Transcript of Was Jack the Ripper a Freemason?

Then, still under hypnosis, the patient's eyes open, but they're glazed over. He mentions "the knife." His hand, holding a knife that only exists in his trance, whips across him and then stabs downward. He reveals how he slit a woman's throat, how he murdered her. William's familiar with the story—practically everyone in London is. There's been an unidentified man terrorizing the streets of Whitechapel, killing women and mutilating them beyond recognition.

William realizes the madman could very well be sitting right in front of him. He likely isn't sure what to do at first. He knows that he can't let the patient kill again. But his patient is not some average Joe. He's Prince Eddie, the grandson of William's other patient, the Queen of England. The doctor decides he has to make sure the public never learns who he suspects Eddie really is, for Queen and country.

So William makes a plan to protect him. Over the years, hundreds of suspects have been linked to the unidentified serial killer known as Jack the Ripper. According to this theory, the murderous dark cloud of Whitechapel was a royal. But of course, this is just one theory of many, all of which include a conspiracy to cover up the answer to one of the biggest questions in history: who exactly is Jack the Ripper?

Welcome to Conspiracy Theories, a Spotify podcast. I'm Carter Roy. New episodes come out every Wednesday. We would love to hear from you, so if you're listening on the Spotify app, swipe up and give us your thoughts, or check us out on Instagram @TheConspiracyPod. This episode contains discussions of substance abuse, antisemitism, violence, murder, and gore. Consider this when deciding how and when you'll listen. Stay with us.

The faint glow illuminates a form in front of him. A body. A woman. Lewis initially thinks she's passed out drunk, a common sight in the city. Then Lewis sees the blood pooling out of her cut throat. The woman, later identified as Elizabeth Stride, isn't sleeping. She's been killed. Lewis is likely horrified. But what may lurk in the shadows is even more terrifying.

You see, Elizabeth's body is still warm. It's theorized that she was killed only 15 minutes before Lewis finds her. Her killer could be nearby, watching. Angry that Lewis interrupted him. So angry that he needs to commit another kill. Now it's around 1:30 a.m. on the same night, on a street about 15 minutes away from Elizabeth's body. 46-year-old Catherine Eddows is seen by multiple witnesses talking to someone.

A mustachioed man in his 30s, about 6 feet tall, wearing a jacket with a reddish handkerchief. Catherine isn't seen again until a policeman finds her deceased, mutilated body shortly after. The man she was talking to is nowhere to be found. While it can't be proven, the mustachioed man could have been the one who killed Elizabeth too. A figure who has left Whitechapel stricken with fear, murdering women in the dark corners of London.

He goes by a few different names, such as the Whitechapel Murderer or the Leather Apron. But only one of his aliases has gone down in history, notorious for never being caught or identified. The one. The only. Jack the Ripper. The murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddows is the only known time Jack kills twice in one night, a night known as the Double Event. There are a lot of deaths that could be attributed to him, but officially he's been linked to five.

Both Elizabeth and Catherine are two of his confirmed victims, known collectively as the Canonical Five, along with Marianne Nichols, Annie Chapman, and Mary Jane Kelly. Though it wouldn't be hard to find Jack the Ripper experts, a.k.a. Ripperologists, who argue at least one of them was killed by someone else. Over nearly 140 years, practically every fact about Jack has been debated at least once.

But before we dive in, we need to understand how Jack was never caught. In today's age of DNA tests, camera surveillance, and criminal databases, it's easy to wonder how Jack remained anonymous. But in 1888, we're still about a decade away from Scotland Yard even learning how to look for fingerprints. Reportedly, there's no real protocol for crime scene investigations at the time. The police don't even preserve the area.

When a murder occurs, they typically remove the victim's body and clean up any blood as quickly as possible. They don't rope anything off either, which allows rubberneckers to potentially contaminate evidence. Unless a careless killer leaves evidence behind, like a piece of clothing, detectives must rely on eyewitness testimonies. As we noted earlier, this is before modern lighting, so it's hard to see someone's features.

In short, the deck is stacked against the police to catch any criminal, let alone an elusive one like Jack. In the case of Catherine Eddows, they do know she was seen talking to that mustachioed man before her death. Other victims, like Annie Chapman and Mary Jane Kelly, were seen with an unidentified man before their deaths too. But that doesn't get the investigation very far.

Spotting some facial hair isn't enough for a conviction, especially in 1888 when mustaches are all the rage. And even though some of these women were in a dangerous situation, that's unfortunately common in Whitechapel, so a lot of people didn't bother to take a second look. This is infamously the case with Elizabeth Stride. Before her death, a man named Israel Schwartz spots someone approaching Elizabeth. It's another man, who suddenly grabs her, shoving her to the ground.

Israel quickly walks to the other side of the street and carries on with his night. He doesn't want to get involved with what he thinks is a domestic dispute. The fact that he, well, not only thinks that, but is also seemingly okay with letting it continue is a grim testament to Whitechapel. Public displays of violence against women are extremely common in the area, as is violence in general, and the police know it, yet they don't do much about it.

It's so prevalent that desperate victims yell into the streets for help, literally screaming, "Oh, murder!" and the police have tuned it out. It's a perfect breeding ground for the Ripper. We'd also be remiss if we didn't mention Whitechapel's demographic. Much of the city is occupied by Jewish immigrants and sex workers, two groups discriminated against by police. Some residents spend their days scrounging for cash.

It's the only way to afford a night's rest at a lodging house. These are filthy shelters where you'd sleep in cramped rooms with strangers. If you didn't have the cash, you'd be left outside in the unlit streets. It's thought that some of the Canonical Five were out, possibly selling sex work, to make money for their lodging when Jack killed them. Officially, Jack's reign of terror begins August 31, 1888, and ends November 9, 1888.

In those 71 days, the downtrodden citizens of Whitechapel are done with their unhelpful, prejudiced police force, particularly Metropolitan Police Commissioner Charles Warren. While there are other officials handling the Ripper case, Charles is center stage. He began 1888 already in hot water, as many hold him responsible for Bloody Sunday the previous year. He deployed troops to attack protesters.

Not a good look. So when Jack is stalking the streets, Charles is already primed to be the public scapegoat. I say scapegoat because modern-day reports suggest he may be unfairly criticized. He's understaffed, and the higher-ups shut down his attempts to make Whitechapel safer. But as far as the public and the official story is concerned, Charles is too incompetent to catch Jack. Especially because Charles tampers with evidence.

After Catherine Eddows is murdered, a police constable finds a blood-stained cloth near her crime scene. It seems like it was ripped off from Catherine's clothes. On the wall above it is antisemitic graffiti. The constable waves over his colleagues. They call for a crime scene photographer. They have to get it on film. It could have been written by the killer. However, before the photographer can get there, Charles arrives.

He worries the graffiti will spur hate crimes, maybe even a full-on riot. Charles orders for it to be washed away, but some officers protest. What if we just wash away part of the message so nobody knows it's directed at Jewish people? Come on, chief, we finally have some evidence. Charles denies the request. All of it needs to be gone at once. Now, on one hand, Charles' decision can be seen as noble.

He wants to protect the already discriminated against Jewish population. He couldn't let the public associate them with Jack the Ripper. They'd be a target. But as good as his intentions may be, erasing evidence is still a gross mishandling of the case. Charles is reprimanded by his superiors for the decision. The public is equally critical. On November 8, days after the graffiti incident, Charles resigns from the force.

Just a few hours later, Jack kills his last canonical victim, Mary Jane Kelly. Her body is found by her landlord's assistant inside her apartment. Because she was killed indoors as opposed to a public street like the rest of his victims, it's thought that Jack didn't worry about being caught. He took his time mutilating her body. Some reports state that not much more than a skeleton remained.

So Jack has stepped up his brutality with his latest victim, all while there's no one leading the police. The force must be scrambling. It's like Jack knew that a change in command is the perfect time to strike. The police probably worry that Jack is about to turn his reign of terror into a storm. But oddly, he doesn't. He never kills again. There are those who believe Jack continues his murder spree.

There's no shortage of unsolved murders before or since Mary that have been attributed to him. However, officially, Mary's the last. There are a few theories on why he suddenly stops. One being that despite Charles being raked over the coals and leaving, the police are actually patrolling more. Whitechapel is swarming with detectives for once, according to newspapers. Perhaps it tells Jack that the jig is up. Another kill would land him in jail.

Others think he may have actually been arrested for a separate, unrelated crime. Or perhaps he died. Or was institutionalized without ever revealing who he is. The thing is, we don't know. We may never know. Now, is Jack never being caught due to police failures? It's a legitimate conclusion. They had their share of suspects, over 300. By some accounts, they question 80 of them. However, Whitechapel citizens didn't put much stock into this effort.

The town's sex workers who knew the Canonical Five also know the shady men who roam the streets. They want the police to look into those guys, but they're ignored. Perhaps the police are too prejudiced against the women to take them seriously. But maybe they ignore the women for a different reason, for some grander plan. Conspiracy theorists believe that Charles Warren and his police weren't as incompetent as they've been depicted.

Sure, they had an oath to protect the citizens, but another oath of theirs may have been more important. Perhaps an oath that let the Ripper get away. An oath to protect a fellow Freemason. 1888. The dark, crime-ridden town of Whitechapel, England, is under attack. Hiding in the shadows is Jack the Ripper.

He evades capture so well that the terrified townsfolk have lost trust in Scotland Yard. They say the police are too inexperienced. Or maybe they just don't care enough about Whitechapel citizens. But according to one conspiracy theory, the police let Jack go on purpose. There are many offshoots of this theory, but the first one we're going to cover revolves around Metropolitan Police Commissioner Charles Warren. By all accounts, he's probably not incompetent.

And as a leader in the Mason community, he has a duty to protect his brothers. Let's jump back to September 30, the night of both Catherine Eddows and Elizabeth Stride's deaths. Near Catherine's crime scene, police find the antisemitic graffiti. According to author, filmmaker, and Ripperologist Bruce Robinson, officers send a telegraph to Charles Warren's home, notifying him about the clue.

The officers are probably ecstatic. Finally, something that could help lead them to Jack. Well, allegedly, Charles hears about the graffiti and breaks out into a cold sweat. He leaps out of bed, rushing to the scene. Now, as we mentioned earlier, Charles washes the graffiti away. He claims he wants to deter a riot. But Bruce thinks that Charles has a different problem with the graffiti, one that's about to test his loyalties.

See, the graffiti has an apparent typo, misspelling the word Jews as J-U-W-E-S. According to Bruce, it's not a typo at all. It's a secret code, a reference to a masonic tale about three legendary assassins named Jubella, Jubello, and Jubellum. If Bruce is right, then maybe Charles realizes that Jack is a fellow Mason.

Only they would know about the assassins, which would mean Jack isn't revealing a motive. It's a message from one Mason to another, perhaps to Charles specifically. According to Bruce, Charles's secret nickname is Jerusalem Warren due to his time exploring the ancient city. Charles probably took some kind of oath when he joined the force, swearing to protect London. But he also took another oath to protect any Mason, including keeping them out of jail.

Bruce says that Charles makes a decision then and there. He has to protect Jack for the sake of the entire brotherhood. If Jack is caught, he could reveal his ties to the Freemasons, ruining their image. That could have devastating effects on the ruling class. Other policemen, judges, even the royal family are Masons. If they're associated with a devious killer, the public may revolt.

If the theory is true, then Charles doesn't have to work alone. There are doctors and coroners in the police department who are also Masons. With their help, he sets out to fulfill his duty and hide any evidence identifying Jack. Bruce lays out his argument for the theory like this. First, he points out that Whitechapel is full of antisemitic graffiti. If Charles really thinks this graffiti would cause an uproar, he should be cleaning up the whole town.

But no, it's just this one that needs to be washed away immediately, even before a photographer can arrive to take a photo for evidence. That's the last thing he wants. We only know about the graffiti today due to written reports by other officers at the scene. The graffiti isn't the only clue that might connect Jack to the Freemasons. According to Bruce and others who subscribe to his theory, there are the murders themselves.

According to the legend of the three ruffians, Jubella, Jubello, and Jubellum kill a high-ranking Mason after he refuses to help them advance in the order. King Solomon gets word of this and hands down the death penalty. This includes slitting their throats and having their organs removed, scattered around their own bodies. Fun story, right? Well, Bruce points out Jack's MO mirrors that legend. And then there's the fact that Catherine Eddow's body was found in Whitechapel's Mitre Square.

It's a meeting spot for the Masonic Lodge of Joppa. Joppa, Israel, is where King Solomon's men found and captured the ruffians. Plus, there's a tool called a Mitre Square that's used in masonry. What's more, Jack cut some of his victims' faces. According to conspiracy theorists, the slashes were carefully planned. They form the Mason's famous compass logo. Bruce believes that sprinkling his murders with Masonic references grants Jack protection.

To the layperson, it's all random details. Only other Masons, like Grand Deacon Charles, would notice them. So let's follow this theory through. If Jack the Ripper is a Freemason and Charles is protecting him, do we know which Mason he is? Well, some say yes. March 9, 1992. Electricians are working in Liverpool's Battle Crease mansion.

They're tearing up the bedroom floorboards when they notice something strange. Nestled into the crevices of the house is a time-worn leather notebook, a diary. They flip through the old, withered pages and realize they seem to detail grim, murderous thoughts and gruesome deaths. The electricians probably hope that at best it's some creative fiction project. Maybe an aspiring crime writer used to live here.

Then they turn to the last page, an entry dated May 3, 1889. It ends with, "May the good Lord have mercy on my soul and forgive me for all I have done. I give my name that all know of me so history do tell what love can do to a gentle man born. Yours truly, Jack the Ripper." It must feel like a haunted talisman in the worker's hands.

Perhaps that's why that same day the diary is passed around among friends, eventually making its way to scrap metal dealer Mike Barrett. Seeing an opportunity, he starts calling literary agents. And he finds a taker. A monumental discovery like this would sell fast if it's real. So Mike and others begin to research the diary's authenticity. They analyze the ink, the handwriting.

A criminal psychologist examines the text. The team is trying to answer the most important question. Who could have written it? The diary doesn't include the author's full name. He only refers to himself as Sir Jim. Jim writes about his tumultuous marriage to a woman named Florence. He also mentions a brother named Michael. They're clues, but nothing points to a specific culprit.

Until researchers are able to find out who owned the house back in 1889. A cotton salesman and Freemason named James Maybrick. Everything begins to line up. James allegedly called himself Sir Jim. He died mere days after the final entry in the diary, so the timing makes sense. He had a brother named Michael, a famous singer.

And Jim was certainly in a troubled marriage with a woman named Florence. His doomed marriage was documented in a murder trial. See, by 1889, James Maybrick's arsenic addiction has completely deteriorated his body. He dies on May 11 of that year. His official cause of death is gastroenteritis. However, Florence is accused of poisoning James. There's no hard evidence against her, but the prevailing theory is that she extracted arsenic from fly paper, a common Victorian beauty treatment.

Florence is put on trial, found guilty, and eventually spends 14 years in prison. It's an international news story. Now, not everybody believes Florence killed James, but there's no doubt the marriage was troubled. According to the diary, James's hatred toward Florence is the motive behind Jack the Ripper's murders. Florence allegedly cheats on James, spurring a hatred of women and his murder spree.

Now, it does seem like a pretty extreme reaction to potential adultery, especially since James was also unfaithful. But some think there's enough evidence to support the James Maybrick theory. For example, his career in the cotton trade. He traveled often, which meant that he could have committed his crimes in Whitechapel and left town. That could explain how he was never a suspect in 1888. He wasn't in Whitechapel long enough to raise suspicion.

Or perhaps he wasn't a suspect because James was a Freemason. As mentioned earlier, he left clues behind so Charles wouldn't let him be a suspect. Then there's a pocket watch discovered around 1992. Supposedly, it's purchased from a Liverpool pawn shop before the diary is published. The watch bears an engraving, initials, which match the canonical fives' names.

However, there's a lot of uncertainty about both the watch and the diary. First, the watch. While it was bought before the diary became public knowledge, the engravings weren't reported until later. They're seemingly super faint and only visible under a microscope. The convenient timing of it all leads some to believe the watch is a hoax. Analysis on the watch has been inconclusive.

Bristol University's Interface Analysis Center is unable to confirm how old the engravings are, especially because the watch itself was polished in modern times. Another analysis by the University of Manchester shows that the engravings are indeed old, but still, we don't know exactly how old. So we can't say for sure if it's from the 19th century and not a forgery.

Now, the diary. We mentioned how it lists details that only the police or the killer would have known. So say diary supporters at least. But they never seem to specify what those details are. Esteemed ripperologist Melvin Harris refutes the claim entirely, stating there's nothing in the diary that can't be found in other ripper books. Basically, anyone with a library card could have forged the diary and simply made it look old.

And here's the kicker. Mike Barrett, who reportedly brought the diary to a publisher, eventually confesses it's a fake. He even admits to buying the Victorian ink to write it. He's an aspiring writer, so maybe he thought that this was his way into the publishing industry. And yet, Mike's confession doesn't put an end to the diary theory because Mike's wife claims the diary isn't a hoax.

She says it's a family heirloom passed down to her from her father. She later publishes The Last Victim, The Extraordinary Life of Florence Maybrick, the Wife of Jack the Ripper. In researching the book, she finds that she's actually related to Florence, which I guess could explain how her family had the diary. Though, if you're a skeptic, then maybe it just sounds like someone clinging to their 15 minutes of Jack the Ripper fame.

If so, you wouldn't be alone. The Maybrick diary is a hotly contested piece of evidence in ripperology. Yet another theory contends that the diary really is from 1889, but James didn't write it. It was all an attempt to frame James by the real ripper himself, his brother, Michael Maybrick. Michael, another Freemason, is a popular singer in 1888, a celebrity of his time.

Bruce Robinson, the ripperologist we mentioned earlier, says he uncovered some of Michael's tour dates, and they could support the idea that Michael is Jack. You see, while the murders are happening, Whitechapel police are inundated with letters. They're supposedly sent by Jack, and they detail the crimes while also antagonizing police. They're even the genesis of the nickname, Jack the Ripper. However, most, if not all, of the letters have been deemed hoaxes, either written by lying journalists in an attempt to sell more papers or as some sort of twisted prank.

Whitechapel's police even think they're fakes at the time because each letter is postmarked from a different city. They thought Jack was a resident of Whitechapel, so while he couldn't be sending letters from all over England unless he was on tour, Bruce finds that the letters line up with Michael's touring dates. He also notes similarities between the handwriting in the letters and Michael's.

And then there's one of Michael's well-known songs, a nice little diddy called They All Love Jack. So is Michael Maybrick Jack the Ripper? Skeptics say Bruce's theory just doesn't hold up to logic, but there are plenty of ripperologists who do believe it. Even if you don't, I'd suggest you maybe don't throw out Bruce's theory completely because he may still be right about the Freemasons covering up the killings.

There's an alternate version of the double event, a conspiracy that starts with a capture. According to this theory, the police see a man at Catherine Eddow's crime scene. They assume it's Jack and pursue him through the dark labyrinth of Whitechapel. They can't see his face yet, not until one officer tackles Jack to the ground and gets a good look. And he's shocked to find a man he knows, who everyone in England knows.

Jack the Ripper is none other than Albert Victor Christian Edward, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, a.k.a. Prince Eddie, Queen Victoria's grandson. Prince Eddie is a bit of a black sheep in the royal family, respected in the community for his lineage, but recognized as not being the smartest. Definitely not fit to take over the throne one day. And that's likely all that people think of him at the time.

He's not a suspect in the case until about 100 years later. Enter Dr. Thomas Stowall. In 1970, Thomas writes an article for Criminologist Magazine titled Jack the Ripper: A Solution? In the article, Thomas claims that he has access to notes left behind by his former teacher, Sir William Gull. Sir William was Queen Victoria's doctor, as well as Eddie's.

To be clear, Thomas's original article only refers to his culprit as S. He does, however, mention that S's nickname is Collars and Cuffs, which is what Prince Eddie's father called him. He was making fun of Eddie's rather long neck. So people assume Thomas has to be referring to Prince Eddie. And his article becomes the basis for the conspiracy theory that Prince Eddie was Jack the Ripper. The Prince Eddie theory makes several claims, one being that Eddie contracts syphilis from a sex worker, which slowly drives him mad.

He then targets other sex workers for revenge. When he's caught after the double event, police officers are unsure of their next move. Can they just arrest a prince? Instead, they call Sir William to the scene. He certifies Eddie insane, and Eddie is institutionalized. Thomas alleges there's documented proof that William was present at one of Jack's crime scenes.

Other sources state that William knew Eddie was Jack after hypnotizing him and getting a confession. Perhaps he'd even warned police that if they caught Eddie, they were to call him immediately. In either case, with Eddie in a psychiatric hospital, William enlists Charles Warren's help to cover up Eddie's involvement. Eddie's a Mason, and besides that, he's the Queen's grandson. Arresting Eddie could end Charles's career.

There's one obvious flaw with this theory, though. The timeline of the canonical five killings. If Eddie is placed in a hospital after the double event, then who kills the last victim, Mary Jane Kelly? According to Thomas, the police are distracted on the night of her death. Maybe Eddie manages to escape his dwellings and stalk Whitechapel streets undeterred. After killing Mary, Thomas says Eddie is recaptured.

He knows how to dress the animals he kills. After Thomas's article is published, it doesn't take long for folks to make the connection that S is Prince Eddie. But here's the thing. Thomas then writes a follow-up letter insisting he was never talking about Eddie. He attests that Jack doesn't have royal blood. He could be a scion of the family, hence the nickname S. But he's definitely not Prince Eddie.

By the way, Thomas does not name the scion either. Before Thomas is able to provide clarification, he dies. While he is in his 80s, some find that timing rather odd, especially after Thomas's family finds a folder of Jack the Ripper research, and his son allegedly burns it. So the question remains, could Prince Eddie really have been Jack?

Well, many skeptics point out that there is documented evidence of Prince Eddie not being in London during Jack's murders. Also, Thomas notes how William Gull's papers mention Eddie eventually dying from syphilis. But records indicate that Eddie died after Gull, so how could he have recorded Eddie's death? Not to mention the assertion that Eddie made a full recovery from the syphilis, like Thomas says. So how could Eddie recover and die from the same disease?

It just doesn't add up. These contradictions are the key reason why some ripperologists don't put much stock into Thomas's theory. However, it's not the end of Prince Eddie's supposed involvement with Jack the Ripper. Some believe the royal family, with the help of the Freemasons, weren't covering up how Eddie ended lives, but how he created one, one that could take the throne.

According to the Knight theory, named after ripperologist Stephen Knight and his book Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, Jack the Ripper's murders start out, oddly enough, as a love story. The theory goes like this. In 1884, Prince Eddie falls in love with a shop girl and part-time model named Annie Elizabeth Crook, which is a problem. Prince Eddie is a successor to the royal throne, and Annie is Catholic.

Since the 1500s, the royal family has had a sworn decree to keep the crown Protestant. So the thought of Prince Eddie being with Annie and possibly having Catholic children with a right to the throne is, well, frankly, scandalous for the time. But love conquers all. According to the theory, Prince Eddie and Annie secretly tie the knot and have a daughter, Alice. The royal family finds out about this new Catholic heir and has to cover it up.

They barge into Eddie and Annie's home, capturing them and sequestering them in psychiatric hospitals. Eddie is eventually released and goes back to his princely duties. Annie, however, remains institutionalized for 32 years until her death. Thankfully, Eddie and Annie somehow knew that they were about to be caught. Before they were apprehended, they left Alice in the care of their nanny and Annie's coworker, Mary Jane Kelly, Jack's fifth victim.

Mary is able to hide Alice, keeping her safe from capture. According to the theory, the royal family at first doesn't see an issue with leaving Mary and Alice be. That is, as long as Alice's true lineage is kept under wraps. But juicy secrets like those always get out. At some point, Mary allegedly tells friends about Alice, and they try to blackmail the royal family.

These friends are Mary Ann Nichols, Elizabeth Stride, and Annie Chapman, three of the canonical five. Due to their threat, Sir William Gull devises a plan. He, along with other Freemason associates of the royal family, including an assistant commissioner of the police, murder the women. Each is carried out with the same ammo, all to sell a lie that it's the work of one fictional madman, Jack the Ripper.

As for Catherine Eddows, well, she isn't intentionally a part of the blackmail plot, but she reportedly also went by the name Mary Kelly. William and his men kill her in a case of mistaken identity. They soon realize their mistake and kill their original target. With the blackmail plot squashed, they officially end the murder spree. Alice is fortunately spared. Perhaps they couldn't bring themselves to kill a child.

She grows up and has a family of her own. Much of this theory actually comes from one of her descendants, Joseph Sickert. Joseph even claims that his father, painter Walter Sickert, left clues to Jack the Ripper's multiple identities in his work. It's an exciting story, except there's not much actual evidence to back it up. Eddie's supposed secret wife, Annie, is a real person, but there's no record of her ever marrying Eddie or of Eddie being the father of her child.

There are also no records proving all of the men behind the conspiracy really are Freemasons. Some think that the Freemason aspect was shoehorned in because they make for a good scapegoat. Joseph Sickert eventually admits that he made the whole Prince Eddie and Annie romance up, which honestly seems to be a pattern with many of these more out-there Jack the Ripper conspiracies. Despite that, believers in the Knight theory rally on.

They say Joseph recanted because he didn't want the attention anymore. Or perhaps the Freemasons got to him. Stephen Knight even tells people to not take the retractions seriously, but, you know, well, do take the convoluted conspiracy seriously, of course. And the idea of the royal family being involved with Jack the Ripper is an enticing theory. In fact, all of these theories are more tempting than they are believable.

There's just something about the Jack the Ripper story that really draws people in. And there are plenty of suspects out there who do seem to fit the bill. They were just operating alone, not as part of some grand conspiracy. However, Scotland Yard continues to ignite theories of a real cover-up. In 1988, for the 100th anniversary of the murders, Scotland Yard releases their files from the time.

However, those who were able to see them before the release claim that some files aren't included, as if Scotland Yard purposely let some disappear. Now, it could be that files simply get lost over 100 years, or maybe they're lost intentionally because of what they might reveal. In 2011, author Trevor Marriott files a freedom of information application. It asks the police to release a 900-page document detailing Scotland Yard's operations from 1888 to 1912.

It's a long rumor document with unclear origins. It seems that no one was sure if the document exists. But Trevor believes that if it does exist, then somewhere in those files is the key to solving the Jack the Ripper mystery. And here's the thing. When Trevor sends in his request, Scotland Yard doesn't say, "We can't release it because there's no such file." Instead, they basically say, "We have to think about it first."

After months of thinking, Scotland Yard ultimately refuses. They claim it's because they have a duty to protect any informants named in the files. Even though they lived in the 19th century and are long dead by now. An anonymous detective explains releasing those records from the Victorian era, quote, "could have a chilling effect on police informants today." We have to ask why.

Because the informants would lose their trust in the system that's supposed to protect them? Or because the public would learn that the police covered up the most notorious killer in history? Unfortunately, they're not releasing the files anytime soon. And until some sort of official document is released, we probably won't ever have confirmation on Jack's identity. It's almost as if Jack's anonymity is part of the allure that history wants to keep.

But there's an argument to be made that we should let the search for Jack the Ripper's identity die. Instead, we should remember his victims, confirmed and unconfirmed, especially since history seems to have lied about them. Part of Jack the Ripper's lore is that he killed the canonical five because they were sex workers. And most articles detailing these women's lives include their gruesome nude autopsy and crime scene photos.

Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddows, and Mary Jane Kelly. Thank you for listening to Conspiracy Theories. We're here with a new episode every Wednesday. Be sure to check us out on Instagram at The Conspiracy Pod. If you're watching on Spotify, swipe up and give us your thoughts. Our sources for today's episode include the research and articles compiled on Casebook.org, the world's largest public repository of Ripper-related information.

Until next time, remember, the truth isn't always the best story. And the official story isn't always the truth. This episode was written and researched by Brandon Rizzuto, edited by Mickey Taylor and Justin Sales, fact-checked by Alex Soussa, engineered by Jason Arriola, video edited and sound designed by Alex Button. I'm your host, Carter Roy.