I read somewhere..

[Jason]

we have uncovered at least 3 conspiracy theorists from this thread !! i was sure there was at one in here so to get a further two as well as myself is a result !!

[bolo]

Hi Jason,

I'm interested in the mechanics and and inner workings of conspiracy theories but only from a sociological or maybe even philosophical angle, I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself.

Regards,

Boris

[Simon Wood]

Hi Boris,

Conspiracies are intricate mechanisms and very different from cover-ups which are official arse-covering exercises rushed into effect when things go awry. Conspiracies set out to deceive. Amongst other things they involve a game plan, a strict hierarchical compartmentalization of information [those in the know vs. those not in the know], an official policy of "no comment", careful news management plus the spread of misinformation [a.k.a. disinformation]. Conspiracies are also evolutionary, changing shape and form as day-to-day circumstances dictate. It's an effective formula. All the while nobody outside the information loop is aware of what is really going on and just believes what they're told. And then there's human nature. Conspiracies work so well because in general people cannot bring themselves to believe in them.

In our particular sphere of interest a fact that cannot be ignored is that, in many different ways, shapes and forms, the Whitechapel murders feature all these conspiratorial ingredients. For the open-minded they're all there for the looking. Perhaps if we put them all together we'll discover the game plan. It sure beats trying to identify someone who never existed in the first place.

Regards,

Simon

[bolo]

Hi Simon,

In our particular sphere of interest a fact that cannot be ignored is that, in many different ways, shapes and forms, the Whitechapel murders feature all these conspiratorial ingredients. For the open-minded they're all there for the looking. Perhaps if we put them all together we'll discover the game plan. It sure beats trying to identify someone who never existed in the first place.

well put, that's right why I'm interested in possible "Ripper" conspiracies and the theories surrounding them. A conspiracy is a meta-puzzle where the single tiles consist of puzzles of their own, solving a puzzle-in-a-puzzle like that needs more than just adding one tile to another, it's all about the viewpoint. If you stand too close or look at it from the wrong angle, you will only see a thin line or nothing at all, if you stand too far, the details will be blurred and you'll only get an abstract picture.

Standing too close also involves the danger of getting sucked into a conspiracy. It's a slow but steady process and some people won't notice it until it's too late, that's why a reality check every now and then is essential.

Years ago, I read Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications (1997) by L. Douglas Kiel and Euel Elliot. After initial problems with its quite heavy mathematical background, I became fascinated by the topic and started to apply what I had read to various fields of interests, among them the conspiracy theories surrounding the East End murders. I sat up a theory that someone who is not a member of the inner circle of a conspiracy (someone not in-the-know) always takes up the position of an interested but basically clueless bystander. The events that take place before his eyes mostly seem random to him, and this is the point where certain aspects of chaos theory could help to reverse-engineer the game plan as you call it.

For example, if we view the Royal Conspiracy (or any other conspiracy theory for that matter) as a complex system of events and strange attractors within the phase space (a mathematical spatial complex where all possible states of a system are represented), it would be possible to logically describe certain events and even "predict in retrospect" possible outcomes and motivations...

...alright, I'll stop now.

Who knows, maybe the key to the case lies in advanced mathematics.

Regards,

Boris

[curious]

Hello Jason, all,

Thomas Stowell's article in the periodical The Criminologist from 1970 most probably was the starting point of the "core mythos" of the Royal Conspiracy with Prince Albert Victor, Gull, etc.

Boris

Hello,
Tracing that old chestnut must be very difficult, but the theory existed before 1970.

I know this because: I graduated from high school in 1967 (in Tennessee in the USA).

In junior high school, say 1960, '61 or 1962, I had a history teacher Miss Brown (I believe Betty was her first name, but am at the moment no completely remembering). Well, Miss Brown was fascinated by the British royal family.

The claim that Queen Victoria's grandson was really Jack the Ripper was one of her stories.

Naturally, I have no idea what her sources were, but I do know the theory pre-dated 1970. Beyond that, I know nothing.

just my two cents.

curious

[Rubyretro]

QUOTE] Lincoln's Assassination attracted such theories (and still does) almost from the start. [/QUOTE]

I thought that had been established beyond doubt, that it was a Male Model
who'd done it ?

[Mayerling]

Re: Fun with Conspiracies

Hi Graham,

Let us not forget these chestnuts too:

JFK's Assassination (take your pick )
Martin Luther King's Assassination
Malcolm X's Assassination (were the right people "caught" and sent to prison).
The Lindbergh Kidnap - Murder (Was Hauptmann involved at all or a fall guy; if involved who else helped him (i.e.:who was Isidor Fisch?); if not him, who then?)
The Mountain Meadows Massacre (Did John Lee and his associates do it alone, or were they under orders from Salt Lake City?).
The Assassination of King Gustavus III of Sweden (Verdi's "THE MASKED BALL" plot).
The Murder of Sir Edmundberry Godfrey (by Catholics, by Protestants, or by the mad Earl of Pembroke).

As for the death of King William Rufus in 1100, as Conan Doyle might have made Professor Moriarty say, "Deer me, Mr. Holmes, Deer me!"

Jeff

[Robert]

"Apparently, Watson, an arrow glanced off a tree and struck Rufus dead."

"What kind of tree, Holmes?"

"A lemon tree, my dear Watson."

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

Let us not forget these chestnuts too:

JFK's Assassination (take your pick )
Martin Luther King's Assassination
Malcolm X's Assassination (were the right people "caught" and sent to prison).
The Lindbergh Kidnap - Murder (Was Hauptmann involved at all or a fall guy; if involved who else helped him (i.e.:who was Isidor Fisch?); if not him, who then?)
The Mountain Meadows Massacre (Did John Lee and his associates do it alone, or were they under orders from Salt Lake City?).
The Assassination of King Gustavus III of Sweden (Verdi's "THE MASKED BALL" plot).
The Murder of Sir Edmundberry Godfrey (by Catholics, by Protestants, or by the mad Earl of Pembroke).

As for the death of King William Rufus in 1100, as Conan Doyle might have made Professor Moriarty say, "Deer me, Mr. Holmes, Deer me!"

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

JFK and MLK have been done to death, but I still have a passing interest in the Lindbergh Kidnap, and these days I'm more or less convinced that Hauptmann was the man.

Sir Edmundberry Godfrey? Never heard of him! Great name, great plot!

Best,

Graham

[Graham]

"Apparently, Watson, an arrow glanced off a tree and struck Rufus dead."

"What kind of tree, Holmes?"

"A lemon tree, my dear Watson."

"It seems, Holmes, that the man who should've been guarding William was high on the 11th century equivalent of a spliff".

"A mellow sentry, Watson".

Graham

[Mayerling]

Hi Graham,

The Popish Plot of 1676 was brought out by the totally untrustworthy Titus Oates, a defrocked Catholic clergyman (he claimed - he probably lied: he usually lied). Oates was working for Lord Shaftesbury and the Whigs to replace Charles II's brother James, Duke of York with his so-called illegitimate sone James, Duke of Monmouth and Bucclueth. Charles was determined to keep his brother (a legitimate Stuart) as heir. Charles II was a pretty smart guy. He questioned Oates and other informers of the plot, and realized they were lying (Charles had secretly practiced Catholicism for years, and knew the crap that Oates was spreading for what it was). But to quiet Shaftesbury
and Monmouth he had the papers that Oates and his fellow informers signed as their testimony given to a leading magistrate: Sir Edmundberry Godfrey. Godfrey began studying his papers, but suddenly he began acting very scared. He did not say why. They he vanished. His corpse was found with a sword through his body and signs of wax on his clothing as well as evidence of being beaten - even kicked. The body was found on Greenberry Hill. Eventually Charles decided to let the Whigs go to far. They started an anti Catholic movement that led to the trials of three men named Green, Berry, and Hill (yes really), who were executed for treason and killing Justice Godfrey. For two years Sharftesbury and his men ran amuck, until the public began to question the truthfulness of Oates and his pals. Charles was wise - the public turned on them and Shaftesbury.

The reason that it remains a great mystery was because we don't know if Sir Edmundberry was killed by Catholics he was investigating, Protestants (led by Oates), or a personal enemy. John Dickson Carr did a study of the murder, and he found that Godfrey had served on a trial as magistrate, and saw it was fair. The perpetrator was a violent alcoholic, the Earl of Pembroke, who was probably responsible for beating to death five men. He had a personal signature, known as the "Pembroke Kick", where he would walk over and kick the victims he killed to death. The marks on Godfrey's body were identical to Pembroke's typical work.

That is the story of this tragedy.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Some time after the mourning period for King William Rufus passed, did they throw a stag party?