No announcement yet.

They All Love Jack Review

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • They All Love Jack Review

    THEY ALL LOVE JACK This book is the absolute finest, most thorough investigation of JTR and his relationship to Freemasonry. Robinson convinced me and has now made all my books on JTR useless.

    Robertson names his candidate for JTR, and then makes a strong case for JTR’s obsession with CharlesWarren.


    I suggest that JTR knew something ugly, damaging and horrific about Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, Sir Charles Warren. If, as Robertson suggests, Warren was the true target of the entire Funny Little Game, what did JTR have on Warren? Had JTR served under Warren and saw him commit an atrocity? Was JTR recreating a scene only Warren would have recognized? Forget the Freemason Oath, if JTR was caught he might tell where the inspiration came for the crimes – the actions of Sir Charles Warren.


    “In 1887 he went berserk on the back of a horse in London’s West End, and shafted the riff-raff as if he was up a delta in Matabeleland. It was in Africa only two years before that Warren had lost the plot. The Prime Minister didn’t have a lot of time for ethnics, but so alarmed was Salisbury at Warren’s ‘overzealousness’ in Bechuanaland Protectorate that in September 1885 he personally recalled him. ‘His continuance in power was a real danger,’ Salisbury wrote, and this ‘danger’ returned to London to be appointed Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.”


    What if there had been a whispering campaign in the Lodges that there would be signs and symbols announcing the coming of some Freemason event? There would be no need for Warren to actively suppress evidence at every turn since every Freemason would know his part in the drama. Clearly the large group of police and officials that were involved in covering up the Freemasonry symbolism was huge. Did every Freemason know his role in the cover-up?


    We now know that serial killers have “profiles”, take trophies and have signatures. We must look at JTR in the context of “profiling” and especially the factor of “staging”.

    Taking away body parts indicates that JTR had the means to hide what he took and to keep them secure. If JTR wasn’t an aristocrat with the means to have an area completely private, he was a man with means, non-transient housing and no interruptions as he planned his crimes. He was not going from place to place carrying bottles of body parts. So what happened to everything after JTR died? Someone found the evidence, someone has JTR memorabilia.

    All the JTR murders were staged and designed with a purpose. Robinson has uncovered the mystery of why JTR was intentionally never caught and gives the reader an absolute picture of London during this time. The only people of significance in London were the aristocrats. And the aristocrats were all linked by a Freemason oath.


    Robertson insulted every JTR book ever written, so I am sure he has gotten many angry emails questioning his claims. I have questions for Robertson that it appears none of the hundreds of writers on JTR have noted.

    Regarding the address on the October 4, 1888 letter to Charles Warren. I noticed the unusual spacing. The “S” spacing from “Scotland” which appears as “S cotland”, the spacing separating the word “London” which is “Lon don”.

    As this seems to be a stylistic feature of JTR, could he have used spacing in writing “JUWES” ? Would the spacing have meant something more occult (alchemy, Kabbalah, sigils, whatever) rather then the obvious combination of the 3 assassin’s names? Since the writing was never photographed, we have no way of knowing the spacing. We do not know how JTR formed the letters. Did he form the letters in a special way? Would he have taunted Warren by writing the “W” on the wall in a way to point to him? Is this why the writing was washed away?


    On the envelope, the “W” of “Warren” is carefully and beautifully constructed. Well, “JUWES” also has a “w”. I suggest there is a connection.

    The writer of the envelope takes a lot of time forming the “F” of “From” and the “Y”, the “A”, The “C”, the “K” and the “R”. What does this mean? It has a meaning if we follow Robinson’s theory of JTR using codes and symbols. The letters are styled differently. Do they have an occult meaning?

    If the lettering is significant, then JTR was a sophisticated occultist and so many candidates for JTR must be removed from the long list of “half-wit” suspects.

    The word “MURDER”on the envelope is very different and thicker from the flourishes of the rest of the address. The lines under the word descend to a dot. I know what this appears to me, what does it mean to Robinson and his extensive research? What does it appear to look like to Casebook ripperologists? Since JTR would know the significance of anything he wrote, I do not think he just scribbled on the envelope.

    Question regarding the two “X’s” at the bottom of the envelope. From JTR’s hand or through the handling of the envelope over the years?

    Mr Robinson, do you have a copy of Charles Warren’s signature? Did JTR design the “W” once again mocking Warren by letting him know he was familiar with his signature? All the police in the department would have recognized the similarity.

    I conclude that the letters of “JUWES” were intentionally spaced and meant something perhaps more significant than the “slang” reference to Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum. Where is the original paper where the words were FIRST written down?


    I agree with Robertson and would suggest considering just how many people had the time, pen and paper and place to write a letter? If the poverty level was as quoted, people living in London were far more concerned with looking for a few pennies for a bed instead of spending money on paper and pencils. What percentage of Londoners would have enjoyed the pastime of writing hoax letters?


    Before JTR, how quickly were stranger murders solved? Were the police often called to vicious crimes? Was their incompetency ever questioned before JTR?


    The style of writing is nasty, enjoyable and lots of fun. Robertson gives no Ripperologist a pass. He condemns and humiliates all of them! Bravo! His descriptive language is delightfully colorful and should infuriate the entire industry of Rippermania. This is the definitive, highly detailed book on JTR and solves the mystery of why no public identification of JTR was ever provided. Even though the reputation of Scotland Yard was severely damaged worldwide, they still let the killer go. The world has known for 100 years that Scotland Yard never caught JTR. What an embarrassment! There had to be a very good reason, as Robertson offers. The word conspiracy now has a negative meaning – everything is a conspiracy – so Ripperologists labeling Robertson’s book as “The Freemason Conspiracy” is a convenient distraction that belittles the definitive research Robertson has done.

    I have always wondered what Oscar Wilde, and all the other Golden Dawn luminaries of the time, thought about JTR. Think of Jeffrey Epstein, so many people knew what was going on and who was involved. Consider how many women passed through Harvey Weinstein’s hotel suite? Imagine how many A list actresses and failed hopeful actresses had to submit to him. All of The Industry knew. Gossip about the identity of JTR must have been rampart. Has a collection of famous people’s opinions on JTR been assembled?


    A recent documentary on Leonardo da Vinci detailed the new forensic research that has been done on the Mona Lisa. The ability of the new technology to go deep into the many layers of the painting should now be used to examine the writing on the Goulston Street wall. The Mona Lisa was painted centuries ago, so if the wall is kept somewhere or an original photograph is available, the JUWES writing can easily be uncovered. Was it just rubbed off or scrubbed clean? What happened to it?


    Mary Jane Kelly Murder Scene. A closer examination of an original photograph of the scene with state-of-the-art equipment will uncover what JTR wrote on the wall in her blood. It would have been too seductive for JTR’s ego to pass up. So, why hasn’t this been done? During the time, JTR was already a sensation, who has the wall?


    “An American newspaper got a whiff of some ‘writing on the wall’ of the room, and there is evidence of this in blood, but since Arnold was inexplicably absent at the inquest, we’ll never know if his sponge had been busy in there.” Another message from JTR destroyed intentionally.


    According to his testimony under oath, Joseph Lawende said he gave someone a description of JTR. What happened to that piece of paper?


    How long could JTR present himself as normal? If as Robertson claims, JTR was Michael Maybrick, how could he maintain his busy singing career and engage in what must have been a messy, foul-smelling killing without leaving psychological clues littered all over the place for people who knew him. His abnormal sexual impulses must have been known to his colleagues. His psychopathy must have been leaking in every direction. There must have been traces of his crimes on his clothes, strands of hair, bits of flesh and the smell of death around him.

    All comments from esteem members are very welcomed. Victoria Alexander,

  • #2
    Hi kwanitaka,

    Before continuing, could you please decide on the author's surname.


    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.


    • #3
      I have long been intrigued by the coincidence of the date of the final JTR murder and the resignation of Sir Charles Warren. Also Warren's eagerness to erase the GSG, with the reason given exceptionally weak in the circumstances. A well researched book exploring Warren's connection to the murders would be intriguing. Is this that book?


      • #4
        Its totally bonkers!

        Best wishes,



        • #5
          good lord. another wackadoodle
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe

          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline


          • #6
            I really enjoyed this book too, Kwanitaka!

            I'm not convinced by Robinson's spectacularly convoluted and intricate theory.

            His attempts to relate everything (in minute detail) to Freemasonry had the feel of shoe-horning, but that said, I really loved the righteous anger and vitriol with which he writes.

            I thought it was a great read.


            • #7
              I got the book yesterday. It is a must read to be honest. I have read just over two thirds in, and am convinced by his arguments and research that the police were obstructing justice as well as other professionals involved. I do not agree that Michael Maybrick hated Freemasonry. Because I am of the mind that the Ripper diary is a decoy, a detailed confession that would be "found" if Maybrick were ever caught. It would be strongly argued, as it is today, that his motive was enraged jealousy and hatred of women caused by his wife's affairs. The real reason was a ritual of some dark sort, for some dark reason, and if Michael was involved it was as an accomplice. Maybe as a poster of letters. The correspondence chapters are very interesting too. I didn't get the Ezekiel chapter at all. All in all a very well researched book, with lots of objective back up....wonder what I'll think after the other third?


              • #8
                The Maybrick Diary stinks worse than the corpse flower. How anyone could take it seriously defies logic, but it oils the wheels of the Ripper bandwagon and keeps it rolling along nicely. Having said that, I thought Bruce Robinson's book "They All Love Jack" was the most rollicking Ripper book I have ever read. Quite rightfully, the police were the main villains, most of them bent as nine-bob notes, and who can ever forget the character of Shifty Nib? Highly recommended.
                Last edited by Simon Wood; 08-19-2020, 11:17 PM.
                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.


                • #9
                  I never could find the part where Michael Maybrick is supposed to have hid the Diary in Battlecrease house. He did hide it there, didn't he?


                  • #10
                    Hi Scott,

                    Maybrick signed the diary on 3rd May 1889 and died on 11th May 1889, which gave him time to climb from his sick bed, fetch a claw hammer, lever up a floorboard, hide the diary, replace the floorboard and hammer the nails back into place, return the hammer and climb back into bed, all without making a sound or otherwise attracting attention.

                    Hope you're well.

                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.


                    • #11
                      Hi Simon,

                      Strange argument to make when the diary is not even in JM's handwriting and there is no evidence to connect him with the murders in London.

                      I wonder if our hoaxer would be disappointed by such a lack of imagination. Is the central figure, 'Sir Jim', not permitted to have loosened a floorboard under the bed while he still had the strength needed to down several Whitechapel unfortunates, and used the void as a regular hiding place, long before the real James Maybrick became sick unto death?

                      There would be no need for hammer or nails in May 1889, and the expectation would be that sooner or later, someone would have reason to lift that floorboard again and the demon diary would emerge, yawning and blinking in the daylight. How many tenants, tourists and tradesmen do you imagine tramped round Battlecrease House between 1889 and 9th March 1992, when floorboards were lifted in the real James Maybrick's bedroom, quickly followed the same day by Mike Barrett's phone call to a London literary agent, to reveal the diary's existence, but not yet its supposed author?

                      If Mike was told nothing about where the diary came from or who had written it, might that explain why he seemed terrified and out of his depth in those early days, according to Shirley Harrison, despite the fact he already had an agent and author on board, eating out of his hand after seeing the old book on 13th April? Might it explain why he was very anxious to have his name, and Tony Devereux's, kept out of it, when Shirley said she was going to involve the Liverpool press? Was he more worried about the reaction from Tony's family, or from the person who had sold him the old book for 25?


                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      • #12
                        Dear Caz,

                        ". . . the diary is not even in JM's handwriting and there is no evidence to connect him with the murders in London."

                        I couldn't agree with you more.

                        Note to self— must press tongue more firmly into cheek when writing anything more about the nonsensical "diary."

                        Trust you're well.



                        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.


                        • #13
                          Yeah, I knew you had your tongue firmly in your cheek, dear Simon. I just wondered why you were trying so hard to make the genuinely implausible so much more implausible than it needed to be.

                          Hope you are well too.


                          Cheeky Caz
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          • #14
                            Dear Cheeky Caz,

                            Often one has to go that extra mile in an attempt to penetrate the skull of a diarist.

                            Carpe Vinum.

                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.


                            • #15
                              Hi Simon,

                              By diarist, I assume you mean Michael Barrett, the compulsive liar?

                              I'm surprised you'd need to go that extra mile to try and penetrate his skull in 2020. He died in 2016, but said he was the diarist in 1994. Wasn't that good enough for you?



                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov