Could the Freemasons have the key?

[miakaal4]

Whoa there people, I did not say that the Masons were behind the killings, or that there was any type of conspiracy among them to kill the women. What I am asking is; with the Maybrick family connections to the Masons, would they not feel it was important to hide the identity of the killer if it was known he was a Mason or, would Michael, who had much to lose, be able to appeal to that society for help in hiding James's crimes?
I know very little about the Masons, but on thing I do know is that where possible they look after each other.
In the Maybrick saga, Michaels actions are very suspicious. He seemed to dominate his brothers, Why? Because he was famous, or because he was senior to them in the Masons?
If Conspiracy is there, I'm suggesting it was a damage limitation conspiracy not a ritual murder one.

[Phil H]

What I am asking is; with the Maybrick family connections to the Masons, would they not feel it was important to hide the identity of the killer if it was known he was a Mason or, would Michael, who had much to lose, be able to appeal to that society for help in hiding James's crimes?

Surely these questions simply pile supposition upon assumption?

There is no proven link between Maybrick and the murders, outside the alleged "diary". So is not a question about a masonic link to maybrick in regard to the crimes, akin to the old question: "Are you still beating your wife?"

The question makes an assumption, and that is quite impossible to discuss or debate as there are no grounds to do so. It is, as things stand at present, IMHO, fiction and might prove the basis of a novel.

In the Maybrick saga, Michaels actions are very suspicious. He seemed to dominate his brothers, Why? Because he was famous, or because he was senior to them in the Masons?

there is again no indication here of a basis for discussion. Was Michael a mason - that is something which it should be possible to establish.

How, without written evidence (a letter maybe) could we ever determine the basis of Michael's dominance and his and others' seniority - if indeed such existed.

If Conspiracy is there, I'm suggesting it was a damage limitation conspiracy not a ritual murder one.

I don't quite understand how you can suggest a reason for a conspiracy, before detrermining whether there was a conspiracy? please enlighten me.

Would it be viable to say, "the mafia killed Kennedy in a conspiracy with the CIA because both disliked his policy towards Cuba?" Would one not first have to demonstrate and provide some evidential basis that such a conspiracy/joint venture existed in the first place?

Phil H

[miakaal4]

Hi Phil,
The points I am trying to make are based on my assumption that the diary is genuine. I don't want to debate that, I said that I am using the "what if" thought process. I am asking for an opinion based on that supposition, as to whether the Masons would conspire to cover up, or would they expose?
The Masons are secretive, and so I believe would be the membership.
People within both the police and the government at the time of the killings were Masons, some of them may have had involvement in the case.
I could have used Kosminski or Druitt as examples, but because I have more interest in Maybrick, and because I have read about Michael M being a Mason, I used that as the example.
I would have thought like the Jews, the Masons were generally viewed with suspicion because they were discreet and therefore misunderstood. And, like the Jews would fear a backlash, should one of their members be suspected.

[Phil H]

But miakaal, I cannot understand how, in serious debate,you CAN discuss a contested hypothesis WITHOUT FIRST creating a solid foundation for the exchange of views.

On the same basis why should I not claim "Jack" was an Atlantean with super-powers, because many do believe that Atlantis existed and was related to extraterrestrials? I doubt whether you would take that seriously and you would, quite rightly, ask why I would want to inject such a thing into the debate.

Equally, in a serious debate with informed students of the subject about ancient Egypt or mezo-American culture, I would expect to be marginalised and mocked, if I brought up -oh, but the pyramids were built by aliens long before their accepted date. Indeed, a few years ago, in Egypt, a local guide was furious in her condemnation of such views because they suggest that the indigenous Egyptians were incapable to evolving civilisation without external help.

Most of us on Casebook, it is clear, do not accept the "diary" as authentic or relevant. Even less, I'd say than accept the GSG as the work of the killer of Eddowes and/or Stride.

It is NOT that discussion of the counter-orthodox views is unacceptable, or out of place - but I do feel strongly that it should be kept out of a discussion on masonry or that you should have clearly marked up the original post/provided a heading to make it clear that this was intended as a "diary" discussion.

On that basis I shall withdraw from the discussion.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

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.

Quire right, and two points: I think the masons require some kind of dues, and people who rent a bed in a doss house by the night won't be able to afford to join an organization that requires dues. Second, before television, and other sorts of technology, and especially before movies, clubs were a popular past time. There were all sorts of hobbyist clubs, there were country clubs, for people who could afford them, where a large piece of land that was actually in a city, or adjacent to one, was set up as a place where you could pursue golf, tennis, and horseback sports, that you normally could only do in the country, and then there were "secret" societies, which weren't engaged in anything really worth keeping secret, people just liked the idea of having secrets. Some of them were originally guilds, which once did have an interest in preserving trade secrets, but not so much anymore.

Now we spend time posting on message boards, and streaming Netflix movies.

But miakaal, I cannot understand how, in serious debate,you CAN discuss a contested hypothesis WITHOUT FIRST creating a solid foundation for the exchange of views.

Whoa there people, I did not say that the Masons were behind the killings, or that there was any type of conspiracy among them to kill the women. What I am asking is; with the Maybrick family connections to the Masons, would they not feel it was important to hide the identity of the killer if it was known he was a Mason or, would Michael, who had much to lose, be able to appeal to that society for help in hiding James's crimes?

Phil, you are of course, correct in regard to Maybrick, but just to play along with Miakaal for a moment: if Maybrick were connected to the masons, and the masons knew him to be the murderer, and did not was a mason-JTR connection, which would be easier, to cover up the fact that Maybrick was the killer, or to cover up the fact that Maybrick had masonic connections?

If it were up to me, as say, high grand master of the British masonry, I would burn any paper that in the mason files that mentioned any Maybrick family member, and annul all Maybrick family memberships. That seems much easier than trying to convince police to abandon their professional responsibilities, and stop their investigation.

Also, when would this happen? After James Maybrick's death? he died in May of 1889. If it happened before, then you are suggesting that the police engaged in the cover-up while Maybrick was still at large. If it happened after, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting. That the family found out, and rather than just keep it to themselves, went to the police and informed them, but, then said "please don't tell anyone." Or are you suggesting that the police discovered Maybrick's guilt independently, but before going public with the information, consulted with the family, who asked them to keep it a secret, and the police complied.

All those scenarios are highly unlikely.

Most of us on Casebook, it is clear, do not accept the "diary" as authentic or relevant. Even less, I'd say than accept the GSG as the work of the killer of Eddowes and/or Stride.

I do not accept the GSG as the work of JTR, however, I do, and so does everyone on the board, I think, accept it as a legitimate part of the Ripper story. It was actually written on a wall in 1888, near one of the murder sites, on the night of one of the murders, and was part of the investigation, even if it seems that most of the investigators did not think it was the work of the killer-- some of the investigators allowed that it might be, at least initially, and it was still part of the environment of JTR, and lets us know what was going on in the place where the murders happened.

The diary has nothing to do with the original story. It's a complete fabrication, from a hundred years after the fact, and has nothing to tell us directly, or even indirectly about JTR, about London in 1888, or serial killers in general.

[Cogidubnus]

There are still, I think, quite a large number of Freemasons around...more than you'd think...and in ALL ranks of society, not just the nobs...I don't generally mix with the upper echelons, and come from a very much working class (left pond blue collar) background, and yet I've recently been canvassed twice with a view to my recruitment (which, incidentally I've declined).

Both the people who approached me are eminently respectable, and people who's aquaintance I value, so I won't indicate who they might've been...both were anxious to assure me that the masons were "a society with secrets, rather than a secret society" (perhaps Barro can advise whether this is now some sort of masonic credo)...I hasten to add, I am not in any way being critical of the Freemasons...I simply don't know enough to comment either way...

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

the masons were "a society with secrets, rather than a secret society"

That's true. Everyone knows the masons exist. Masons readily self-identify-- in the US, you can get a license plate for you car with a masonic symbol (don't read anything into that-- you can get a plate for all kinds of different organizations, university alums, branches of the military, or military award, and those links are just for the state of Indiana; you pay a small fee, around $25/year, which supports the organization), and most masons wear rings. When a mason dies, the chapter will let your family use the lodge for the funeral service, and anyone is welcome to attend. They have a number that is listed in the phone book. They sponsor charity events, and usually have a float in the July 4th parade. When they do so, they don't wear masks to hide their identity.

But they do have secrets. They have initiation rites that are secret, books that no one is supposed to have access to who is not a member, the meetings are closed, and so forth.

There are secret societies in the US: the KKK is known to exist, but most members don't identify themselves as such, and when they appear in public, they do so in hoods very often. They commit acts of terrorism, and don't always claim credit, even when something has their "signature," like a burning cross. (Of course, that one is so well-known, it does invite copycats.)

Then, I'm sure there are organizations so secret, I don't even know about them in order to give examples.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Anyone interested in the workings of secret societies should read G.K. Chesterton's "The Man Who Was Thursday".

Regards,

Simon

[miakaal4]

so..

It seems to me that from the comments it would be covered up rather than exposed.
I (imagined) that Michael would know there was a very real danger of his brother being exposed as the Ripper, via the Diary which had gone missing.
He assumed it would be made public and he would be finished.
He turned to his Lodge for help, or warned them of what had happened.
They cover up what they can. But in doing so, they put themselves or other Masons briefly under the spotlight.
This idea does not seem very popular, but reading reports that Ripper documents have gone missing, and contrdictory statements from senior police officials does smack of a cover-up of some sort.
Once that is accepted, (if it ever is) then you have a conspiracy.
If you accept there was a conspiracy, then you can look for the motivation behind it. If you find that, you find the killer/s.
I know this is not a new idea, but it does seem like the evidence we do have is mostly open to debate, rather than objective and concrete.
And when something objective (at least possibly) like the Diary comes to light, it is shredded and scorned until it too becomes spurious conjecture.
I feel that some Masons would be more loyal to their "club" than others, and be willing to do things that would protect its reputation, even if it meant breaking the law or putting out false information.
That said however, I take REV'S very good point, that such an Org would destroy anything that showed their collusion or involvment in any way.
The Masons MAY have had the key, but if they did, they got rid of it.

[RivkahChaya]

I (imagined) that Michael would know there was a very real danger of his brother being exposed as the Ripper, via the Diary which had gone missing.
He assumed it would be made public and he would be finished.

If you have information that Michael Maybrick knew that James kept a diary, and that it went missing at some point between the Kelly murder, and James Maybrick's death, I would like very much to see evidence of it.

[caz]

The diary has nothing to do with the original story. It's a complete fabrication, from a hundred years after the fact, and has nothing to tell us directly, or even indirectly about JTR, about London in 1888, or serial killers in general.

So why would you be interested in any evidence that it may have been knocking around much earlier?

If it's just your unqualified opinion that the diary is from 'a hundred years after the fact', that's a very different matter.

None of the forensic tests has been able to rule out a late 1880s date for the writing, and the nearest science has got to your opinion is 'prior to 1970'.

Love,

Caz
X

[miakaal4]

I cannot understand why people keep insisting the diary is a modern forgery.
I cannot prove it was genuine, but if one assumes it is a fake from the start then it would never be seriously debated.
How can we seriously debate anything on this board unless we "suppose" or "imagine" here and there?
From documentaries I have seen it seems that killer profilers always suppose or imagine, when they are describing the likely killer.
The book has not been proved to be fake or genuine, therefore demands study, doesn't it?
Maybrick wants to unload his guilt at the end, he say's he will tell his wife.
I think there is a good probability that he told his brother/s too. Their actions after his death are suspicious. Would they want his confession made public?
Riv, I am working on probabilities here. If I had the evidence you asked for it might prove the diary genuine, I don't, but if the actions of Michael etc searching the house from top to bottom are true, then something was going on. I have said before, I think the diary was sent to Florries Mum by Florrie after James had told her to read it. I also think that he told Michael about the book but Florrie had already sent it off and denied any knowledge of it. Michael, terrified of the scandal searched the house for it, and possibly warned some high ranking Masons of the danger. The important words here are
I Think.

[Bridewell]

Masonic Conspiracy

I don't have a great deal of time for freemasonry, but I find the idea that members, including police officers, would cover up the identity of Jack the Ripper if he was a fellow-mason implausible at best. In the climate of the time anyone who was party to such a conspiracy would certainly have received a very, very long prison sentence and, if involved in a conspiracy to actually carry out the murders, might even have hanged. There is no evidence to support the contention that there was a masonic conspiracy, so the conclusion I would draw is that there wasn't one.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

I cannot prove it was genuine, but if one assumes it is a fake from the start then it would never be seriously debated.

Try that argument on a serious historian, or a similar situation with a putative painting by a famous artist.

It is not up to students of a subject to debate or discuss proposed evidence (material - i.e. an artifact - documentary or artistic) until its provenance and authenticity have been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt and until the concensus within that field of study accepts it. That is the convention of scholarship world-wide. I see no reason why Ripper studies should be an exception.

There is, and I don't think anyone ever suggested there should be, any bar on discussion of the diary in the sense of seeking to prove or dispiove its authenticity.

But no one should expect that anyone not interested in that document/artifact would want to start to draw conclusions from it, make surmises as to the implications of its being true or building hypotheses upon it until it is accepted widely and by the key authorities on the subject. Until that time the diary has no standing or relevance, no part to play in any serious discussion of the case.

It is IMHO - and I think that of wider scholarship -crucial that these two distinct phases be recognised.

That is the way of the world.

Sorry to be blunt,

Phil H

[Graham]

I cannot understand why people keep insisting the diary is a modern forgery.

Miakaal14,

not everyone does insist that the Diary is a modern 'forgery'. However, in common-sense terms it is not a Diary as such, but some kind of journal; and a 'forgery', as I understand it, is an artificial representation of something that already exists, as in an artificial representation or copy generally being produced for illicit financial gain.

Until it is proven beyond argument that the 'Diary' was produced in recent times, say within the last 30 years, I shall continue to believe that it is an artifact that was produced at some point in the more distant past. So far all analysis carried out on the 'Diary' has been quite inconclusive - unlike, for example, the Hitler Diaries which were very quickly rumbled by the fact they were written on modern paper.

Unfortunately, I can offer no reason as to why the 'Diary' was produced. It must have been for some serious purpose that the writer considered important enough to go to a good deal of trouble and effort. If it is a production dating from the time of the Ripper Murders and the Maybrick Case, then was it to support or condemn James Maybrick, or to support or condemn his wife? I haven't got a clue. Of one thing I'm totally convinced, and that is no-one with the surname Barratt produced it.

As an aside, and taking into account that the guy was single-minded to say the least, I just wonder if everyone contributing to this and other 'Diary' threads has read Paul Feldman's book?

Graham