Jack The Ripper (Compendium Thread)

What do you think is the most likely ?

  • The Ripper was a Freemason?

    Votes: 6 9.7%
  • The Ripper had medical knowledge?

    Votes: 8 12.9%
  • It was Maybrick?

    Votes: 4 6.5%
  • The Ripper was 'of the same class' as his victims?

    Votes: 7 11.3%
  • The Ripper was foreign?

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • It was Druitt?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • None of the suspects yet put forward?

    Votes: 15 24.2%
  • It was a woman?

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • Another?

    Votes: 18 29.0%

  • Total voters
    62

Dick Turpin

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
710
As an aside. A good friend of mine lives in the village of Thorpe Le Soken in Essex, where William Gull is buried in the parish churchyard.

A few years ago, I was in Thorpe visiting my friend and asked him to take me to the church and see if we can find his grave. He thought my request a bit morbid but took me anyway and we looked but couldn’t find it.

I assumed the grave is in some corner of the churchyard which is overgrown with brambles and nettle bushes etc. My friend was not best pleased and told me off for wasting over an hour and a half of Saturday afternoon drinking time lol
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,928
Two decades ago I took my g/f at the time on a self-mapped Jack Tour, just to see the present day locations.
It was on a Sunday morning, so fairly quiet and took a few photos, just out of interest. Sad to report, nothing out of the ordinary was snapped.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
10,911
As an aside. A good friend of mine lives in the village of Thorpe Le Soken in Essex, where William Gull is buried in the parish churchyard.

A few years ago, I was in Thorpe visiting my friend and asked him to take me to the church and see if we can find his grave. He thought my request a bit morbid but took me anyway and we looked but couldn’t find it.

I assumed the grave is in some corner of the churchyard which is overgrown with brambles and nettle bushes etc. My friend was not best pleased and told me off for wasting over an hour and a half of Saturday afternoon drinking time lol

29372802_129331778254.jpg


https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/29372802/william-withey-gull

lindsay-newspaper-article-1.jpg


https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com/generalnews/sir-william-gull-remembered/

maximus otter
 

Dick Turpin

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
710
Isn’t the location of MJK’s grave disputed..?.

I’m sure that I read in the excellent 1996 publication “The East End, then and now” that a guy paid for that headstone to be erected, only for there to be a question mark if it was in the right place. That kind of makes sense, bearing in mind that she would have gone into a pauper’s grave with no headstone – not even a marker.

I’ll dig the book out when I get home and check
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
10,911
Isn’t the location of MJK’s grave disputed..?.

I’m sure that I read in the excellent 1996 publication “The East End, then and now” that a guy paid for that headstone to be erected, only for there to be a question mark if it was in the right place. That kind of makes sense, bearing in mind that she would have gone into a pauper’s grave with no headstone – not even a marker.

I’ll dig the book out when I get home and check

I've checked my copy. (It's on p.214)

Kelly was buried in Plot 66, Row 66 at St. Patrick's in Leytonstone, but the plot was "reclaimed" in the 1950s. Apparently, the cemetery keeper placed a memorial on the correct spot, though.

The businessman you mention did erect a larger memorial, but it was in the wrong place.

maximus otter
 

Dick Turpin

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
710
I've checked my copy. (It's on p.214)

Kelly was buried in Plot 66, Row 66 at St. Patrick's in Leytonstone, but the plot was "reclaimed" in the 1950s. Apparently, the cemetery keeper placed a memorial on the correct spot, though.

The businessman you mention did erect a larger memorial, but it was in the wrong place.

maximus otter
Ah, thanks again Max. The guy who put the larger headstone up (in the wrong place) must be he guy that is mentioned in the book.

Not far from St Patricks in Leytonstone is the City of London cemetery in Wanstead / Manor Park. Mrs DT grandmother rests there (and in all probability is where we will lay my own Dear Ma & Pa to rest)

It’s been a while since I have been, but I do recall Mary Ann Nichols and Cate Eddowes being buried there..
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
10,911
Ah, thanks again Max. The guy who put the larger headstone up (in the wrong place) must be he guy that is mentioned in the book.

Not far from St Patricks in Leytonstone is the City of London cemetery in Wanstead / Manor Park. Mrs DT grandmother rests there (and in all probability is where we will lay my own Dear Ma & Pa to rest)

It’s been a while since I have been, but I do recall Mary Ann Nichols and Cate Eddowes being buried there..

Nichols: Common grave 210752, City of London cemetery, Manor Park (op. cit. p.201)

Eddowes: Common grave 49336 as above (op. cit. p.211)

maximus otter
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,928
As an ardent cynic as I am, to 'clear' someone's name you must prove them innocent of the crime.
As such, since the Ripper killings have remained unsolved - i.e. no clear (in courts consideration) guilt - the only way you can 'prove' the innocent of a crime is to find the guilty. Just saying "It wasn't him" is insufficient.
Even Agatha Christie grasped this bit of jurisprudence in Mrs McGinty's Dead, or The Crooked House. In many cases, unless you can utterly absolve someone from either the time or place of the killing - regardless of motive - then until you can name (and hopefully prosecute) the killer, they remain a suspect.
That was a prime motif of her 'cosies'; unless the murder is solved, and everyone else is exonerated, then everyone remains a suspect. Especially when the murder is unsolved and the murderer is unidentified.
 
Last edited:

Ronnie Jersey

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 22, 2021
Messages
2,059
And yet witnesses who saw the victims speaking to a man before death, all gave the description of a man in his late 20's - 30's.
 

Victory

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
1,905
Location
London
Vic, It is Interesting to hear that the tour guide thought Gull was he ripper.

Personally, I would have thought it highly unlikely. Gull was in his seventies at the time of the murders, and he had suffered a stroke the year before.

I know you said that it was his theory to tell and sell, but could you perhaps give us half a clue on why he though Gull was responsible..?


He believed Gull was protecting the Duke of Clarence who had a child with a Catholic lady.

That much was not the tour guide's discovery, nor did he claim it as such.

It is a theory that others have mentioned...first aired in the 1973 "Jack The Ripper" BBC TV series, based on a theory made by Joseph Sickert, an alleged son of the artist Walter Sickert. Who later publically retracted it.
Stephen Knight then wrote more on it, and it is covered by Alan Moore/Eddie Campbell in the "From Hell" graphic novel and Hughes Brothers film of the same name.
The tour guide mentioned this several times during the tour.

But the guide then told us other information about the Duke of Clarence and William Gull which he believed proved the theory.
Two details; one he was told by someone else concerning Gull, but one about the Duke of Clarence he discovered first hand.

It would not be fair on Andre Price to write more.
I have not found him on social media, but if you contact the company I think he does private tours as well.
They have a phone number and the usual social media links on their website.

[I think that the tour guide had very strong and believable circumstantial evidence to link the Duke of Clarence to a cover-up of having a child with a Catholic woman, at a time when it would be regarded by many as a scandal.

I don't yet have an opinion on who the Ripper was, but though Gull had suffered a stroke before the Ripper murders, it could have been him, if he had help from a physically fitter accomplice/accomplices. Or he had planned the murders for others to then carry out.]


@Ronnie Jersey

I am not aware of any witness who saw all the victims talking to the same man before they were murdered?
Has anyone else on the Forum read this?
 
Last edited:

Ronnie Jersey

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 22, 2021
Messages
2,059

Ronnie Jersey

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 22, 2021
Messages
2,059
@Ronnie Jersey

I am not aware of any witness who saw all the victims talking to the same man before they were murdered?
Has anyone else on the Forum read this?
And I did not say 'any witness who saw all the victims talking to the same man before they were murdered'
I said "And yet witnesses who saw the victims speaking to a man before death, all gave the description of a man in his late 20's - 30's."
You guys get so touchy about Jack, when all the time he was probably someone residing in the area having a hard time in life and perhaps a totally unknown person.
I will never comment on Jack again, you may have him.
 

Victory

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
1,905
Location
London
The men that were seen does not mean that they were Jack the Ripper, but were seen with these women before they were murdered.
Profiling came up with this picture of what Jack may have looked like:

Ranging from 25 in age to "Over 40"

From 5 foot 5 inches to 5 foot 11 in height.

Not unusual for a variety of men to be seen talking to women who were strongly believed to be working as prostitutes.

The witness statements in themselves do not rule out Gull as a suspect.
 

Ogdred Weary

Cromlech
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
6,509

Cochise

Priest of the cult of the Dog with the Broken Paw
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
7,862
I personally think the Gull/Royal Conspiracy theories are embarrassing nonsense. Right up there with Lewis Carroll and Dr. Barnardo.

And no-one has to prove their innocence, otherwise everyone in London and the Home Counties would be a suspect. I totally agree with @Ronnie Jersey that the perp is someone local and probably has never been named.

There are a few named suspects that are remote possibilities, but there's no reason to suppose it was someone famous at all despite all sorts of twaddle from people who should know better. And there are a lot of reasons to think otherwise.

And yes, that's me out of this particular conversation as well unless we are talking about things like the tombstone. In fact it might be better to split the topic into 'suspects' and 'the rest'.
 

Ascalon

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
854
I'd have a hard time with William Gull as a suspect too, irrespective of where the suspicion comes from.

Age, infirmity, and the whole masonic thing being absolute bollocks, all argue against it.

As I have pointed out before, there is no reference in the old constitutions of Scotland, Ireland, and England of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons to the three ruffians who killed Hiram Abif in the legends as being the Jewes, Juewes, or any other variation thereof.

As Anderson, Warren, and Gull were all senior members, would have been aware of this. Furthermore, the women would not, as non members, have been subject to the punishment of breaking an oath they had not taken. The masonic connection is a complete non-starter. At the time, almost any ex-military officer, and many high ranking police officers, were masons, as were a lot of public service officials. The code of conduct does not protect members guilty of grievous crimes. There are oaths that expressly say that is left to the conscience of the individual on such matters.

Now, as far as Gull thinking he knew the identity of the killer — so did a lot of people. McNaughton had his suspect, Abberline had his suspect, Littlechild had a favourite, Swanson et al, all had their names.

Unless some of them had a shred of evidence, it remains suspicion.
For my money, Abberline's suspicion of George Chapman, or Severin Klosowski, fits closer to the that sketch than any other known suspect. That said, in 1888, Klosowski was unlikely to have had either good English, or the local knowledge to disappear that JtR clearly possessed. Or did he?

On probability, Klosowski is unlikely to have been the killer, but he is a better suspect than almost any other, I would contend.

My tuppence ha'penny.
 

Victory

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
1,905
Location
London
The Masonic connection;

The argument being that the women were killed in such a way, and their corpses left in a certain condition, as a signal to any Mason investigating to back off the investigation, rather than a punishment.
The women were not Freemasons themselves.
That the murderer believed the Freemason Warren understood the precise mutilation of at least some of the corpses as a code.

As he would the Goulston Street graffito, Warren having excavated by the site of the Temple in Jerusalem.
The Graffito writer knew Warren therefore likely knew more about Hiram Abiff than other Freemasons.
There is a chance he would know the names of the ruffians.
The three ruffians are named in writing prior to the murders, Duncan's "Masonic Ritual and Rite" of 1866 mentions them.
I do not know if Warren had read that book.

Bruce Robinson in "They all love Jack" tweaks it that the Graffito was written to taunt Warren, not as a warning.

But, these theories assume

1.) The graffito was linked to the murders.

2.) "Juwes" referred to the three ruffians, not to Jews.

Without proof, it is as likely that Warren wiped the graffito to avoid anti -Semitic tensions in the area.
 
Last edited:

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
34,316
Location
East of Suez
You guys get so touchy about Jack, when all the time he was probably someone residing in the area having a hard time in life and perhaps a totally unknown person.
I will never comment on Jack again, you may have him.

Nobody has posted an oversensitive reaction to your point.

@Victory replied with an enquiry for more information about your claim because he'd never heard it made before.

He may have made an error in the detail when he repeated it (a relocated 'all' changed the meaning), but he was not being 'touchy', nor was he even rejecting your claim so far as I can see.

We do not pander to dramatics: we don't need a pre-announcement of your future posting intentions.
 

Ascalon

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
854
The Masonic connection;

The argument being that the women were killed in such a way, and their corpses left in a certain condition, as a signal to any Mason investigating to back off the investigation, rather than a punishment.
The women were not Freemasons themselves.
That the murderer believed the Freemason Warren understood the precise mutilation of at least some of the corpses as a code.

As he would the Goulston Street graffito, Warren having excavated by the site of the Temple in Jerusalem.
The Graffito writer knew Warren therefore likely knew more about Hiram Abiff than other Freemasons.
There is a chance he would know the names of the ruffians.
The three ruffians are named in writing prior to the murders, Duncan's "Masonic Ritual and Rite" of 1866 mentions them.
I do not know if Warren had read that book.

Bruce Robinson in "They all love Jack" tweaks it that the Graffito was written to taunt Warren, not as a warning.

But, these theories assume

1.) The graffito was linked to the murders.

2.) "Juwes" referred to the three ruffians, not to Jews.

Without proof, it is as likely that Warren wiped the graffito to avoid anti -Semitic tensions in the area.

You see, this is the basic problem.
There is a very specific prodceure, and indeed an exclusive sign, for one mason to warn another that he tends towards indescretion. None of them are bound up with the ancient penalties. In fact, the ancient penalties, those meted out to the Ruffians, are always spoken as "the ancient, though now symbolic, penalties".

The assumption that the injuries inflicted on the innocents were a sign to others goes completely against the entire ethos and symbolism of the order. It is an interpretation that is entirely taken from without, not within. It lacks insight or understanding of how messages are communicated through symbolism or ritual.

And finally, the story of the Ruffians is ultimately one of futility — Hiram Abif did not give up the secrets. He was murdered for nought. In that context, the innocents supposedly having knowledge of something they should not, and bandying it about to others does not have any parallel whatsoever with someone breaking a sacred oath of secrecy, or forcing someone else to do the same. It just doesn't stack up.

Secondly, the Duncan reference does indeed have the Ruffians named as Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum. However, it still does not refer to them collectively as the Juewes, Jewes, or Juwes. From all I can gather, and I've gone into this a lot, this is a much later, possibly even 20th century appleation that was retrospectively applied. There are various web reproductions of Duncan's text, and the word, or any of its variations, does not appear, as now cited in the Wikipedia page on the graffito (irony alert!).

I think the Masonic connection was one that was simply useful in retrospect and was hammered into shape for the purpose, but it does not withstand even the lightest scrutiny. Bear in mind, that in the masonic context in particular, there are always at least three layers of meaning. If even the first appearance does hold with what is known of the system, then what hope of two further?

I agree that Warren's reaction to the graffito was so distinct as to have been driven by something more than mere keeping the peace, but do not underestimate the simmering tensions here, and look at the reaction that had already come out over the initial suspect "Leather Apron", or John Pizer. But also, the whole ill feeling that was brough about by the Lipski murder case. Abberline reckoned that the man seen assaulting Liz Stride used that as a taunt to Israel Schwarz, who did indeed, have the appearance of an ethnic jew.

While Warren may have had ulterior motives in removing the graffito, for it to be the cornerstone of the masonic theory simply does not bear any weight.
 
Last edited:

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
34,316
Location
East of Suez
Whenever the graffito is mentioned, the size ought to be recalled as a tonic: just 3/4-inch capitals, according to Halse.

Almost every artistic or theatric depiction of it I have seen grossly overestimates the size.

For me, this would seem to cast doubt on the supposed urgency of the message's removal.

Which creates a greater opening for speculation as to why it was scrubbed so promptly and, conversely, whether it really means much of anything anyway.
 

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
14,584
Location
An Eochair
3/4-inch capitals,

written in chalk? was chalk differently packaged at the time? Writing on blackboards with chalk - very hard to be legible at that scale.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
34,316
Location
East of Suez
written in chalk? was chalk differently packaged at the time? Writing on blackboards with chalk - very hard to be legible at that scale.

In chalk.

And another false spin often repeated is that the words were 'scrawled' in chalk (because psychokillers scrawl everything, of course).

Daniel Halse’s eyewitness testimony at the Eddowes’ inquest on 11 October (as reported in the press the following day) states that there were three lines in a ‘a good schoolboy’s round hand’, the capital letters about three quarters of an inch high and the others in proportion.

I believe the claim was that the top line was about four feet above the ground.

EDIT: SEE ACCOUNT BELOW.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
34,316
Location
East of Suez
Day 2, Thursday, October 11, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1888, Page 2)


Yesterday [11 Oct], at the City Coroner's Court, Golden-lane, Mr. S. F. Langham resumed the inquest respecting the death of Catherine Eddowes, who was found murdered and mutilated in Mitre-square, Aldgate, early on the morning of Sunday, Sept. 30.

Mr. Crawford, City Solicitor, again watched the case on behalf of the police.

[...]

Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.

[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.

Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - I believe the words were as I have stated.

[Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.

[Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time? - Yes, in my pocket-book. Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place? - It is possible, but I do not think that I have.

[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

[Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.

[Coroner] Did the writing appear to have been recently done? - I could not form an opinion.

[Coroner] Do I understand that you made a search in the model dwelling-house? - I went into the staircases.

[Coroner] Did you not make inquiries in the house itself? - No.

The Foreman: Where is the pocket-book in which you made the entry of the writing? - At Westminster.

[Coroner] Is it possible to get it at once? - I dare say.

Mr. Crawford: I will ask the coroner to direct that the book be fetched.

The Coroner: Let that be done.

Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police: On Saturday, Sept. 29, pursuant to instructions received at the central office in Old Jewry, I directed a number of police in plain clothes to patrol the streets of the City all night. At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church, in company with Detectives Outram and Marriott, I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre-square. We ran to the spot, and I at once gave instructions for the neighbourhood to be searched and every man stopped and examined. I myself went by way of Middlesex-street into Wentworth-street, where I stopped two men, who, however, gave a satisfactory account of themselves. I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. After visiting Leman-street police-station, I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall. Instructions were given to have the writing photographed, but before it could be done the Metropolitan police stated that they thought the writing might cause a riot or outbreak against the Jews, and it was decided to have it rubbed out, as the people were already bringing out their stalls into the street. When Detective Hunt returned inquiry was made at every door of every tenement of the model dwelling-house, but we gained no tidings of any one who was likely to have been the murderer.

By Mr. Crawford: At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

[Coroner] As to the writing on the wall, did you hear anybody suggest that the word "Jews" should be rubbed out and the other words left? - I did. The fear on the part of the Metropolitan police that the writing might cause riot was the sole reason why it was rubbed out. I took a copy of it, and what I wrote down was as follows: "The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing."

[Coroner] Did the writing have the appearance of having been recently done? - Yes. It was written with white chalk on a black facia.

The Foreman: Why was the writing really rubbed out? - Witness: The Metropolitan police said it might create a riot, and it was their ground.

Mr. Crawford: I am obliged to ask this question. Did you protest against the writing being rubbed out? - Witness: I did. I asked that it might, at all events, be allowed to remain until Major Smith had seen it. Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written? - It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing. I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground, though I did look about to see if a knife could be found. There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion. The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.

Mr. Crawford: With the exception of a few questions to Long, the Metropolitan constable, that is the whole of the evidence I have to offer at the present moment on the part of the City police. But if any point occurs to the coroner or the jury I shall be happy to endeavour to have it cleared up.

A Juror: It seems surprising that a policeman should have found the piece of apron in the passage of the buildings, and yet made no inquiries in the buildings themselves. There was a clue up to that point, and then it was altogether lost.

Mr. Crawford: As to the premises being searched, I have in court members of the City police who did make diligent search in every part of the tenements the moment the matter came to their knowledge. But unfortunately it did not come to their knowledge until two hours after. There was thus delay, and the man who discovered the piece of apron is a member of the Metropolitan police.

A Juror: It is the man belonging to the Metropolitan police that I am complaining of.

At this point Constable Long returned, and produced the pocket-book containing the entry which he made at the time concerning the discovery of the writing on the wall.

Mr. Crawford: What is the entry? - Witness: The words are, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

[Coroner] Both here and in your inspector's report the word "Jews" is spelt correctly? - Yes; but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt "Juwes."

[Coroner] Why did you write "Jews" then? - I made my entry before the inspector made the remark.

[Coroner] But why did the inspector write "Jews"? - I cannot say.

[Coroner] At all events, there is a discrepancy? - It would seem so.

[Coroner] What did you do when you found the piece of apron? - I at once searched the staircases leading to the buildings.

[Coroner] Did you make inquiry in any of the tenements of the buildings? - No.

[Coroner] How many staircases are there? - Six or seven.

[Coroner] And you searched every staircase? - Every staircase to the top.

[Coroner] You found no trace of blood or of recent footmarks? - No.

[Coroner] About what time was that? - Three o'clock.

[Coroner] Having examined the staircases, what did you next do? - I proceeded to the station.

[Coroner] Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed? - Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.

[Coroner] Which did you hear of? - I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.

[Coroner] When you went away did you leave anybody in charge? - Yes; the constable on the next beat - 190, H Division - but I do not know his name.

[Coroner] Did you give him instructions as to what he was to do? - I told him to keep observation on the dwelling house, and see if any one entered or left.

[Coroner] When did you return? - About five o'clock.

[Coroner] Had the writing been rubbed out then? - No; it was rubbed out in my presence at half-past five.

[Coroner] Did you hear any one object to its being rubbed out? - No. It was nearly daylight when it was rubbed out.

A Juror: Having examined the apron and the writing, did it not occur to you that it would be wise to search the dwelling? - I did what I thought was right under the circumstances.

The Juror: I do not wish to say anything to reflect upon you, because I consider that altogether the evidence of the police redounds to their credit; but it does seem strange that this clue was not followed up.

Witness: I thought the best thing to do was to proceed to the station and report to the inspector on duty.

The Juror: I am sure you did what you deemed best.

Mr. Crawford: I suppose you thought it more likely to find the body there than the murderer?

Witness: Yes, and I felt that the inspector would be better able to deal with the matter than I was.

The Foreman: Was there any possibility of a stranger escaping from the house? - Not from the front.

[Coroner] Did you not know about the back? - No, that was the first time I had been on duty there.

Source:
https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_eddowes.html
 

Victory

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
1,905
Location
London
You see, this is the basic problem.
There is a very specific prodceure, and indeed an exclusive sign, for one mason to warn another that he tends towards indescretion. None of them are bound up with the ancient penalties. In fact, the ancient penalties, those meted out to the Ruffians, are always spoken as "the ancient, though now symbolic, penalties".

The assumption that the injuries inflicted on the innocents were a sign to others goes completely against the entire ethos and symbolism of the order. It is an interpretation that is entirely taken from without, not within. It lacks insight or understanding of how messages are communicated through symbolism or ritual.

And finally, the story of the Ruffians is ultimately one of futility — Hiram Abif did not give up the secrets. He was murdered for nought. In that context, the innocents supposedly having knowledge of something they should not, and bandying it about to others does not have any parallel whatsoever with someone breaking a sacred oath of secrecy, or forcing someone else to do the same. It just doesn't stack up.

Secondly, the Duncan reference does indeed have the Ruffians named as Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum. However, it still does not refer to them collectively as the Juewes, Jewes, or Juwes. From all I can gather, and I've gone into this a lot, this is a much later, possibly even 20th century appleation that was retrospectively applied. There are various web reproductions of Duncan's text, and the word, or any of its variations, does not appear, as now cited in the Wikipedia page on the graffito (irony alert!).

I think the Masonic connection was one that was simply useful in retrospect and was hammered into shape for the purpose, but it does not withstand even the lightest scrutiny. Bear in mind, that in the masonic context in particular, there are always at least three layers of meaning. If even the first appearance does hold with what is known of the system, then what hope of two further?

I agree that Warren's reaction to the graffito was so distinct as to have been driven by something more than mere keeping the peace, but do not underestimate the simmering tensions here, and look at the reaction that had already come out over the initial suspect "Leather Apron", or John Pizer. But also, the whole ill feeling that was brough about by the Lipski murder case. Abberline reckoned that the man seen assaulting Liz Stride used that as a taunt to Israel Schwarz, who did indeed, have the appearance of an ethnic jew.

While Warren may have had ulterior motives in removing the graffito, for it to be the cornerstone of the masonic theory simply does not bear any weight.

I have to state I have not yet nailed my colours to the mast on any particular Ripper suspect or motive.

But your critique of the Masonic theory, can just as easily be seen the opposite way.

Need the method of death be absolutely in line with Masonic ritual of the time?
The very fact that five (or more, or even less) women were murdered shows that it was by definition a criminal act, and so not in keeping with mainstream Freemasonry.
To me it doesn't matter that Hiram Abif did not give up the secrets, it matters that the unusual condition of the corpses can be considered as having sent a signal to those investigating...well Warren anyway.
The precision used ... the knowledge of where the organs were ... the placing of the entrails .... it's precise not frenzied.
If the murders were not an attempt at a Masonic code, then the way the corpses were mutilated, especially Mary Jane Kelly's, is an extraordinary coincidence.

But coincidences do occur.

I think the Graffito was as likely a Masonic code and connected to the murder, as it was anti-Semitic and not connected to the murders.
Two spelling errors...bizarre.
So 50/on that.
 
Top