Bruce Robinson ' s theory. ..what do we think?

[Shaggyrand]

I thought, and I could be wrong as I often am, that there has never been any evidence found of "Juwes" being used outside of the GSG and "It's TOTALLY a mason thang! Totally" claims. Has Robinson found proof of "Juwes" actually ever being used by the Masons or anyone else or his he going with "TOTALLY a mason thang! Totally!"?

[spyglass]

I thought, and I could be wrong as I often am, that there has never been any evidence found of "Juwes" being used outside of the GSG and "It's TOTALLY a mason thang! Totally" claims. Has Robinson found proof of "Juwes" actually ever being used by the Masons or anyone else or his he going with "TOTALLY a mason thang! Totally!"?

Hi,
Yes....TOTALLY a Mason thing, with Anderson running the show. With reasons to many to get into right now as I'm still reading it.
One thing I was intrested in is Robinson's view that Stephen Knight ( final solution )was set up from the start with mis-imfomtion so as to take the flak for the his introduction of the Masons to the story, where as Colin Wilson got the he'll out of it.

regards

[packers stem]

I thought, and I could be wrong as I often am, that there has never been any evidence found of "Juwes" being used outside of the GSG and "It's TOTALLY a mason thang! Totally" claims. Has Robinson found proof of "Juwes" actually ever being used by the Masons or anyone else or his he going with "TOTALLY a mason thang! Totally!"?

Think the problem with 'juwes' is that Jews is most unlikely to be spelt wrong It would have been seen all over the area. If someone spells blamed and nothing correctly then why has anyone supposed juwes to be a misspelling? Also slang/graffiti is generally lazy language,shortened words and written in the way someone speaks.. If it read 'its the Jews what done it' fine
If it said 'one should blame jewish immigrants for these heinous crimes' would we still reckon it was typical east end graffiti

[Shaggyrand]

Think the problem with 'juwes' is that Jews is most unlikely to be spelt wrong It would have been seen all over the area. If someone spells blamed and nothing correctly then why has anyone supposed juwes to be a misspelling? Also slang/graffiti is generally lazy language,shortened words and written in the way someone speaks.. If it read 'its the Jews what done it' fine
If it said 'one should blame jewish immigrants for these heinous crimes' would we still reckon it was typical east end graffiti

Yeah, its not likely to be a spelling mistake. There are still a number of steps from "That is a strange spelling, I wonder why it's done like that" to "MASON COVER-UP CONFIRMED!"
Which is why I was asking for any confirmation of it even being used by the Masons in Robison's book. If you can't even get that, I find using it as the cornerstone of any argument or theory to be a very bad place to put yourself in.

[packers stem]

Yeah, its not likely to be a spelling mistake. There are still a number of steps from "That is a strange spelling, I wonder why it's done like that" to "MASON COVER-UP CONFIRMED!"
Which is why I was asking for any confirmation of it even being used by the Masons in Robison's book. If you can't even get that, I find using it as the cornerstone of any argument or theory to be a very bad place to put yourself in.

Yep,it's difficult to imagine what he can add to what's been said by knight and others in the past on the subject really without definite evidence of the word having a freemason connection.A number of freemason researchers have confirmed it in the past especially with Scottish and American freemasonry I seem to remember but I'm still not sure and don't see how any of us can be really

[Shaggyrand]

Yep,it's difficult to imagine what he can add to what's been said by knight and others in the past on the subject really without definite evidence of the word having a freemason connection.A number of freemason researchers have confirmed it in the past especially with Scottish and American freemasonry I seem to remember but I'm still not sure and don't see how any of us can be really

I'd settle for some old lodge minutes even.

10:00 Secret Handshakes
10:45 Old Business
10:50 Duke of Blahdeblah barged in wearing Queen's favorite corset
10:52 New Business
11:23 Curse those bastard Juwes
11:24 Sacrifice Goat
12:00 Secret Handshakes
12:45 Drinks and Social Hour

Not picky.

[Phil Carter]

Observation.

We can discuss the Robinson idea until the cows come home... but the ONLY way any of this Masonic accusation to actually be true is in a statement from Grand Lodge themselves. Unlikely IMHO.

I would like to add however, to all those unaware of it, that when the Stephen Knight book came out, and all sorts of fingers and questions were being pointed at Freemasonry, the (then) SILENT Grand Lodge sent out a letter to each and every provincial lodge, read out at their next available meeting, instructing ALL Freemason to either deny or stay silent on the matter.

In the years following this, another, very damaging and revealing book by Martin Short ( Inside the Brotherhood) on Freemasonry came out. It highlighted and documented many known cases of corruption within the movement, including the police force..Both the Met and all over the country. Operation Countryman ( I believe from memory) was written about amongst others.

The immediate result of THAT book changed the way Freemasonry presented itself to the public. Grand Lodge itself welcomed enquiries and visitors to its library and collections.

Now. Today, we have a situation that only Grand Lodge can decide upon itself. If any of this is actually true, how can Grand Lodge confirm the goings on in Victoria times, which were far different than Freemasonry today, WITHOUT damaging it's current reputation? If untrue, a denial will not be enough in some eyes.

I am not a Freemason and have never been one. I do not believe in Masonic involvement in these murders either. However, should there be even a grain of truth in the matter, I believe Grand Lodge could, if they were brave enough, reveal all that is known and come out of it with the honour for being truthful. The open attitude could do wonders for the reputation of the movement when under attack.
The fear may well reap rewards of applause.

I repeat. .I do not think there is a grain of truth in this..but..ultimately, only Grand Lodge can confirm any such involvement. All else would be speculation unless documentary evidence appears out of the blue.

Just my thoughts on the matter, for what they are worth.



Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

Is this it then? Will this be the book to end it all?

"If I am wrong, then 12 years of research and documents dating back over 100 years are also wrong."

Quote:
How about the "Ripper diary" found at James' house by the workmen?

"Ask Scotland Yard about the provenance of this document," he says, "and they will release no information. It's protected under the Official Secrets Act. I know exactly what the provenance is. I would be in breach of the law if I told you. What I can say is that the 'diary of Jack the Ripper' is not a diary at all. It's a document scrawled by this same psychopath implicating his brother. It includes the caveat that his wife knew."

Didn't know that Scotland Yard had anything to do with that diary.

Didn't know that Scotland Yard had anything to do with that diary.

Oh dear. Information about the Diary protected under the Official Secrets Act?

Is this guy a conspiracist or what?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Not saying the Mason are involved, but aren't there different traditions of freemasons that don't practice same rituals, beliefs and membership?

[John G]

Hi,
QUOTE from Bruce Robinson "The ripper was smart, but not that smart. It is simply an insult to the Victorian police to believe that detectives like Moore, Reid and Abberline couldn't have caught this P###k in their sleep"
Also the GSG fiasco features very heavily in this story.

Regards.

Yes, just like the Met failed to catch Jack the Stripper in the 1960s. Presumably he was a mason too!

[Fisherman]

Here´s my five cents - and they are delivered BEFORE I read the book. So I would not want to have it taken as criticism; the book can be ever so good and it can be a disaster. Plus anything inbetween.

But!

What I have always thought is that the killer will not be a successful singer/songwriter, nor a famed politician, a well-known artist, a celebrated dancer or an appreciated author.

My belief is that these kinds of people have already reached fame and success, and they are therefore content with their roles.

The killer, on the other hand - especially since he seems to pose his victims and try to reach a maximum shock value - is to my mind somebody who tries to reach the pinnacles of society in a different branch. I think he is looking for some sort of confirmation, that he is showcasing himself: "Look what I can do!"

This is why we so often see how serialists are grey men - they are truly ambitious, they aspire to greatness, but they cannot write songs and they are lousy artists, politicians and dancers. They are instead prolific killers.

This is also, of course, why all the effort that has gone - and still goes - into trying to identify Jack the Ripper as a famous person or a celebrity is in vain. That is not the kind of man we should look for.

Michael Maybrick would not have had any further need for fame, as far as I understand. But I am intrigued to see what Robinson has to say about the underlying motivation.

[gnote]

Yes, just like the Met failed to catch Jack the Stripper in the 1960s. Presumably he was a mason too!

Also Peter Sutcliffe was apprehended simply because he wasn't a mason.

[Pontius2000]

"He was as big a prick as Hitler."

No thanks. I have no interest in reading or hearing anymore about this clown's theory.

[Fantomas]

Like Cornwell before him, I think a pet (and like dear Pat's, hardly original) theory has been willed to be true by dint of bending the research with deep coffers.
'Withnail and I' is a film I adore and on the subject of the twilight world of student actors in the 1960s, I believe Bruce Robinson to be a deft and funny commentator and expert. However, here it is, again, Masons, masons, masons. What strings pulled and mountains moved would truly be needed to despatch five ladies of the night in 1888 Whitechapel? Cite the middle class meat of the torso killings and maybe I'll entertain a conspiracy.
Like Cornwell's bulldozing headline-quest travesty - autopsying a minor British art masterpiece, ripping Sickert's canvas in twain - the idiosyncratic MO of the initial research Robinson has demanded be conducted shoots his theory in the paddock, for me.

[Trevor Marriott]

A question from afar

I have not read the new book as yet. I have been contacted by someone who has, and they have asked me to publish this question/observation for discussion. The following is how it was relayed to me

"It says in an interview with the author that the fulcrum of his argument is that Warren dashed to the scene to get rid of the graffiti because the spelling of Jews seemed to implicate a fellow Mason. Why, then, didn't he tell the policeman who wrote it down to write it in modern English ("we just need to know what he said, man"), or, since the policeman doesn't seem to have been entirely sure himself how it was written, say it was written in a different way ? If he had, the Freemason theory might never have been floated in the first place"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk