Jack the Ripper and the Freemasons ?

didnt the Freemasons help cover-up that Jack the Ripper was a nobleman

Originally posted by DRAGON27
didnt the Freemasons help cover-up that Jack the Ripper was a nobleman

No. No one knows who Jack the Ripper was, and it is highly unlikely he was any kind of nobleman. He was very familiar with the Whitechapel district of London (where the murders occured), which was basically a slum. This indicates he was probably in the lower income class.

The hypothesis that he may have been a physician due to a knowledge of biology is unlikely. He had rudimentary knowledge of biology, but nothing more than anyone else. The bodies were badly butchered to retrieve the internal organs of the victims; if it had been a surgeon, the cuts would have more "clean", according to most criminologists.

Fiat Lvx.

Royal family link is more believable. The child would have been legit to the claim of the throne. The prince marrying and having a children with a low class women or "lady of the night" would have torn the British Empire apart.

[edit on 5-9-2004 by infinite]

Originally posted by DRAGON27
didnt the Freemasons help cover-up that Jack the Ripper was a nobleman

An all to often subject within Secret Societies here at ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ATS search, your friend and ally.

i saw FROM HELL but that not were this question came from.
read a book of theorys about a week ago i bought of off ebay
with really graffic drawings of the bodies. and only theory that made sence is that Jack the Ripper was a nobleman killing "street walkers"
then it was coverd up by the freemasons.

In the movie From Hell is Jack the Ripper not portrayed as a physician? Also, what reason would the Free Masons have for covering up his name???

so he could kill agian if needed??????????
nothing like a good hitman

[edit on 5-9-2004 by DRAGON27]

I wouldn't draw any historical conclusion from a . . . . . . movie.

i did not beleave the movie

I didn't draw any conclusions from the movie... I just thought he was a physician (which I read in a book of some of the most horrible criminals). I guess he wasn't. Thank you for enlightening me.

Who was Jack the Ripper?

Advertising Blurb:

The identity of the killer has remained one of the world's greatest unsolved mysteries, and a wealth of theories have been posited which have pointed the finger at royalty, a barber, a doctor, a woman, and an artist. Using her formidable range of forensic and technical skills, Patricia Cornwell has applied the rigorous discipline of 21st century police investigation to the extant material, and here presents the hard evidence that the perpetrator of the Whitechapel Murders was the world famous artist, Walter Sickert.

By using techniques unknown in the late Victorian era, Patricia Cornwell has exposed Sickert as the author of the infamous Ripper letters to the Metropolitan Police. Her detailed analysis of his paintings show that his art continually depicted his horrific mutilation of his victims, and her examination of this man's birth defects, the consequent genital surgical interventions, and their effects on his upbringing present a casebook example of how a psychopathic killer is created.

With her knowledge of criminal investigation and her consummate skills as a bestselling writer, Patricia Cornwell has produced a book which is as compelling as it is authentic and pays due respect to the people whose early deaths spawned one of the twentieth century's least attractive entertainment industries -- Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddows, and Mary Kelly.

I am not saying that I buy the story as in the movie- but if it were mostly true then that is why the masons covered up. IF he were one of them or one of the royal family then the masons would cover up to protect themselves from shame or to ingratiate themselves to the royals.

Perfect conjecture, but plausible nonetheless.

Sounds like you believe the movie.... Why not say the police covered up the murderer? Why not say the Rotary Club covered up the murderer? The movie was a great movie and they used the masons as a good conspiracy plot. Quite good as you bought into it.

I did see the movie and I do actually like it alot. If they replaced the police with the Masons, it just would not have been as fun. Although intruiging, it would not have the same cover-up ability and there has been many of these types of movies with the police. Trying something new is better and will bring people to buy the books and see the movies.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
I am not saying that I buy the story as in the movie- but if it were mostly true then that is why the masons covered up. IF he were one of them or one of the royal family then the masons would cover up to protect themselves from shame or to ingratiate themselves to the royals.

Perfect conjecture, but plausible nonetheless.

Originally posted by JCMinJapan
Sounds like you believe the movie.... Why not say the police covered up the murderer? Why not say the Rotary Club covered up the murderer? The movie was a great movie and they used the masons as a good conspiracy plot. Quite good as you bought into it.

I did see the movie and I do actually like it alot. If they replaced the police with the Masons, it just would not have been as fun. Although intruiging, it would not have the same cover-up ability and there has been many of these types of movies with the police. Trying something new is better and will bring people to buy the books and see the movies.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
I am not saying that I buy the story as in the movie- but if it were mostly true then that is why the masons covered up. IF he were one of them or one of the royal family then the masons would cover up to protect themselves from shame or to ingratiate themselves to the royals.

Perfect conjecture, but plausible nonetheless.

You really need to polish that crystal- your astral projection is distorted. I did not say that I bought the plot (movie) You trying to put words in my place doesn't change that.

IF the British East India Company had been used instead of the masons I it would have been more believeable for me.

Reads to me like you want me to buy "the masons did it." That part of the movie was too obscure, the BEIC angle would have been much better. That would have tied the detective's opiates in easily with his failure to catch Jack.

This theory goes back a lot farther than the movie. The first time I read about this theory was 7-10 years ago, and I have no clue were I read it, maybe "The Brotherhood" by ?? Anyway the movie was great, in the end the Freemasons "take care" of their own (I wonder if he liked the lobotomy) ...

[edit on 6-9-2004 by amike555]

history channel did a program a while back. their experts came to the conclusion that Jack the Ripper was Probably a minor noble ( cant recall the name now) that was put in a sanitarium shortly after the last murder and died
some years later.

the first i remember reading the Royal/Masonic theory was in a Sherlock Holmes
story by a rabid antimason, Stephen Knight i think.

Conan Doyle also wrote an Holmes story about the ripper, in his the ripper was
accidently killed by Watson and turned out to be the Scotland Yard detective
investigating the murders.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
I am not saying that I buy the story as in the movie- but if it were mostly true then that is why the masons covered up. IF he were one of them or one of the royal family then the masons would cover up to protect themselves from shame or to ingratiate themselves to the royals.

Perfect conjecture, but plausible nonetheless.

Truly, Michael, perfect conjecture... based on no facts, of course, which is why the epithet "perfect conjecture" fits so well... it is NOTHING but conjecture, with nothing to support it other than conjecture.... the moon is made of green cheese is another example of perfect conjecture.

Facts don't support it, but it IS pure conjecture, nonetheless.

As for masons covering it up, I would be very interested in seeing ANY evidence you might have at hand that shows or proves that masons are covering up or concealing the killer known as Jack the Ripper...

Thanks for playing.

theron
slow down-

I ALSO posted that the Brit. East India Co. would have made a better 'assistant' in my view.

Now you going to claim I don't, what? Like tea?

Micheal can't get ahead on any other thread, so he resorts to commenting about some murderer who might or might not have been a mason, well over a hundred years ago.

Yes, there are bad masons, and good masons, just ike there are bad people and good people. I'm sure if Jack had close friends who were also bad, then they wuold probably help him out. Whether it was something "Masonic", or motivated by Masonic tenets, is completely unprovable.

Plausibility is fun, but when you use it to influence your opinions, you're in trouble.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
theron
slow down-

I ALSO posted that the Brit. East India Co. would have made a better 'assistant' in my view.

Now you going to claim I don't, what? Like tea?

No, not at all. In fact, my point is that you just used the East India Co. as a distraction to the main point your were making, by innuendo, that a mason was involved. You can waffle around all you want, but your conjecture is baseless on all accounts, as in my example... the moon is demonstrably NOT made of green cheese, and pure conjecture aside, what you posted is slander, since you have NOTHING on which to base the conjecture.