“Jack the Ripper” is a misnomer. Like so many murders and assassinations sponsored by a Masonic elite, the “Jack the Ripper” murders were sensationalized as the work of a lone crazed killer, when the reality is that “Jack” was a trio, inspired by the Masonic ritual of the Third Degree, in which the perpetrators symbolically represent the “three unworthy craftsmen.” The trio consisted of two killers and one accomplice.i The lone killer misconception is the reason the case remained insoluble for so long. As with the Shakespeare authorship controversy, where each Shakespeare scholar argued for his favored candidate for ‘bardship’, so each Ripperologist argued for his favored suspect, but invariably became tied up in logical inconsistencies or contradictions by trying to pin the crimes on a lone suspect, when there was actually a team of three operating together.
As for how many slayings there actually were, most Ripperologists agree with Sir Melville Macnaughten, who joined Scotland Yard as an assistant chief constable with the Criminal Investigation Department in 1889. Mcnaughten’s official notes list the five “Ripper” victims as follows:
- 31st Aug. ’88. Mary Ann Nichols—at Bucks Row—who was found with her throat cut & with slight stomach mutilation.
- 8th Sept. ’88. Annie Chapman—Hanbury St.:—throat cut—stomach and private parts badly mutilated & some of the entrails placed around the neck.
- 30th Sept. ’88. Elizabeth Stride— Berner Street: throat cut, but nothing in shape of mutilation attempted, & on same date Catherine Endowes—Mitre Square, throat cut & very bad condition, both of face and stomach.
- 9th November. Mary Jane Kelly—Millers Court, throat cut and the whole of the body mutilated in the most ghastly manner.ii
By comparing the M.O. involved in the murders, of these women, Annie Chapman in particular, one can see a similarity to the “three Juwes” or “unworthy craftsmen” associated with the 3° rites.
i Stephen Knight, Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, Hammersmith, London: Harper Collins publisher, 1976, p. 15.
ii Ibid., pp.15,16.
Leave a Reply