership is much less common in the Uk than it was (say) 40 years ago. My father (died 1977) was a mason - he joined comparatively late in life - and I recall that around 1974 - when i was about to start work - he invited me to join. I declined, as I thought the idea incompatible with my Christian beliefs. At that time, it was a common site to see men with their little leather attache cases going off to a meeting after work. I have rarely seen such in recent years.

In the East End, in 1888, I suspect that almost EVERY businerss man might have been a lodge member - rather like joining the rotary or local chamber of commerce today. BUT - and I see this as important - I doubt whether many of the male residents of Dorset St, Millers Court, Flower and Dean Street etc would have been masons. It was partly a class, partly a social, partly a financial thing and the poor and recent immigrant population (from whom "Jack" arguably emerged) would have been excluded on those grounds.

There is much talk of Masonry, but no one ever mentions the similar organisation set up for those below the acceptable class for masonry - The Oddfellows and their associates. Strange that obsession with masonry.

On a side issue, Barro, is it possible to ask that you structure and punctuate your posts more conventionally? I really do find your disjointed approach makes it difficult to follow your argument.

Finally, if I respond forcefully to any posts re masonry and royal conspiracies it is because it is time that such long-discredited theories are put aside once and for all. just a personal crusade of mine.

Phil H