Tweet
Two reviews from amazons books regarding Stephens Knight ''The Final Solution'' . I thought id post them here to let others see them, as they might reach a wider Ripperolgist audience.
Ive put in bold some interesting points.
REVIEW 1 .''Despite some holes, this book makes the most sense''.
Ever had a nagging doubt about all the earlier proposed "solutions"? Like most, I never thought of more than one person being involved. While not obsessed over the Ripper's identity, I've read a lot of books over the years and always came away with the feeling that the author hadn't made a convincing case. This one does. Knight gets a lot of flak, but to me he got most of it right, and the book crystallized the many "but whys?". At worst, color me "Gullible".
I gave it four stars because of Knight's tip 'o the derby research that unearthed info all the other "experts" missed. Namely, the common threads that while the bodies of the victims were scattered, all five lived within a hundred yards of each other and two visited the same pub (Britannia). With over 1,200 known prostitutes in Whitechapel (73,518 est. population in 1889), what are the odds they had something in common, besides their profession? (I'd like to see some statistician work on this. See Chap 9 "All roads lead to Dorset Street".) If not a Victorian version of Watergate, it was SOMETHING.
I had a face-palm moment when Knight reproduced the only letter suspected of being from the real Ripper. He pointed out something that slid by me and all the others - the writer was an educated man making believe he wasn't. Two instances: knife spelled 'knif" when, if he really was uneducated, would have been more apt to write "nife" and "wile" rather than "whil". Yes, it could have been just an educated crackpot, but it surely wasn't by some of the Rippers proposed by others. That's the kind of attention to detail which sold me on this book.
Much has been made of Joseph Sickert recanting his story, claiming it was all made up. I don't think so. One wonders, even at that late date, if someone gave him an "offer he couldn't refuse". His postscript to this book in 1984 shows no sign that he was unhappy with the "Third Man" conclusion and in fact, accepted it. Consider:
1) Knight was vectored to him via a member of Scotland Yard, who, unless he was in on the scam, had reason to believe Joseph had info.
2) He mentioned Netley, evidence of whom was only found after some deep digging (birth cert and newspaper article of his death) and the item of the Mary's child being run over. Again, what are the odds of Joseph knowing that? If he did know, he was placing an awful lot of faith in Knight or his team finding it.
3) He was very reluctant to tell his story, and almost had a cow when a potential book was mentioned. If he was making it up, he was too coy by half. Too many of his claims checked out. The flip side is why would, or how could Knight make all this up? Most of his theory holds up.
His claim of Masonic Overtones refuted, but note the similarities:
1) Ritual method of killings and mutilations.
2) Locations like Mitre square and Hanbury Street (Masonic lodges there).
3) Eddowe's cut apron (allusion to the Masonic apron - a little iffy here)
4) Coins and rings at the feet of one victim (representing columns of Solomon's Temple).
5) While too much can be read into these "random" clues, what other associations could be attached to them? The symbolisms are too many to be coincidental.
6) Obligations of other Masons to protect their members. (Royal Arch and above oaths.) What other common thread among officials could there be that would force them to cover up a crime, no matter how heinous??
His claim of officials covering up evidence:
1) Most of the upper level of the ruling classes belonged to the Masons, although I suspect it was more due to wanting to get on the inside track for advancement, or perhaps it was expected of them. Nothing sinister in itself. It's still being done today.
2) Removal of Masonic symbolisms, such as the coins and rings at feet of one victim. It was reported in the newspapers at the time and Rumbelow (author) mentioned it once in passing. To me, it was significant.
3) Over-the-top interference by inquest coroners to suppress anything that smacked of a Masonic tie-in.
4) Royal Arch Masons and above were obliged to protect fellow members even in the case of murder or treason (I looked this up as I thought it a lot of baloney. Lots of mystical mumbo-jumbo there.) I was surprised that The Royal Arch was only the seventh degree as I thought it was much higher, so when you consider there are 33 degrees (depending upon which sect), all the upper echelon were in a bind - I can imagine major face-palms when the clues started popping up.
5) The "Juwes" graffiti seems to be a false interpretation. But why was it erased when the offending word could have been scrubbed out, or the whole thing covered up? Why no photographs allowed to be taken? This seems to be a red herring tie-in but the circumstances are suspicious.
6) Refusing to allow the probable eye-witness of Stride's murderer to testify at her inquest.
His claim of Gull's involvement refuted:
1) Clairvoyant Lee's statements about Gull refuted - It could well have been the malarky so prevalent in that game - except for Gull's granddaughter innocently mentioning a strikingly similar episode. Again, where's that statistician?
2) His preference for grapes. Pretty far out as a connection, except that a stem originally found in one victim's hand was removed and evidently swept into the drain, (still a stretch), but - the non-follow-up of a fruit vendor's testimony who said he sold grapes to a man just before one of the murders. Why, when it could have been anyone?
3) His stroke did not incapacitate him to the point of inactivity. The Straw Man theory that he was too enfeebled to attack the girls. If the women were sedated by the grapes, and Gull was in the carriage, he didn't have to attack them.
4) Gull's death faked. Gravesite supposedly large enough to hold three bodies, hiding that Gull died later than advertised and buried for real. Not gonna happen, but ground radar would prove/disprove that there were more than two. Maybe not conclusive, but then who is No. 3 if only two are claimed?
His claim of Walter Sickert's involvement:
1) Others at the time distantly mentioned Sickert, so it wasn't as off-the-wall as I had thought. In 1970 Dr. Thomas Stowell claimed that he had identified the murderer from private papers of Sir William Gull, saying the suspect was 'S'. A few days later he died (of what cause?) and all his notes burned by his family. Now, he had 25 other letters to pick from, yet he chose "S"? Then he dies a few days after going public and all his info burned? Can "they" still have that much power 80 years later?
2) Interesting interpretations of Sickert's dual/odd painting titles, especially "Blackmail", "La Hollandaise" and "Amphytrion" that alluded to the murders. If guilty of participating or even just enabling, it was the only way to let off steam without incurring the wrath of those behind the scenes. The guy seemed obsessive with the Ripper over and above the usual lurid interest these types of murders engender. See Marjorie Lilly's comments in "Sickert, the Painter and His Circle".
3) Patricia Cornwell wrote a sloppy book on this (Portrait Of A Killer: Jack The Ripper), using DNA sampling. But, to my disgust, didn't give any credit to Knight for mentioning this angle.
Holes/questions:
1) The laws of royal succession forbade a catholic from gaining the throne, so why suppress the news that Eddy married a Catholic, unless the upper echelon were afraid of the anti-Catholic kickback of the public.
2) If the butchery was done in the carriage, how did they keep the gore from leaking out? It seems to me that a carriage dripping blood would have raised a hue and cry, even on general principles.
3) Some buildings Knight referred to didn't exist at the time.
4) Sickert was supposed to have been in France in the autumn of 1888.
Read the book and consider if Knight's interpretation doesn't make more sense than all those "lone gunman" scenarios proposed by other writers.
REVIEW 2 . ''A modern horror classic versus the "ripperologists"!
Whether the book is true or not is, (for me), besides the point...although my gut feeling is that it is largely true; so much of it checks out with the known facts. The more Stephen Knight checked into Sickerts story, painstakingly researching into each and every detail Sickert had related, the more it seemed to check out. And there was no way Sickert could have learned all the details he was giving Knight unless he had heard it from someone with first-hand knowledge. ( which was the tip-off that had exposed his father Walter as the 'third man').
But one thing seems certain; Stephen Knight and Joseph Sickert themselves certainly believed it, this was no con-man job.
What Stephen Knight certainly DID achieve was a classic of modern horror tale, ranking with 'Frankenstein'; 'Dracula'; 'Dr Jekyll & Mister Hyde'; 'The Invisible Man'; etc.. The thought of 3 fiends, like those in his book, roaming the streets of gas-lit Victorian London, nonchalantly stalking and murdering their five intended victims one at a time until they got to the ultimate target, and dissecting the corpses in such a ghastly manner- as if such a bloody, defiled, hideously butchered 'Jezebel' had some profound symbolic significance for them..... it unsettles my stomach, and it even angers me. The absolute arrogance they had, the lack of feeling they must have had for these women (and for the people who they knew would end up discovering the mutilated bodies), is disturbing itself. What is equally frightening is the thought of police & high-level participation, even guidance. I mean, would William Gull be the mastermind, or was he only a unhinged weapon in the hands of a conspiracy of power that had absolutely no respect for the lives or feelings of the people they were supposed to protect? I know one thing though, if they actually HAD been so callous, this wouldn't have been the ONLY time they had done something so horrible, it would have taken practice.
I first became aware of this book in 1988, when the late Stephen Knight appeared in an Australian TV special on the book which was then being shown in America on Public TV, and it blew me away. I then read the book. It has since been the inspiration for a television mini-series starring Michael Cain, and a popular graphic novel and film; "FROM HELL" starring Johnny Depp. ( an awful movie. It is sad that this is what is to be expected from modern Hollywood, in the wake of MTV I guess. Embarrassing, especially compared to the really good films that were being made just 30 years earlier. 'Senselessly Gratuitous', those are the words that sum up 'modern' film making.) A couple years after Knights book had first come out, in 1979, it had inspired one of the very best Sherlock Holmes movies; 'Murder By Decree', with James Mason as Watson. ... I always wondered what Stephen Knight thought of that film. But its good for him he did not survive to see 'FROM HELL'! That movie was as bad as all the 'ripperologists' words combined.
After Stephen Knights early death, (in July 1985, at 33) his book, "Jack The Ripper, The Final Solution" became massively popular, which caused England's "ripperologist" community (who Knight had little respect for) to view it as a threat, ( I think they were just jealous of it) and to attempt to discredit him at every opportunity (something they never did while Knight was still living, by the way). They did this by getting his major source, Joseph Sickert, to publicly disclaim Knight ( they did this by provoking Sickert, reminding him how Knight had pointed the finger of guilt at Josephs father, Walter, which was, I think, the only instance where Knight had deviated from Sickerts account) It was extremely petty. They then rewarded Joseph Sickert for helping them in their attempt to discredit Knight by refusing to call him Sickert anymore, and then by telling the world that not only had his Father, Walter lied to him, but that it was doubtful that he was even related to his own Dad at all. (It makes calling his Father a part of the conspiracy seem small by comparison, right?) But that is how petty these 'ripperologists' are it seems, people like Phillip Sugden and Paul Begg, Donald Rumblow, etc etc. They like to tell us how Knights book is riddled with inaccuracies, but then they never offer any corroborating proof that it is in fact wrong on almost anything at all, instead they ridicule it by making things up:..... Gull was not even a Mason they claim; Joseph Sickert is not Walters son; John Netley never existed....these are some of the lies that these 'ripperologists' have been compelled to make-up, due to their resentment of Stephen Knights book. ( If Joseph weren't Walters son, then why did Joseph become so upset when Knight claimed Walter was the 'third man'?? He never forgave him for that either, Joseph felt betrayed by Knight, and seemed to get even more upset about it as time went on.) If Walter Sickert WASN'T Josephs biological father, he sure must have TREATED him like his son, and made Joseph either believe he was, or wish that he was. Most people will agree that this is just as important as BEING his actual biological father. But regardless, it has no bearing on what he told Joseph about the ripper!
I mean, I would not be surprised to hear from these 'ripperologists' next that there has never, in England's entire history, been any anti Catholic feeling from the Royal family or British establishment whatsoever, and how dare Steven Knight ever imply such a thing! Or maybe they will claim that Freemasonry has always prided itself on its absolute transparency, and all this talk about secret rituals and hazings is nothing but rumor and innuendo, because Freemasonry and its members have never had any secrets from anybody in their entire history!
And isn't it kind of ironic that these 'ripperologists', (or whatever they like to call themselves), isn't it ironic that they end up resenting the person and the book that has been responsible for making 'Jack The Ripper' such a controversial, even popular subject since the 1970's? I mean, if it weren't for Stephen Knight and this book of his that has made the 'ripperologists' feel so threatened and jealous, their own books wouldn't be selling even a fraction of the copies that they now do I bet. Not only that, but if it hadn't been for Stephen Knight, some of these so-called 'Ripperologists' wouldn't even have ever become interested in 'Jack The Ripper' in the first place, along with so many of the rest of us who now find the Whitechaple murders so compelling. And the book has had an equal impact on the arts as well, inspiring untold writers, film-makers, the Theater, etc.. We should be thanking Stephen Knight, not trying to discredit and ridicule him, that's my feeling! Because more than anything else, it has been the films, both Television films and theatrical releases - based on this theory set down by Stephen Knight in his engrossing book - that has made the story of 'Jack The Ripper' far more popular now, from the mid 1970s until today, than it had ever been in the 90 years before it. The films that name Sir ( Dr. ) William Withey Gull as the chief ripper.
And by constantly wanting to ridicule Stephen Knight, these 'ripperologists' have told us a lot more truth about themselves than they ever have about either Knight, OR about 'Jack The Ripper'! But again, this is only my opinion about it
The 'ripperologists' are the same people who tell us that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.F.K. The same people who will prove to you that Sirhan Sirhan couldn't have killed Bobby Kennedy, and they will tell you you are a fool if you believe he did. The Ripper crimes will never be solved for one reason: the "Ripperologists"! They claim to be the people who are trying to solve the crime, when in fact they are the very people who will prevent the crimes from ever being solved, because they will attack and ridicule any theory that they themselves didn't come up with. The crime has almost surely already been solved long ago, only the ripperologist has scoffed at the answer, laughed at the 'foolishness' of the person who solved it. And now the ripperologist smugly sits on his throne, feeling safe in the knowledge that he will always appear smarter than the person who is smarter than he ( or she ) is. And in this instance, regarding 'Jack The Ripper', the person who is smarter than they are was Stephen Knight.
Ive put in bold some interesting points.
REVIEW 1 .''Despite some holes, this book makes the most sense''.
Ever had a nagging doubt about all the earlier proposed "solutions"? Like most, I never thought of more than one person being involved. While not obsessed over the Ripper's identity, I've read a lot of books over the years and always came away with the feeling that the author hadn't made a convincing case. This one does. Knight gets a lot of flak, but to me he got most of it right, and the book crystallized the many "but whys?". At worst, color me "Gullible".
I gave it four stars because of Knight's tip 'o the derby research that unearthed info all the other "experts" missed. Namely, the common threads that while the bodies of the victims were scattered, all five lived within a hundred yards of each other and two visited the same pub (Britannia). With over 1,200 known prostitutes in Whitechapel (73,518 est. population in 1889), what are the odds they had something in common, besides their profession? (I'd like to see some statistician work on this. See Chap 9 "All roads lead to Dorset Street".) If not a Victorian version of Watergate, it was SOMETHING.
I had a face-palm moment when Knight reproduced the only letter suspected of being from the real Ripper. He pointed out something that slid by me and all the others - the writer was an educated man making believe he wasn't. Two instances: knife spelled 'knif" when, if he really was uneducated, would have been more apt to write "nife" and "wile" rather than "whil". Yes, it could have been just an educated crackpot, but it surely wasn't by some of the Rippers proposed by others. That's the kind of attention to detail which sold me on this book.
Much has been made of Joseph Sickert recanting his story, claiming it was all made up. I don't think so. One wonders, even at that late date, if someone gave him an "offer he couldn't refuse". His postscript to this book in 1984 shows no sign that he was unhappy with the "Third Man" conclusion and in fact, accepted it. Consider:
1) Knight was vectored to him via a member of Scotland Yard, who, unless he was in on the scam, had reason to believe Joseph had info.
2) He mentioned Netley, evidence of whom was only found after some deep digging (birth cert and newspaper article of his death) and the item of the Mary's child being run over. Again, what are the odds of Joseph knowing that? If he did know, he was placing an awful lot of faith in Knight or his team finding it.
3) He was very reluctant to tell his story, and almost had a cow when a potential book was mentioned. If he was making it up, he was too coy by half. Too many of his claims checked out. The flip side is why would, or how could Knight make all this up? Most of his theory holds up.
His claim of Masonic Overtones refuted, but note the similarities:
1) Ritual method of killings and mutilations.
2) Locations like Mitre square and Hanbury Street (Masonic lodges there).
3) Eddowe's cut apron (allusion to the Masonic apron - a little iffy here)
4) Coins and rings at the feet of one victim (representing columns of Solomon's Temple).
5) While too much can be read into these "random" clues, what other associations could be attached to them? The symbolisms are too many to be coincidental.
6) Obligations of other Masons to protect their members. (Royal Arch and above oaths.) What other common thread among officials could there be that would force them to cover up a crime, no matter how heinous??
His claim of officials covering up evidence:
1) Most of the upper level of the ruling classes belonged to the Masons, although I suspect it was more due to wanting to get on the inside track for advancement, or perhaps it was expected of them. Nothing sinister in itself. It's still being done today.
2) Removal of Masonic symbolisms, such as the coins and rings at feet of one victim. It was reported in the newspapers at the time and Rumbelow (author) mentioned it once in passing. To me, it was significant.
3) Over-the-top interference by inquest coroners to suppress anything that smacked of a Masonic tie-in.
4) Royal Arch Masons and above were obliged to protect fellow members even in the case of murder or treason (I looked this up as I thought it a lot of baloney. Lots of mystical mumbo-jumbo there.) I was surprised that The Royal Arch was only the seventh degree as I thought it was much higher, so when you consider there are 33 degrees (depending upon which sect), all the upper echelon were in a bind - I can imagine major face-palms when the clues started popping up.
5) The "Juwes" graffiti seems to be a false interpretation. But why was it erased when the offending word could have been scrubbed out, or the whole thing covered up? Why no photographs allowed to be taken? This seems to be a red herring tie-in but the circumstances are suspicious.
6) Refusing to allow the probable eye-witness of Stride's murderer to testify at her inquest.
His claim of Gull's involvement refuted:
1) Clairvoyant Lee's statements about Gull refuted - It could well have been the malarky so prevalent in that game - except for Gull's granddaughter innocently mentioning a strikingly similar episode. Again, where's that statistician?
2) His preference for grapes. Pretty far out as a connection, except that a stem originally found in one victim's hand was removed and evidently swept into the drain, (still a stretch), but - the non-follow-up of a fruit vendor's testimony who said he sold grapes to a man just before one of the murders. Why, when it could have been anyone?
3) His stroke did not incapacitate him to the point of inactivity. The Straw Man theory that he was too enfeebled to attack the girls. If the women were sedated by the grapes, and Gull was in the carriage, he didn't have to attack them.
4) Gull's death faked. Gravesite supposedly large enough to hold three bodies, hiding that Gull died later than advertised and buried for real. Not gonna happen, but ground radar would prove/disprove that there were more than two. Maybe not conclusive, but then who is No. 3 if only two are claimed?
His claim of Walter Sickert's involvement:
1) Others at the time distantly mentioned Sickert, so it wasn't as off-the-wall as I had thought. In 1970 Dr. Thomas Stowell claimed that he had identified the murderer from private papers of Sir William Gull, saying the suspect was 'S'. A few days later he died (of what cause?) and all his notes burned by his family. Now, he had 25 other letters to pick from, yet he chose "S"? Then he dies a few days after going public and all his info burned? Can "they" still have that much power 80 years later?
2) Interesting interpretations of Sickert's dual/odd painting titles, especially "Blackmail", "La Hollandaise" and "Amphytrion" that alluded to the murders. If guilty of participating or even just enabling, it was the only way to let off steam without incurring the wrath of those behind the scenes. The guy seemed obsessive with the Ripper over and above the usual lurid interest these types of murders engender. See Marjorie Lilly's comments in "Sickert, the Painter and His Circle".
3) Patricia Cornwell wrote a sloppy book on this (Portrait Of A Killer: Jack The Ripper), using DNA sampling. But, to my disgust, didn't give any credit to Knight for mentioning this angle.
Holes/questions:
1) The laws of royal succession forbade a catholic from gaining the throne, so why suppress the news that Eddy married a Catholic, unless the upper echelon were afraid of the anti-Catholic kickback of the public.
2) If the butchery was done in the carriage, how did they keep the gore from leaking out? It seems to me that a carriage dripping blood would have raised a hue and cry, even on general principles.
3) Some buildings Knight referred to didn't exist at the time.
4) Sickert was supposed to have been in France in the autumn of 1888.
Read the book and consider if Knight's interpretation doesn't make more sense than all those "lone gunman" scenarios proposed by other writers.
REVIEW 2 . ''A modern horror classic versus the "ripperologists"!
Whether the book is true or not is, (for me), besides the point...although my gut feeling is that it is largely true; so much of it checks out with the known facts. The more Stephen Knight checked into Sickerts story, painstakingly researching into each and every detail Sickert had related, the more it seemed to check out. And there was no way Sickert could have learned all the details he was giving Knight unless he had heard it from someone with first-hand knowledge. ( which was the tip-off that had exposed his father Walter as the 'third man').
But one thing seems certain; Stephen Knight and Joseph Sickert themselves certainly believed it, this was no con-man job.
What Stephen Knight certainly DID achieve was a classic of modern horror tale, ranking with 'Frankenstein'; 'Dracula'; 'Dr Jekyll & Mister Hyde'; 'The Invisible Man'; etc.. The thought of 3 fiends, like those in his book, roaming the streets of gas-lit Victorian London, nonchalantly stalking and murdering their five intended victims one at a time until they got to the ultimate target, and dissecting the corpses in such a ghastly manner- as if such a bloody, defiled, hideously butchered 'Jezebel' had some profound symbolic significance for them..... it unsettles my stomach, and it even angers me. The absolute arrogance they had, the lack of feeling they must have had for these women (and for the people who they knew would end up discovering the mutilated bodies), is disturbing itself. What is equally frightening is the thought of police & high-level participation, even guidance. I mean, would William Gull be the mastermind, or was he only a unhinged weapon in the hands of a conspiracy of power that had absolutely no respect for the lives or feelings of the people they were supposed to protect? I know one thing though, if they actually HAD been so callous, this wouldn't have been the ONLY time they had done something so horrible, it would have taken practice.
I first became aware of this book in 1988, when the late Stephen Knight appeared in an Australian TV special on the book which was then being shown in America on Public TV, and it blew me away. I then read the book. It has since been the inspiration for a television mini-series starring Michael Cain, and a popular graphic novel and film; "FROM HELL" starring Johnny Depp. ( an awful movie. It is sad that this is what is to be expected from modern Hollywood, in the wake of MTV I guess. Embarrassing, especially compared to the really good films that were being made just 30 years earlier. 'Senselessly Gratuitous', those are the words that sum up 'modern' film making.) A couple years after Knights book had first come out, in 1979, it had inspired one of the very best Sherlock Holmes movies; 'Murder By Decree', with James Mason as Watson. ... I always wondered what Stephen Knight thought of that film. But its good for him he did not survive to see 'FROM HELL'! That movie was as bad as all the 'ripperologists' words combined.
After Stephen Knights early death, (in July 1985, at 33) his book, "Jack The Ripper, The Final Solution" became massively popular, which caused England's "ripperologist" community (who Knight had little respect for) to view it as a threat, ( I think they were just jealous of it) and to attempt to discredit him at every opportunity (something they never did while Knight was still living, by the way). They did this by getting his major source, Joseph Sickert, to publicly disclaim Knight ( they did this by provoking Sickert, reminding him how Knight had pointed the finger of guilt at Josephs father, Walter, which was, I think, the only instance where Knight had deviated from Sickerts account) It was extremely petty. They then rewarded Joseph Sickert for helping them in their attempt to discredit Knight by refusing to call him Sickert anymore, and then by telling the world that not only had his Father, Walter lied to him, but that it was doubtful that he was even related to his own Dad at all. (It makes calling his Father a part of the conspiracy seem small by comparison, right?) But that is how petty these 'ripperologists' are it seems, people like Phillip Sugden and Paul Begg, Donald Rumblow, etc etc. They like to tell us how Knights book is riddled with inaccuracies, but then they never offer any corroborating proof that it is in fact wrong on almost anything at all, instead they ridicule it by making things up:..... Gull was not even a Mason they claim; Joseph Sickert is not Walters son; John Netley never existed....these are some of the lies that these 'ripperologists' have been compelled to make-up, due to their resentment of Stephen Knights book. ( If Joseph weren't Walters son, then why did Joseph become so upset when Knight claimed Walter was the 'third man'?? He never forgave him for that either, Joseph felt betrayed by Knight, and seemed to get even more upset about it as time went on.) If Walter Sickert WASN'T Josephs biological father, he sure must have TREATED him like his son, and made Joseph either believe he was, or wish that he was. Most people will agree that this is just as important as BEING his actual biological father. But regardless, it has no bearing on what he told Joseph about the ripper!
I mean, I would not be surprised to hear from these 'ripperologists' next that there has never, in England's entire history, been any anti Catholic feeling from the Royal family or British establishment whatsoever, and how dare Steven Knight ever imply such a thing! Or maybe they will claim that Freemasonry has always prided itself on its absolute transparency, and all this talk about secret rituals and hazings is nothing but rumor and innuendo, because Freemasonry and its members have never had any secrets from anybody in their entire history!
And isn't it kind of ironic that these 'ripperologists', (or whatever they like to call themselves), isn't it ironic that they end up resenting the person and the book that has been responsible for making 'Jack The Ripper' such a controversial, even popular subject since the 1970's? I mean, if it weren't for Stephen Knight and this book of his that has made the 'ripperologists' feel so threatened and jealous, their own books wouldn't be selling even a fraction of the copies that they now do I bet. Not only that, but if it hadn't been for Stephen Knight, some of these so-called 'Ripperologists' wouldn't even have ever become interested in 'Jack The Ripper' in the first place, along with so many of the rest of us who now find the Whitechaple murders so compelling. And the book has had an equal impact on the arts as well, inspiring untold writers, film-makers, the Theater, etc.. We should be thanking Stephen Knight, not trying to discredit and ridicule him, that's my feeling! Because more than anything else, it has been the films, both Television films and theatrical releases - based on this theory set down by Stephen Knight in his engrossing book - that has made the story of 'Jack The Ripper' far more popular now, from the mid 1970s until today, than it had ever been in the 90 years before it. The films that name Sir ( Dr. ) William Withey Gull as the chief ripper.
And by constantly wanting to ridicule Stephen Knight, these 'ripperologists' have told us a lot more truth about themselves than they ever have about either Knight, OR about 'Jack The Ripper'! But again, this is only my opinion about it
The 'ripperologists' are the same people who tell us that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.F.K. The same people who will prove to you that Sirhan Sirhan couldn't have killed Bobby Kennedy, and they will tell you you are a fool if you believe he did. The Ripper crimes will never be solved for one reason: the "Ripperologists"! They claim to be the people who are trying to solve the crime, when in fact they are the very people who will prevent the crimes from ever being solved, because they will attack and ridicule any theory that they themselves didn't come up with. The crime has almost surely already been solved long ago, only the ripperologist has scoffed at the answer, laughed at the 'foolishness' of the person who solved it. And now the ripperologist smugly sits on his throne, feeling safe in the knowledge that he will always appear smarter than the person who is smarter than he ( or she ) is. And in this instance, regarding 'Jack The Ripper', the person who is smarter than they are was Stephen Knight.
Comment