Could the Freemasons have the key?

[Bridewell]

Freemasons

So why are you wasting your obviously valuable time on this thread?

Graham

Perhaps because he was under the impression that the thread was about whether or not the Freemasons have the key to the Whitechapel Murders?
There are any number of threads about the Diary. This isn't one of them.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Stephen Thomas]

a glimpse of stocking

It's a Maybrick thread so anything goes.

[Bridewell]

It's a Maybrick thread so anything goes.

In that case I'll move on as I've no interest in him or the diary.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

Thanks Bridewell. Exactly right.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

I'll admit, I looked at the thread because I thought "key" might be meant literally. I knew it probably wasn't, but heck, how much effort does it take to click on a thread, and if it was literal, it could have been really interesting-- what key? the key MJK and Barnett lost? The key to the mysterious "lodgers" room? or something I'd never heard of?

Then I got side-tracked. I'm leaving too.

[caz]

Hi Phil,

Shirley has said in the past that if she found proof that the diary was a fake she would of course accept it and move on. She has every right to her personal beliefs in the meantime and to put them in book form, just like anyone else. Most published authors on the subject of JtR or the diary, or both (and yes, that includes Pat Cornwell as well as Shirley) know that they were not writing for financial reasons, and that it would have been in their financial interests to do something else entirely with their time.

Sorry, but the burden of proof in demonstrating that the "diary" is in any respect of relevance to anything is ENTIRELY WITH ITS PROPONENTS.

But you are changing the goal posts. I'm not arguing that the diary has any 'relevance' to anything, so quit with the patronising underlining and bold font. I agree it 'has no status at this present time', in scholarly or any other terms. I'm arguing that the burden of proof is on anyone insisting it's a recent fake, just as it is on anyone claiming it is genuine. That's all I'm arguing.

I remain of the view that it could well be recent...

Good for you. But saying it again (like we hadn't heard it scores of times already), while professing no interest in the subject, won't make it so.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So, should we trust anything he says, including his original story about the diary's provenance?

Absolutely not. That's precisely what I've been saying. Mike Barrett's word cannot be trusted and therefore everything he has said about the diary's origins should be treated with the utmost caution. It's no good cherry-picking the claims he has made that fit best with one's faith in the diary as either a 1980s Barrett production or an 1880s Maybrick one. Both positions are equally airy-fairy without visible means of support.

It's a footnote; even if it were a contemporary fake, it would be no more important to discovering who killed the women in Whitechapel in 1888, than the story of the two women who were arrested and charged with writing a fake letter to the police. Maybe even less important, since clearly it wasn't known to the police.

Look, nobody to my knowledge has been arguing that the diary would somehow be any more 'important' to anything if it were an old fake, or just not as recent as you personally believe it to be. Where do these overly defensive arguments come from? Not interested in a diary that has no historical significance or relevance? Fine, then you didn't need to discuss it at all, and you certainly didn't need to bring in further irrelevances that nobody needed to hear.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

Not sure its us (Rivkah and I) who are being defensive, Caz.

As for the emphasis in my post - not aimed at you, but just a reminder to all that there is such a thing as scholarly method. Apologies if I offended.

Phil H

[miakaal4]

Blimey!

Hey, whats all this about serious historians Phil? The "book" is revealed by a mishmash of personalities claiming it is genuine, they go on to discuss what that means as regard the JtR case. What the hell is so wrong with that?
Should they wait until every sceptic on the planet accepted it as real, before ever opening it to discuss the contents? I really appreciate those on this board who are willing to give their time to debate its contents either for or against.
I started this thread asking for opinions, and as a result of that I think the the Masons (whether they were involved or not) would never be proved to have anything to do with the case. My personal feelings are that it is a genuine description of a period of insanity written by someone who was unaware that they were insane; although they may have suspected it. And I also feel/think that the author was the killer. I cannot prove any of this, and I cannot prove that Maybrick was the author. But to me, someone writing it to frame or ruin Maybrick is crazy! The guy died!
Ms Harrison and Mr Feldman showed that words and phrases used in the book were in common use at that time contrary to modern belief, good evidence to support it is very old. But even this is sneered at or ignored.
They have both suffered attacks on their character and integrity, but neither backed out. Somewhere along the line in historical research you have to believe someone, if not then I could argue that I saw my grandad paint the Mona Lisa and anyone who says different is a liar, and the experts don't know what they're talking about!

[caz]

Not sure its us (Rivkah and I) who are being defensive, Caz.

As for the emphasis in my post - not aimed at you, but just a reminder to all that there is such a thing as scholarly method. Apologies if I offended.

Phil H

Oh I rarely if ever take offence, Phil. When I do it's usually on behalf of someone else who is not here to be offended or to defend themselves.

Sorry if I came across as being defensive, I merely deplore double standards. I can take all the condescending advice in the world about burden of proof and doing the 'scholarly' thing as long as those dishing out the advice take it themselves and don't come out with bald statements of fact about the diary's age or authorship that they are not prepared to back up with evidence, and when challenged use the old get-out of finding the whole topic irrelevant, boring, a waste of their time, beneath their dignity or whatever.

"I think the diary is genuine" will win nobody any friends but it's perfectly acceptable on an internet message board, as is "I think the ink was barely dry in 1992". No proof of either position and arguably never will be, but that's the case with theories about the ripper in general.

Love,

Caz
X

[RavenDarkendale]

Question: Why are the Freemasons always brought up in Ripper discussions? I mean I know they are a secretive group. The lodge on Church Street here in town has a double set of doors to prevent outsiders from seeing the interior as they enter. I have seen inside one as a teenager by hiding across the street and it was only the smallest glimpse. I have no real idea who is a Mason in this lodge, they have at least four men on the street anytime there is a meeting to ward off the curious.

What I am thinking is that they are so secretive that there probably would be nothing to trace back to them at all were they actually involved.

God Bless

Darkendale

[Phil H]

Miakaal

Hey, whats all this about serious historians Phil?

As I have said elsewhere, my aspiration for Ripperstudies are that thyey should match the highest standards of scholarly debate and analysis.

The "book" is revealed by a mishmash of personalities claiming it is genuine, they go on to discuss what that means as regard the JtR case. What the hell is so wrong with that?

If by "the book" you mean the "diary" it has no standing so is, by definition, not a part of general scholarly discussion.

Should they wait until every sceptic on the planet accepted it as real, before ever opening it to discuss the contents?

No, but the usual academic method is that it should be accepted by "peers" as adhering to the general standards of authenicity, provenance etc.

I started this thread asking for opinions, and as a result of that I think the the Masons (whether they were involved or not) would never be proved to have anything to do with the case.

That, I think was generally established some decades ago.

My personal feelings are that it is a genuine description of a period of insanity written by someone who was unaware that they were insane; although they may have suspected it.

No one can question your own feelings. But my gut instinct that a painting reputedly by (say) van Gogh is by him, counts for nothing if provenace and style say it is a fake. I was at a party recently where the host had an impressionist painting on his walls. It was an acknowledged "fake" by a foger (name forgotten) who was sentenced some years ago in the Uk but got treated leniently because he wrote "forgery" (or equivalent) on the canvas. Thus those who accepted his wonderful "copies" were at fault, not the forger. Be careful, where feelings take you, is my advice.

And I also feel/think that the author was the killer.

Good luck to you.

Ms Harrison and Mr Feldman showed that words and phrases used in the book were in common use at that time contrary to modern belief, good evidence to support it is very old. But even this is sneered at or ignored.
Such things can be copied, recognised by others - they do not by themselves prove anything.

They have both suffered attacks on their character and integrity, but neither backed out. Somewhere along the line in historical research you have to believe someone, if not then I could argue that I saw my grandad paint the Mona Lisa and anyone who says different is a liar, and the experts don't know what they're talking about!

And many do. Stephen knight published a book containing FACTS that he knew (because they had been pointed out to him) were untrue. look at all the Holy Blood/Holy Grail and Graham Hancock literature. There is a ready market for this bunk (including me!!) but it happends and can be analysed - clever use of language, deliberate obfuscation.

We continue to differ on this miakaal - sorry.

Phil H

[Graham]

Oh I rarely if ever take offence, Phil. When I do it's usually on behalf of someone else who is not here to be offended or to defend themselves.

Sorry if I came across as being defensive, I merely deplore double standards. I can take all the condescending advice in the world about burden of proof and doing the 'scholarly' thing as long as those dishing out the advice take it themselves and don't come out with bald statements of fact about the diary's age or authorship that they are not prepared to back up with evidence, and when challenged use the old get-out of finding the whole topic irrelevant, boring, a waste of their time, beneath their dignity or whatever.

"I think the diary is genuine" will win nobody any friends but it's perfectly acceptable on an internet message board, as is "I think the ink was barely dry in 1992". No proof of either position and arguably never will be, but that's the case with theories about the ripper in general.

Love,

Caz
X

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

[Phil H]

Question: Why are the Freemasons always brought up in Ripper discussions? I mean I know they are a secretive group.

The answer, I think, goes back to Stephen Knight's book in the 70s. (He appears to have had a grudge against the Masons as he also wrote another book alleging their malign influence on the police, called the brotherhood.)

His idea was that men like Sir Charles Warren (a known high-ranking mason) conspired to cover-up a royal scandal (for which there is no evidence). Some of the other high-ranking masons named by Knight, proved NOT to be members.

Knight's case was based on Warren's deletion of the GSG, and it's reference to "Juwes". Knight claimed that these were figures from masonic lore - Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum and that the Ripper's victims were slaughtered in ways set out in masonic lore.

Subsequent research has shown that the "Juwes" are not a part of modern UK masonry (though may have been in the US rite) and were known collectively as "the Ruffians" not the "Juwes".

The masonic connection was popularised by films such as Murder by Decree and (with the "royal conspiracy") the 1988 Michael Caine TV series.

So far as I can see there is nothing solid in the masonic connection other that supposition and serious Ripperologists these days do not promote the idea.

In the UK today, masonry is much less secretive -the rooms in my town were open recently on a day when notable premises were opened to the public. Their rites are private, but there appears to be less concern about their involvement in anything corrupt (such as the police).

So blame Knight for the attention they have been given.

Phil H

[Graham]

A small point, but in fact Stephen Knight was not the first to 'discover' Joseph Gorman Sickert - that dubious honour goes to the producers of a BBC documentary called, amazingly enough, Jack The Ripper, which was aired in 1972 or 73. Sickert's story was that Lord Salisbury was behind the dastardly Freemasonic plot to get rid of the whores who were threatening to blackmail the Government. Lord Salisbury was not, in fact, a Freemason. (And quite how a bunch of East End whores could actually blackmail the Government was not explained).

Sickert later confessed that he made up the whole Masonic Plot story, but interestingly enough he later retracted this confession - shades of Mike Barrett and The Diary.

However - and here I rely purely on memory - I believe a relation of Joseph Sickert's later actually stated that she could recall the Masonic Plot story as family tradition when she was very young. Don't know about this, as I don't have access to my books at the minute.

Simon Wood researched the Joseph Sickert story and dismissed it - I think his findings were published in a true crime magazine? Can't remember what it was called.

Graham