Confessions of a Ripperologist
John Malcolm. Revised e-text version, 2007.
Full text below.
PART THREE: THE CRITICAL, CONTROVERSIAL CONCLUSIONS…
and THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
I’m not convinced that all we have is all there is. In accepting this, I have
to accept that my conclusions are not conclusive. I have been humbled when my
speculations of earlier times have been disproved (or, to my mind,
realistically diminished) and I should expect that, despite my infinite wisdom,
I shall be humbled again. And I must reiterate that however excited I may
become about my current thoughts, it is entirely possible I may think
differently tomorrow. But this is now, so I must continue as I am.
While we ritually and/or symbolically slaughter the victims over and over by
dryly and emotionlessly reenacting their deaths with words and pictures, we
may, to some degree, be guilty of voyeurism or maybe worse yet of dehumanizing
or trivializing their memories. Maybe this is necessary to accurately assess
the cold, hard “facts”; I’m not so sure. I think it is imperative that we do
our best to put ourselves as close to the people of 1888 as possible. Too often
they become one-dimensional characters in our amorality plays that, conversely,
emphasize colorful or glorified suspects. But so goes the entertainment value.
I hope you will find this a little different, but this is my contribution
either way. This is where I get to air my dirty laundry. If you’ve already got
your mind made up about Jack the Ripper, then turn back now.
I will not commit myself entirely to any of my inclinations which are to be
discussed here, but my prejudices obviously influence my opinions; my mind is
not completely made up about who, how many, or why, but I am inclined to lean
heavily in certain directions, particularly relating to the following issues.
And yes I have opinions, I have prejudices, I have emotions. And they
will all factor into my take on the story.
The influence of the contemporary press vs. today’s “experts”.
Even the benefit of hindsight cannot replace the experiences of contemporary
writers living at the time of the murders. As is today, competition amongst
news organizations sometimes leads to leaps and bounds of speculation,
sometimes disguised as fact, all in the name of sensation and profit.
Exaggerations, embellishments and interpretations cloud the lost realities that
we scratch and claw for relentlessly today; much can be gleaned from
contemporary press coverage, but it must be carefully weighed against the
“official” documentation of the events of 1888; but none of us are immune to
impulsive speculation, motive notwithstanding.
Assumptions,…
…And
continuing from the preface: A few examples of common assumptions that I
believe to be too potentially dangerous to be carelessly overlooked present
themselves in an otherwise respectable and responsible commentary that is the
glue that keeps The News from Whitechapel: Jack the Ripper in the Daily
Telegraph together. Two of these assumptions or suggestions occur in the
commentary regarding the murder of Elizabeth Stride, when discussing her status
among the “canonical five” and the differences observed with the other murders:
“- A different type of knife was used- short-bladed versus long bladed.”
Later I will expound on the “different weapons” problem, but even though this
statement is qualified as commentary, it is definitely a speculative assertion
that is based solely on the opinion of one contemporary doctor relative to his
proposed version of the events and circumstances of Stride’s death. The
commentary then states as a matter of fact that two different weapons were used
in the murder of Martha Tabram- again not an impossibility, but a conclusion
that can be reasonably debated. As is in most of the other commentaries, reason
and logic are evident- that I disagree is not my primary disagreement- I’m just
warning of the dangers of being convinced by implied, flimsy, or even imagined
circumstantial evidence.
“…the information we have strongly indicates that the killer was not disturbed,
but merely contented himself with slitting her throat. Stride’s attacker-
Schwartz’s first man- was, thus, likely not the serial killer Jack the Ripper,
and her death should be classified as an aggravated assault turned murder
instead of one in a series of murders.”
Just an amazing coincidence- or better yet, a complete set of independent
coincidences- I can only shake my head at what, to me, is not an acceptable
assumption at all. (And as I have stated earlier, this is nit-picking,
but I cannot understate my belief in the importance of trying to keep an open
mind where “truly damning evidence is wholly wanting.” These examples are by no
means outstanding and surely are not meant to imply any intentional deception.
But they are indicative of how even informed opinions can, by way of assigning
assumed probabilities, sway the reader towards what would be an assumed
conclusion. And I should be especially inclined to expose these if they
contradict my own assignations of assumed probabilities and/or conclusions! And
so I will.)
Of a much more significant nature, with respect to my own anti-theories, there
are assumptions that continue to cause me much more grief. While suggesting
that Elizabeth Stride’s murder was independent from those of the remainder of
the canonical five is not completely far-fetched, I seem to have formed some
ideas that are not only contrary to this suggestion, but take two more steps in
the opposite direction.
Emma Elizabeth Smith.
“Unofficially, it was believed that Smith had been killed by members of a band
of street thugs from The Nichol, a slum area near Old Nichol Street
at the top of Brick Lane. The gang’s preferred livelihood consisted of
extracting protection money from East End prostitutes and it was possible that they’d
brutalised Smith as a warning to other women to pay up or suffer similar
treatment.”
“Savage though this crime was, it was but one murder in many violent deaths
which occurred in the East End.”
“The evidence against
the belief that the woman Smith was the first, or even one of the victims of
the master criminal, was easily available at the time, but the Press and the
authorities of the day seemed determined to include her among the women killed
by the same man, presumably because they wished to make the record against the
unknown blacker than actually it was, or to add one sensation to another.”
“But for now the incorrect assumption that the murders of Smith, Tabram and,
for that matter, Fairy Fay
might have been committed by the same person was not to be altered by any
official statements from the police or Home Secretary.”
“…it is necessary to eliminate the charge, often made by police and coroners,
that the first Ripper crime was the killing of Emma Smith…”
“The murder of Emma Smith can also be reasonably taken off the list of Ripper
victims.”
“Although the sheer brutality of the attack had shocked the East Enders it was
still a crime generally accepted as understandable.”…Understandable?
“The nature of Emma Smith’s injuries, the number of her assailants, and the
fact that she could not or would not identify those assailants, allowed the
police to make an almost certainly correct assumption that she had been
attacked by one of the High Rip gangs which had been operating in the area for
some time.”
“Emma Elizabeth Smith…(frequently and wrongly ascribed by the press to
the Ripper)”
“…this murder was to be attributed to Jack the ripper but at the time the
police concluded that Emma’s killers were members of a street gang…They were
undoubtedly right…she was not murdered by the ripper.”
Let us not forget that both the police and the public were still considering
the gang theory even after the murder of Mary Ann Nichols.
“Emma Smith was undoubtedly murdered by a group of muggers,…”
“We can discount Emma Smith.”
“It was a most heinous street crime indeed, but not the work of Jack the
Ripper.”
“The crimes of ‘Jack the Ripper’ are so inextricably woven with the Whitechapel
Murders that often one is mistaken for the other.”
I find myself virtually alone on this one, but I can’t seem to accept that an
attack so violent and especially obscene as the one which resulted in the death
of Emma Smith can be so carelessly tossed aside and categorized as “ordinary
street violence” simply because of the differences in M.O. with the “canonical
five” (and not insignificantly by her statements of being accosted by
more than one assailant). Only Walter Dew appears to have been on my side, but
his words are not given much weight these days, considering his position at the
time of the murders. Although there are obvious discrepancies, there are
too many factors that aren’t generally taken into consideration and more often
simply scoffed at, that trouble me deeply when lumping this in with common
robbery and segregating her from the possible victims of Jack the Ripper.
“Special agents from the FBI examined a sample of 36 sexual murderers, 29 of
whom were convicted of killing several victims. Specifically they were
interested in the general characteristics of sexual murderers…They explored the
dynamics of offenders’ sexual fantasies, sadistic behaviors, and rape and
mutilation murders. These investigators noticed several deviant sexual
behaviors practiced before, during, or after the victim has been killed. The
act of rape, whether it be the actual physical act or a symbolic rape during
which an object is inserted into the vagina, was found to be common among
serial killers in this study. For some offenders the act of rape served as only
one form of sexual assault; they engaged in a variety of mutilations, sexual
perversions, and desecrations of the victim’s corpse (Ressler et al., 1988,
pp.33-34).”
I was especially intrigued by “The act of rape, whether it be the actual
physical act or a symbolic rape during which an object is inserted into
the vagina, was found to be common among serial killers…” There is no doubt
that “an object was inserted into the vagina” of Emma Smith- it directly
resulted in her death. But maybe this was common among typical street thugs
also. Many blank stares are cast my way when I bring up these points- the
status quo is steadfast and true.
…Understandable?...
Other factors are taken into consideration when comparing the different murders
also. The FACT that Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were lodging in the same
street; the FACT that they were assaulted within yards of one another and both
after midnight; the FACT that they were both of the same “class”; the arguments
that are used as ammunition in discounting Smith and Tabram are thus: (first
Smith) According to Smith’s own testimony, she was attacked by several men, not
apparently a singular fiend; murder was probably not the primary motive; the
weapon used was not a knife;…Good observations, but not particularly observant.
So am I suggesting that Smith and Tabram may have been victims of a criminal
who was later to murder again? Absolutely, yes. Am I entirely convinced? No.
With the Tabram murder, there was no throat “slashing” and no disembowelment;
dissimilarities there obviously were, but to my mind not any more conclusive
than the similarities. Not so in the cases of Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles,
but I must admit that I am less confident in excluding them (especially McKenzie)
from the tally of Ripper murders than I am in including those of Smith and Tabram
(or is it more confident?). Go figure.
And, even as the opinion seems to be slowly shifting, it is incredible that
being stabbed 39 times (Martha Tabram) could be “just another murder.”
(Remember, murder in any form was rare, even in the environment of the times,
despite what some early authors have indicated.)
Not to expose any homicidal tendencies, but (to take a page from Patricia
Cornwell’s bizarre meat-tossing display which was a comically dramatic visual
from one of her television appearances) try swinging your strong arm, while
clutching a strong knife, and plunging it in and out of, say, a side of beef,
or annoying neighbor, and tell me that this is something that someone who was
simply “pissed off” or “holding a grudge” could carry out on another living
human being. Not only overkill, the murder of Martha Tabram was an act beyond
murder.
These two instances were indeed extraordinary, even within the context of the
conditions of the East End and I find it somewhat ignorant and irresponsible for
any of our “experts” with all their grand pomposity, to scoff at the suggestion
that one or both of these murders quite possibly could be related,
significantly, to the subsequent murders from Mary Ann Nichols to Mary Jane
Kelly. ALL of these women lodged within a tiny cluster of streets (although
densely populated) in Spitalfields. ALL were prostitutes. ALL were attacked
after midnight. ALL were subjected to extreme violence that
was definitely out of the ordinary, even for the East End…
Attempts have been made to disassociate other victims, including Eddowes and
Kelly; if you take in all the particulars, the fact remains that even if any of
these murders individually were by a different hand, the extreme unlikelihood
of two sexual or sexual serial killers operating simultaneously in the same
heavily policed area would be a coincidence that defies logic. Unless, of
course, it was a team effort, as in California’s Hillside Stranglers. I
find it incredible that there may have been more than one person in this tiny
area who would be capable of not only savagely murdering, but disemboweling.
Even the thought is hard to stomach. This remains a remote possibility,
although I’m not ready to accept that this may have been the case.
The killer of these women (including or not Smith, Tabram or Stride)
undoubtedly was wise to the mob drooling to lynch him and his methods certainly
were refined throughout the course to reflect his considerations, and this
would not be especially deviant even going back to the attack on Emma Smith.
Whoever may have been responsible for the murders of the canonical five may not
have had confidants or “conspirators” per se, but it is an unquestionable fact
that he did interact with others on a daily basis and thus certainly had
acquaintances, maybe even friends or family, who, regardless of whether or not
they harbored suspicions, saw this person not as a supernatural monster, but a
fellow human being who went about his business, however idiosyncratically, ate,
drank, went to the toilet, slept, lived, breathed and engaged in, at least to
some degree, everyday normal human behavior. Maybe at one time a member of a
group or “gang” of thugs or even mischievous “youths.” This concept alone is
extremely difficult to reconcile with the horror and destruction that was
inflicted on the much celebrated victims of “Jack the Ripper” and it is
understandable why these difficulties are often neglected, for the
simplification of these complexities is a necessity if the curiosity of the
all-consuming, paying customers is to be easily exploited, hence profitable.
The average attention span in this day and age does not permit such
contemplation. Three-minute pop songs, thirty-second commercials, “reality” TV,
mobile phones, etc.,..Philosophy and introspection simply have too small a
market to be worth the effort of today’s “summing up and verdict” mentality.
Certainly this approach can be a useful tool for the beginner, but one where
caution must be exercised. (I really mean no ill-will towards those whose
opinions differ from mine, and whose interpretations may contradict my own, for
I don’t know anything more than anyone else…so please pardon me for
shouting.)
And something generally overlooked today is the fact that it appears that
popular opinion of the time was that the “seven undiscovered murders” of 1888
from Smith to Kelly were the work of the same man. The first deviation from
this was to come from Sir Melville Macnaghten (who was later to become “deputy”
to Anderson and eventually occupy Anderson’s position as Assistant Commissioner) around 1894,
who stated emphatically that
Suffice it at present to say that the Whitechapel murderer committed five
murders, and- to give the devil his due- no more.
and also
Now
the Whitechapel Murderer had 5 victims- & 5 victims only,-
I will admit again that my inclinations are nothing more and I do not purport
to possess any supernatural powers that allow me to be overly confident, as I
am sure in time some of them will be convincingly refuted.
Anderson only “thought he knew”- J. G. Littlechild.
Almost all of us “Ripperologists” choose to favor a particular report,
recollection, memoir, memorandum, marginalia, or rehashed second-hand
journalistic interpretation from which to set up camp. If you pare down to bare
bones each of those particular statements that have been legitimately
documented, what we have left are sublime contradictions and frustratingly few
concrete connections; so it is a bit easier to focus on one at a time and
analyze the source, the vehicle, the validity and the placement within the
context of the Whitechapel murders, of every statement. But none of the
individual pieces of this jigsaw puzzle seem perfectly compatible. So, if in
fact they are parts of the same whole, there has to be other pieces in between
that, if discovered, might make some sense of it all. For some reason
the murders ceased; and the officers and officials involved couldn’t possibly
have been all wrong. Which, we must conclude, means that some were more
right than others. Does that help? Probably not.
It also seems apparent that the police as a whole were trying to bury something;
whether it be reminders of their failures or details of an occult
incarceration…Some of them were bursting with a desire to tell what they knew-
Anderson clearly cracked just enough to incite controversy from the time he
exposed his “Polish Jew” right up to the present, over a hundred years later.
The critics among Anderson’s contemporaries huffed and puffed, but a direct
refutation of his claims regarding the Polish Jew, is still elusive. (Unless,
of course, you consider Littlechild’s statement, which was written to a journalist,
from someone who, from what we know up until now, took no part in the
investigation whatsoever.) Some whose feathers were ruffled by Anderson’s
words would bark scathingly in retort, but they would always seem to be falling
just short of outright denial. There are many arguments, most of which deserve
at least some merit, but most of us are still merely huffing and puffing.
Anderson says “the conclusion we came to…” [my italics]. So who are
among “we”? Chief Inspector Swanson? Inspector Abberline? General Sir Charles
Warren, Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police? The inference is clear
that it was not only his “conclusion,” but that it was a group effort.
So where is the admission that “we” might have been wrong? No one seems to
claim accountability for being one of the “we;” so who are “we” and what
else have “we” implied?
From the Horses’ Mouths.
Here are some more of the most often quoted examples of the “opinions” of some
of the major players in this enduring drams: (Best have your A-Z or Ultimate
Companion handy at all times for the necessary details and backgrounds that
need not be explored in depth here.) It may be noted that there is a
conspicuous absence of “official” words about the murders from police and
government officials and the words on the subject that have appeared in
subsequent memoirs and reminiscences that have made it into the public domain
are elevated to almost sacred status. Unfortunately, we all seem to have the
tendency to go about trying to solve this riddle by relying only on the things
that we know and scarcely acknowledging the overwhelming probability that there
is much more that we don’t consider because we don’t know; and no matter how
hard we push our imaginations, ultimately, as of this moment, we must decide
that all we have is inconclusive. Follow me? We do base our inclinations to an
extent on speculation, but sometimes the roots of our speculations spring trees
that bear bad fruit. And it cannot always be blamed on the fertilizer.
After digesting the entirety of the quotes and misquotes, the inescapable
scenario is one where nobody knows the truth, living, dead, or
otherwise. There are undoubtedly many more words not spoken or written
by those who knew the most compared with the fragmented and debated scraps that
have been uncovered thus far. There are many more secrets buried, some gone
back to the earth from whence they came, some still waiting, quietly and
patiently, hoping for discovery. There quite possibly could be a potential for
a golden crumb from within the wealth of minutiae that continues to march like
a colony of ants into the expanding modern forum of Ripperology that could help
put to rest some of the nagging issues that buzz annoyingly around our heads
like flies.
The Macnaghten Memoranda.
From Sir Melville Macnaghten, who has become possibly the number one source for
the information of base ideas and opinions for twentieth and twenty-first
century theorists, come some of the most widely accepted and possibly deceiving
sets of statements.
“It will be noticed that the fury of the mutilations increased in each case,
and, seemingly, the appetite only became sharpened by indulgence. It seems,
then, highly improbable that the murderer would have suddenly stopped in
November ’88, and been content to recommence operations by merely prodding a
girl behind some 2 years & 4 months afterwards. A much more rational theory
is that the murderer’s brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in
Miller’s Court, and he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible
alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by
them confined in some asylum.
“No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer, many homicidal maniacs were
suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the
cases of three men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to
have committed this series of murders:-
“(1) A Mr. M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family, who
disappeared at the time of the Miller’s Court murder, & whose body (which
is said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames
on 31st. Dec., or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually
insane and from private info. I have little doubt but that his own family
believed him to have been the murderer.
“(2) Kosminski, a Polish Jew & resident in Whitechapel. This man became
insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred
of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal
tendencies; he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were
many circs connected with this man which made him a strong ‘suspect.’
“(3) Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor, and a convict, who was subsequently
detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac. The man’s antecedents were
of the worst possible type, and his whereabouts at the time of the murders
could never be ascertained.”
This internal and “confidential” document, contained in the Scotland Yard
files, penned in response to articles that appeared in The Sun newspaper
that pointed the finger at one Thomas Cutbush, named three contemporary
suspects who were “more likely” than Cutbush to have committed the Whitechapel
murders, and has become a cornerstone for modern theorizing. There are
demonstrable factual errors in Macnaghten’s descriptions of the suspects and
these errors are given appropriate treatments relative to subjective
interpretations. Two of the three named suspects have provided much interesting
fodder for Ripperologists (Druitt and Kosminski), but I find it unlikely that these
names would have seen the light of day together if the police definitely
believed one of them to have been the Ripper.
Macnaghten’s memoir Days of My Years details his recollections of the
crimes and his own speculative analysis (curiously, no mention is made of his
three suspects or Cutbush): From the chapter Laying the Ghost of Jack the
Ripper:
“The above queer verse was one of the first documents which I perused at
Scotland Yard, for at that time the police post-bag bulged large with hundreds
of anonymous communications on the subject of the East End
tragedies. Although, as I shall endeavor to show in this chapter, the
Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street
affair in November 1888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not
in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer.
“At the time, then, of my joining the Force on 1st June 1889, the
police and public were still agog over the tragedies of the previous autumn,
and were quite ready to believe that any fresh murders, not at once elucidated,
were by the same maniac’s hand.”
“…Suffice it at present to say that the Whitechapel murderer committed five
murders, and – to give the devil his due – no more. Only two or three years ago
I saw a book of police reminisces (not by a Metropolitan officer), in which the
author stated that he knew more of the ‘Ripper murders’ than any man living,
and then went on to say that during the whole of August 1888 he was on the
tiptoe of expectation. The writer had indeed a prophetic soul, looking to the
fact that the first murder of the Whitechapel miscreant was on 31st
August of that year of grace.”
This is clearly a shot at Major Henry Smith, Acting Commissioner of the City
Police, who had previously commented, in his own memoirs, negatively about Anderson’s
assertions; it also shows a hint of rivalry;
“…this panic was quite unreasonable. The victims, without exception, belonged
to the lowest dregs of female humanity, who avoid the police and exercise every
ingenuity in order to remain in the darkest corners of the most deserted
alleys.
“I remember being down in Whitechapel one night in September of 1889, in
connection with what was known as the Pinchin Street murder, and being in a
doss house,…The code of immorality in the East End is, or was, unwashed in its
depths of degradation.”
“The attention of Londoners was first called to the horrors of life (and death)
in the East End by the murder of one, Emma Smith, who was found
horribly outraged in Osborne Street in the early morning of 3rd April 1888. She
died in London hospital, and there is no doubt that her death was
caused by some young hooligans who escaped arrest.”
“The first real ‘Whitechapel murder,’ as before stated, took place on 31st
August, when Mary Ann Nichols was found in Buck’s Row…”
“…two murders – unquestionably by the same hand - …Elizabeth Stride,…In this
case there can be little doubt but that the murderer was disturbed at his
demoniacal work by some Jews who at that hour drove up to an anarchist club in
the street.”
“There can be no doubt that in the room at Miller’s Court the madman found
ample scope for the opportunities he had all along been seeking, and the
possibility is that, after his awful glut on this occasion, his brain gave way
altogether and he committed suicide; otherwise the murders would not have
ceased.” (The careful wording and implied opinion of “probability”
should be taken into consideration as in the cases of all the memoirs of the
officials who were involved or close enough to be exposed to the “truth.”)
“Sexual murders are the most difficult of all for police to bring home to the
perpetrators, for motives there are none;…Not infrequently the maniac posses a
diseased body, and this was probably so in the case of the Whitechapel
murderer.” This mirrors the type of conclusions FBI profilers might make, in
its logic and simplicity. When discussing The Lodger, a fictional
treatment based on the Whitechapel murders written by Marie Belloc Lowndes,
Macnaghten compares Mrs. Lowndes’ “Avenger” with his own given idea of Jack the
Ripper:
“I do not think that there was anything of religious mania about the real Simon
Pure, nor do I believe that he had ever been detained in an asylum, nor lived
in lodgings. I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in
terror resided with his own people; that he absented himself from home at
certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of
November 1888, after he had knocked out a Commissioner of Police and very
nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty’s principal Secretaries of
State.”
“Had ever been” may have been a coy reference to Lowndes’ Lodger (the
“Lodger” having been resident of an asylum prior to his crimes), meant
to discreetly disassociate his suicide victim from Anderson’s
“caged in an asylum” suspect.
Some tantalizing assertions, but again all trails lead to dead ends.
Major Henry Smith and “reckless anti-Semitism”.
Of the commentaries most often used to discredit Anderson’s statements, one
coming from a fellow senior policeman (and more significantly from one of the
“rival” City Police Force), must be given some weight.
Sir Henry Smith published his memoirs in 1910. He was acting Commissioner of
the City of London Police at the time of the investigation into the death of
Catherine Eddowes. He titled chapter XVI Of the Ripper and His Deeds- And of
the Criminal Investigator, Sir Robert Anderson. According to The Jack
the Ripper A-Z: “The Scotland Yard copy contains a handwritten annotation
under the author’s name:
‘A good raconteur and a good fellow, but not strictly veracious: most of the
book consists of after dinner stories outside his personal experience. In
dealing with matters within his own knowledge he is often far from accurate as
my own knowledge of the facts assures me.
G.H.E.’
“GHE was George H. Edwards, Secretary to the Metropolitan Police, 1925-27,…”
“…he completely beat me and every police officer in London; and I
have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago.”
“…I visited every butcher’s shop in the city, and every nook and corner which
might, by any possibility, be the murderer’s place of concealment.”
Describing the murder of Elizabeth Stride: “The woman was seriously injured
about the head, and must have been thrown down with great violence,…”
Smith addresses Sir Robert Anderson’s “Polish Jew:”
“Sir Robert does not tell us how many of ‘his people’ sheltered the murderer,
but whether they were two dozen in number, or two hundred, or two thousand, he
accuses them of being accessories to these crimes before and after their
committal.
“Surely Sir Robert cannot believe that while the Jews, as he asserts, were
entering into this conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice, there was no one
among them with sufficient knowledge of the criminal law to warn them of the
risks they were running…”
“Sir Robert talks of the ‘Lighter Side’ of his ‘Official Life.’ There is
nothing ‘light’ here; a heavier indictment could not be framed against a class
whose conduct contrasts most favourably with that of the Gentile population of
the Metropolis.”
A very harsh letter with a contrary suggestion written by someone claiming to
be a Jewish doctor is among the Home Office files relating to the Lipski case
and is brought to light in The Trials of Israel Lipski by Martin L.
Friedman:
“’The
Polish Jews living in London have put into play all sorts of means to save
their Lipski, despite the fact that they are themselves convinced that Lipski
has committed this atrocious crime, accompanied by aggravating circumstance,
revolting and rare in the annals of crime. But for these enraged fanatics, to
see hanged one of their Jews by Christian hands is not only dishonourable for
them, but also profaning to the highest degree the Mosaic religion, and
especially the Rabbinical doctrines. And they are able to perjure themselves by
the thousands to prevent one of theirs being hanged by Christians, were he the
biggest and most atrocious criminal in the world. The Rabbinical laws permit
perjury in such cases. Yes, Russia and Germany have given England a lovely
present, in chasing these furious and outraged fanatics, a leprous and
consuming vermin, from a civilised and admired society…”
On the rubbing out of the Graffito, Smith states: “The facts are indisputable,
yet Sir Robert Anderson studiously avoids all allusion to them. Is it because
‘it would ill become him to violate the unwritten rule of service,’ or is he
unwilling to put on record the unpardonable blunder of his superior officer? I
leave my readers to decide.”
According to The Jack the Ripper A-Z, “…Dr Robert Anderson told the Daily
Chronicle, 1 September 1908, that the erasure of this valuable clue was crass
stupidity.”
“Sir Robert says ‘the Ripper could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains
in secret.’ The criminal, no doubt, was valeted by his co-religionists- warned
not to run too great risks, to come home as soon as he could after business,
and always to give notice when he meant to cut up another lady!”
“The writing on the wall may have been written- and, I think, probably was
written- to throw the police off the scent, to divert suspicion from the
Gentiles and throw it upon the Jews. It may have been written by the murderer,
or it may not. To obliterate the words that might have given us a most valuable
clue, more especially after I had sent a man to stand over them till they were
photographed, was not only indiscreet, but unwarrantable.
“Sir Robert Anderson spent, so he tells us, the day of his return from abroad
and half the following night ‘in reinvestigating the whole case.’ A more
fruitless investigation, looking to all he tells us, it would be difficult to
imagine.”
I don’t believe that the murderer was trying to “throw the police off the
scent” at all. I can’t help but to think he was well aware of the social and
political consequences the murders actuated. He may have been deliberately
antagonizing, realizing that he would probably, eventually be caught. The
writing on the wall may also have been a further attempt to vent his anger and
desperation…
“…the Jews in the East End, against whom Sir Robert Anderson made his reckless
accusation,…”
“A great deal of mystery still hangs about these horrible Ripper outrages,
although in a letter which I have just received from Sir Robert Anderson, he
intimates that the police knew well enough at the time who the miscreant was,
although, unfortunately, they had not sufficient legal evidence to warrant them
laying hands upon him.”
“Sr. Hy. Smith pooh-poohs this, declaring with equal confidence that he was a
Gentile. He further states that the writing on the wall was probably a mere
‘blind,’ although the writing itself might have afforded a valuable clue.”
To add this to a context, H. L. Adam continues:
“One thing is certain, namely, the elusive assassin, whoever he was, possessed
anatomical knowledge. This, therefore, leads one pretty surely to the
conclusion that he was a medical man, or one who had formerly been a medical
student.”
This is something, in my unprofessional opinion, was most probably not
the case…
“Macnaghten, Abberline and Smith. These men must have known the truth about
Kosminski. Had the Ripper case been solved they would presumably have been only
too glad to say so. So by disassociating themselves from Anderson on
this point they demonstrated that his claim to have definitely identified the
murderer was simply addle-headed nonsense. They were not alone.”
“Chief Inspector Swanson, a strong authority on the case, did endorse Anderson…Loyalty
and a deep sense of personal obligation may have coloured his judgement.
Sugden goes on to discuss minutes of Parliamentary hearings regarding Anderson’s
memoirs (first serialized in Blackwood’s Magazine) to further unjustly
criticize the character of Anderson. From The Complete History of Jack the Ripper:
“Winston Churchill, then Home Secretary, read them… to determine whether Anderson
should forfeit his police pension because of his disclosures of confidential
information. He decided that to deprive Sir Robert of his pension would be to attach
‘far too much importance to the articles and to their author’ but noted that
the articles did Anderson little credit. In particular he hit the nail right on
the head when he told the Commons in April 1910 that the memoirs seemed ‘to be
written in a spirit of gross boastfulness…the writer has been so anxious to
show how important he was, how invariably he was right, and how much more he
could tell if only his mouth was not what he was pleased to call closed.”
These quotes from Churchill may very well have been pertaining to specific
revelations unrelated to the Whitechapel murders, but either way they don’t
suggest that Anderson said anything untruthful.
“Smith’s memoir is repeatedly inaccurate.”
“As far as Smith’s veracity is concerned he was refreshingly honest in
admitting his failure on the Ripper case, which can by no means be said of all
the officers involved in the investigation.”
“The press felt that the City Police, under his direction, were frank and
helpful whereas the Metropolitan Police were obstructive and secretive.”
“Smith fiercely attacked Sir Robert Anderson’s claim to know the identity of
the Ripper, accusing him of irresponsible anti-Semitism and designating his
investigation ‘fruitless.’”
“H. L. Adam, in his preface to The Trial of George Chapman, names Major
Smith as one of the senior policeman who had confidentially told him that the
Ripper’s identity was definitely known.”
Ironically, the words “demonstrably untrue” pop up repeatedly within the
barrage of random accusations and defenses that are continuously flung about by
our scholarly Ripperologists. Sadly, the literal meaning of this phrase tends
to be obscured by its individually intended implications.
“It is worth noting, therefore, that Smith’s personal profession of ignorance
is rather restrictively worded: ‘I must admit that…[the Ripper] completely beat
me and every police officer in London; and I have no more idea now where he
lived than I had twenty years ago’ [our italics].”
From Inspector Frederick Abberline, “Scotland Yard Central Office Detective
Inspector (first class) involved in, and in charge of, enquiries in the East End into
the Whitechapel murders from September 1888 until c. March 1889.”:
“You’ve caught Jack the Ripper at last.”
In a series of articles for The Pall Mall Gazette in 1903, Abberline was
interviewed and his words fueled speculation that the “Borough Poisoner,”
Severin Klosowski, alias George Chapman, a Polish man convicted of and hanged
for poisoning three “wives” between 1895 and 1901, was quite possibly one and
the same “Jack the Ripper.” Abberline flirts quite openly with the reporter
about his suspicions, clearly and cleverly distancing his public musings from Anderson’s
“Polish Jew theory.” It was in consequence of these articles, apparently, that
author Philip Sugden took up his position (also apparently the first modern
author) that Klosowski/Chapman was a “most likely” candidate for the crown.
According to the Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, “Inspector Henry
Moore…one of the Detective Inspectors sent from Scotland Yard to investigate
the Whitechapel Murders…took over as the inspector in charge of the enquiry
when Abberline moved on to other investigations in early 1889.” Why would
Inspector Abberline, perceived as deeply embedded in the Whitechapel murders
investigations “move on” to “other investigations” in “early 1889?” Perhaps he
was no longer needed back at his old haunts…If this is in fact accurate (and
there is no reason to believe otherwise), the only reason that lies
naked before us is that someone in higher official places was confident
enough that either the murderer was known or secured, without further legal
pursuits being necessary, allowing Abberline, and his expert knowledge of the labyrinthine
world of Whitechapel and its people to “move on.” Otherwise, this would be
difficult to reconcile.
From the memoirs of Chief Inspector Walter Dew, “As Detective Constable, H
Division, actively engaged on Ripper case”:
“In writing of the ‘Jack the Ripper crimes,’ it must be remembered that they
took place fifty years ago, and it may be that small errors as to dates and
days may have crept in.”
“But the natural elation with which I viewed my promotion was tempered by my
knowledge of the neighbourhood to which I had been sent to win my detective’s
‘spurs’.”
“I feel I must say a few words in defence of the police- of whom I was one- who
were severely criticized for their failure to hunt down the wholesale murderer.
There are still those who look upon the Whitechapel murders as one of the most
ignominious police failures of all time.
“Failure it certainly was, but I have never regarded it other than an
honourable failure.”
“There was criticism, too, of the Chief of the Criminal Investigation
Department, Sir Robert Anderson, and the Chief Commissioner, Sir Charles
Warren,…This was equally undeserved.”
“Buck’s Row, George Yard, Hanbury Street, Berners Street, Mitre Square and Miller’s Court became the scenes of definite
Ripper crimes, and in every case he left behind the mutilated form of what once
had been a woman.
“It is not easy to say which was the fiend’s first murder.”
“They never suspected that the hand which had struck Emma Smith down was to
strike again and again.”
“Some even now doubt that the murder of Mrs. Smith was the handiwork of the
Ripper. In some respects the crime differed from those which followed.”
“In its brutality and its lack of motive the murder in Osborne Street
had the stamp of the Ripper upon it.
“It is true that the first assumption of the police was that the woman had been
attacked by one of the Whitechapel blackmailing gangs, and there was some
support for this theory in the fact that no money was found in the victim’s
purse. But it is more than likely that Emma Smith was as penniless when she
left her lodgings that night as when her body was found. An empty purse was far
from being a novel experience to women of her type.
“It has always been inconceivable to me that such a person could have been
killed for gain. With robbery as the motive, a very different type of victim
would have been chosen.”
“The silence, the suddenness, the complete elimination of clues, the baffling
disappearance all go to support the view which I have always held that Emma
Smith was the first to meet her death at the hands of Jack the Ripper.
“I have another theory. It is that the Ripper having, like a tiger, tasted
blood, remained unsatisfied until his dread knife had cut short the lives of
one after another of his victims.”
“Except by the police who were still working secretly in their efforts to track
the murderer down, the tragedy of Emma Smith, the victim of the Osborne Street
crime, was forgotten almost as soon as her mutilated body had been lowered into
a pauper’s grave.”
“Then came the first real evidence that Whitechapel was harbouring a devil in
human form.
“Emma Smith had been murdered on Easter Monday. The Ripper came again on August
Bank Holiday of the same year.
“A curious coincidence this. Does it mean that these two nights were
deliberately chosen? Did the fact that the people of the East End were
on holiday in some way facilitate the crimes?
“Whatever may be said about the death of Emma Smith there can be no doubt that
the August Bank Holiday murder, which took place in George Yard Buildings, less
than a hundred yards from the spot where the first victim died, was the
handiwork of the dread Ripper.”
“My only criticism of the action of the police during the hunt for the Ripper
was the policy of those in high places to keep the Press at arm’s length.
Individual officers were forbidden to give information to the newspapers. With
this I have no quarrel because of the dangers of abuse, but I have always
thought that the higher police authorities in ignoring the power of the Press
deliberately flouted a great potential ally, and indeed might have turned that
ally into an enemy.”
“People from whom information was sought refused to talk.”
“My food sickened me. The sight of a butcher’s shop nauseated me.”
“Only the day before, the blinds of the windows in Hanbury Street
had been drawn when the funeral procession of Mary Nicholls, the third victim,
passed that way.”
Had the murderer been there that day? Was the sight of this spectacle what
inspired him to return there the following night?
More from Dew’s memoirs, I Caught Crippen:
“There was in the Annie Chapman case evidence that whatever her murderer’s
motive for killing, he might also have been ready to rob when his victim had anything
worth taking…If robbery had been any part of his motive he would have chosen
victims very different from those East End women.”
No money or valuables were found on any of the victims, and it was quite
obvious that the murderer made sure of it, especially in the case of Annie
Chapman, where her rings were missing and the contents of her pockets were
found at her feet, and in the case of Catherine Eddowes, where also her scant
belongings were scattered near her body. It seems sexual mutilation was the
motive, death being a prerequisite, with robbery being a bonus. It may have
been more for souvenir hunting than monetary gain, but this is pure, off the
top of my head speculation, nothing more.
Returning to Dew:
“As often as not I required an interpreter, and you can imagine something of my
difficulties in seeking anything like a coherent statement from frightened
foreigners.”
(Language may very well have played a more prominent role, as opposed to a mere
cold conspiracy to “thwart the ends of justice.”)
“SOMEONE, somewhere, shared Jack the Ripper’s guilty secret. Of this I am
tolerably certain. The man lived somewhere. Each time there was a murder he
must have returned home in the early hours of the morning. His clothing must
have been bespattered with blood.
“These facts alone ought to have been sufficient to arouse suspicion, and to
cause a statement to be made to the police.
“Suspicion, I have no doubt, was aroused, but that statement to the police was
never made.
“Why should anyone seek to shield such a monster?
“Well, my experience has taught me that the person who remained silent may have
been actuated by any one of a number of motives.
“It might have been sentiment. It is asking a lot of a wife to give away her
husband when she knows in advance that she is handing him over to the gallows.
That also applies to a mother.
“The motive which prevented the words of betrayal from being spoken might also
have been fear. There were many simple-minded people living in the East End of
London at this time, who, with the knowledge which would have led to the Ripper
being caught and convicted in their possession, would have been afraid to use
it. The very terror the murderer inspired might well have been his own safety
valve.
“Quite apart from these two possibilities it is an established fact that many
law-abiding folk are reluctant to communicate valuable information to the
authorities in murder and other serious cases.
“And this, despite the fact that their silence renders liable to severe
punishment as accessories either before or after the fact…Another man hangs
back because of a skeleton in his cupboard. He is frightened of
cross-examination and what might be revealed…The plain fact is that few people
court the publicity which is bound to follow a person’s close association with
a sensational trial.”
“I suppose Mitre Square is very little different to-day from what it was in
1888, I do not know, for since I left Whitechapel I have avoided the scenes of
the Ripper murders as I would a plague. Enough of those terrible scenes remain
in my memory without seeking to recall any incident which may have been
forgotten.”
Dew returns to the scene of Mary Kelly’s death once more:
“I followed the others into the room. The sight that confronted us was
indescribable, infinitely more horrifying than what I had seen peeping through
the broken pane of glass into the room’s semi-darkness.
“I had seen most of the other remains. They were sickening enough in all
conscience. But none of the others approached for bestial brutality the
treatment of the body of poor Marie Kelly, whom I had known well by sight…The
effect on me as I entered that room was as if someone had given me a tremendous
blow in the stomach. Never in my life have I flunked a police duty so much as I
flunked this one.
“Whatever the state of the killer’s mind when he committed the other murders,
there cannot be the slightest doubt that in that room in Miller’s Court he
became a frenzied, raving madman.
“With the state of that room in my mind, I cannot see how the murderer could
have avoided being covered from head to foot with blood.
“Some of these traces must have remained when he reached his home or his
lodgings. Yet no one came forward to voice the suspicions which such a
spectacle must have aroused. Proof positive to my mind that the Ripper was
shielded by someone.”
“All these things I saw after I had slipped and fallen on the awfulness of that
floor.”
“I took pleasure in nearly all my work as a police officer. Sometimes it was
possible to find even a touch of humour…There was neither pleasure nor humour
in the part I played in the greatest crime drama of all time- the mystery of
Jack the Ripper.”
Although Dew’s words are often harrowing, his accounts of Mrs. Mortimer’s
encounter with the man with the black bag, Matthew Packer’s story and the
supposed photographing of Mary Kelly’s eyes seem to cast more than a little
doubt about the actual extent of his inside knowledge of some of the
particulars outside of the Kelly crime scene.
From Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, “a Chief Inspector in the CID…Was placed
in overall supervision of the Whitechapel murders enquiry in September 1888 by
Warren.”,
comes some of the most controversial, if only very few, clues.
In what was to become a bombshell for modern Ripperology, handwritten notes in
Swanson’s personal copy of Anderson’s The Lighter Side of My Official Life would
ignite more debate and more confusion. From The Jack the Ripper A-Z:
“Anderson’s suspect is neither named nor clearly defined in his printed text,
beyond the observations that he was a poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel whose
people would not hand him over to justice, and that ‘the only person who ever
saw the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was
confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him.’ Swanson
continues, under the text: ‘because the suspect was also a Jew, and also
because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means
of murderer being hanged, which he did not wish to be left on his mind. D. S.
S.’
“In the margin he continues, ‘And after this identification which suspect knew,
no other murder of this kind took place in London.’
“On the endpaper appears:
“’After
the suspect had been identified at the Seaside home
where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to
identification and he knew he was identified.
“’On
suspect’s return to his brother’s house in Whitechapel he was watched by police
(City CID) by day and night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands
tied behind his back he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch
and died shortly afterwards- Kosminski was the suspect- D. S. S.’”
Swanson’s notes (“Marginalia”) were written, at earliest 1910, the publication
year of Anderson’s Lighter Side; we should apply the same
considerations for memory, as for example, with Macnaghten’s or Dew’s memoirs.
“it is no great honor for Jews when one of them is hanged.”
Addle-headed Nonsense…
“The sight of a room thus stained will not easily fade from my memory. It was
the scene of the last and most fiendish of the crimes known as the “Whitechapel
murders” in London. Blood was on the furniture, blood was on the floor,
blood was on the walls, blood was everywhere…Every blood-stain in that horrid
room spoke of death.”
It has been put forth that Sir Robert Anderson “…did not take an active part in
the investigation”,
but this seems to be an interpretive issue;
Sir Robert Anderson, in my opinion was most definitely the most important
witness whose words deserve to be strongly considered. His words could not
possibly have been clearer and he leaves little room for ambiguity. Here are
some of the many words he has left us with:
“Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice
generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal
evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with ‘unsolved
mysteries of crime,’ the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for
example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain
human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been
catalogued among ‘Police failures;’ and yet, even without the evidence which
sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been
full and clear. So again with the ‘Whitechapel murders’ of 1888. Despite the
lucubration of many an amateur ‘Sherlock Holmes,’ there was no doubt whatever
as to the identity of the criminal, and if our ‘detectives’ possessed the
powers, and might have recourse to the methods, of Foreign Police Forces he
would have been brought to justice. But the guilty sometimes escape through the
working of a system designed to protect innocent persons wrongly accused of
crime. And many a case which is used to disparage our British ‘detectives’
ought rather to be hailed as proof of the scrupulous fairness with which they
discharge their duties.”
“…In the past our treatment of criminals has been free from the influence of
either maudlin sentiment or political expediency…I ought perhaps to mention
that I have not seen the chapter relating to the Department which I formerly
controlled at Scotland Yard. But this is immaterial; for my purpose is neither
to criticize the details of the author’s work nor yet to vouch for their
accuracy. ROBERT ANDERSON *Crippen case”
“…there was no doubt whatever as to the identity of the criminal,…”
“If nonsense were solid, the nonsense that was talked and written about those
murders would sink a Dreadnaught. The subject is an unsavoury one, and I
must write about it with reserve.”
“One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a
sexual maniac of a virulent type; that he was living in the immediate vicinity
of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone,
his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my
absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him,
investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were
such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And
the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class
Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will
not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.
“And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point. For I may
say at once that ‘undiscovered murders’ are rare in London, and the
‘Jack-the-Ripper’ crimes are not within that category. And if the Police here
had powers such as the French Police possess, the murderer would have been
brought to justice. Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate
officers of the department will tell tales out of school, and it would ill
become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service. So I will only add here
that the ‘Jack-the-Ripper’ letter which is preserved in the Police Museum at New
Scotland Yard is the creation of an enterprising London journalist.”
“And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.”
Proved…was “our” just a reference to his own multiple personalities?
“Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I am almost tempted to
disclose the identity of the murderer and the pressman who wrote the letter
above referred to. But no public benefit would result from such a course, and
the traditions of my old department would suffer. I will merely add that the
only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly
identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused
to give evidence against him.
“In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely
ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it
would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome
creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than
that of the brute.”
A definitely ascertained fact…
Anderson wanted badly to bring Jack the Ripper to justice but his bitterness is
tempered by his conscience.
From Anderson’s Criminals and Crime, published in 1907,
earlier words:
“Great
crimes are seldom ‘undetected’; but of course it is one thing to discover the
author of a crime, and a different matter altogether to obtain legal evidence
of his guilt. And in this country the evidence must be available when an
accused person is placed under arrest. Not so in countries where the police are
armed with large despotic powers which enable them to seize a criminal without
any evidence at all, and to build up the case against him at leisure,
extracting the needed proofs, it may be, from his own unwilling lips.”
“The peril to the community caused by common crimes, as distinguished from
crimes of the first magnitude, will be oblivious to the thoughtful. For
example, a man who murders his own wife is not necessarily a terror to the
wives of other men. A man who kills his personal enemy excites no dread in the
breast of strangers. Or again, take a notorious case of a different kind, ‘the
Whitechapel murders’ of the autumn of 1888. At the time the sensation-mongers of
the newspaper press fostered the belief that life in London was no
longer safe, and that no woman ought to venture abroad in the streets after
nightfall. And one enterprising journalist went so far as to impersonate the
cause of all this terror as ‘Jack the Ripper,’ a name by which he will probably
go down in history. But no amount of silly hysterics could alter the fact that
these crimes were a cause of danger only to a particular section of a small and
definite class of women, in a limited district of the East End; and that the
inhabitants of the metropolis generally were just as secure during the weeks
the fiend was on the prowl, as they were the mania seized him, or after he had
been safely caged in an asylum.”
“The estimated population of the metropolitan police district was 3,507,828 in
1868, and in 1905 it was 7,086,638.”
“…we shall never be rid of the lawless and the vicious; and even among the
peaceable, the pressure of poverty and the taint of insanity will always
account for a certain amount of crime.”
“A crime of a certain sort is reported. An oil painting, for example, has been
stolen in the night from a public gallery. ‘Sherlock Holmes’ would sit down
with a wet towel round his head and think out the problem of finding the thief.
‘Sherlock Holmes’ himself was no doubt a genius, but people who follow his
methods are apt to fasten suspicion upon several different persons, not one of
whom perhaps had anything to do with the crime. Scotland Yard sometimes arrives
at the desired result by a process akin to that by which experts of another
kind can tell us who painted the stolen picture.”
H. L. Adam sums up in Police Work from Within (1914):
“As to what was really known of the assassin, we have two very good
authorities: Sir Robert Anderson and Lieut.-Col. Sir Henry Smith…Sir Robert
Anderson has assured the writer that the assassin was well known to the police,
but unfortunately, in the absence of sufficient legal evidence to justify an
arrest, they were unable to take him. It was a case of moral versus legal
proof…Sir Robert Anderson states confidently that he was a low-class Jew, being
shielded by his fraternity. Sir Henry Smith pooh-poohs this, declaring with
equal confidence that he was a Gentile. He further states that the writing on
the wall was probably a mere blind, although the writing itself might have
afforded a valuable clue…It is my personal conviction that the murderer was not
known, nor, at that time, did he die, but that he was answerable for several of
the ‘brothel murders’ which were subsequently committed in London.”
(I’m still at a loss as to exactly what the “Brothel murders” were.)
No one would have been more intimately acquainted with the totality of the
investigations and no one would have been in a better position (or been more
qualified) to assess the information than Sir Robert Anderson- not the officers
on the ground, not the various inspectors, not even the Home Secretary. He has
left us with, by far, the most unambiguous claims regarding Jack the Ripper, on
the record or off; he has publicly and articulately defended himself and his
claims;
If what we’ve seen so far- selective transcriptions of the remaining
official files, contemporary newspaper accounts, scholarly organization of the
known “facts” and the endless blathering of “Ripperologists”, it would be
foolish to think you or I could be a more competent judge. Agree or disagree
with me, in the end I don’t have all the answers…I wish I did.
A different kind of conspiracy…Does it not strike anyone as odd that no two
police officials seem to have left us with the same story? That many who were
in positions to know the most say little or nothing? That the wordings of many
others are so ambiguous? That it seems that everyone who drops a name favors a
different one? Has it ever occurred to anyone that the police may have
purposely made it impossible for us to figure this whole mess out? Would that
not make the most sense? Would that not reflect the integrity of “the
traditions of my old department?” Are we so much more intelligent, insightful,
informed and advanced that we know better? The last question is the easiest to
answer: we certainly think we are…and I cannot possibly understate my
apprehension in accepting this. To the contrary I believe otherwise. We are not
light-years removed from 1888, although television, space travel and microwave
ovens may lead us to the conclusion that we are. The human condition, logic and
reason, psychology and sociology have remained fairly consistent, and I think
it is important that we keep this in mind. We are all susceptible to subjective
leaps of probability, and I must reiterate my compulsions to exploit the same
leaps that I, myself, have orchestrated. One thing is for certain though- I
have convinced myself that my intentions are honest.
A police “conspiracy” has been hinted at by authors from Robin Odell to A. P.
Wolf, but less than seriously, if not sarcastically…if there was any sort of
“cover-up”, it would certainly have been more mundane than some may have us
believe.
A Few Other Bones of Contention.
Psychological Profiles.
Can we utilize psychological/criminal profiling, with modern subjects as
models- and are the same principles applicable in the cases of Victorian vs. 21st
century examples? Is age vs. life-expectancy, etc., proportionately relative?
It is often suggested, without much resistance, that the crimes of “Jack the
Ripper” were sexually motivated. I’ve no argument with this train of thought,
however difficult it is to imagine such extreme manifestations.
“Of particular importance is the activation of aggression and its link to
sexual expression. The lack of attachment to others gives a randomness to the
sexual crimes; however, scrutiny of the thinking patterns of the offenders
indicates that there is planning in these crimes, whether the men rely on
chance encounters with any victim or whether they plan to snare victims.
Although the crimes themselves are premeditated, the choice of victim is
generally impersonal and a result of chance selection. If lacking in evidence of
sexual assault, the crime appears random and motiveless; the killer’s internal
fantasy motivating his actions remains unknown.”
The word “profiling” today has become synonymous with an unreliable, amateur
juxtaposition of sciences used to “fit up” a certain suspect. It’s another
faddish sport for the pseudo-intellectual armchair criminologists who are not
actually criminologists, but believe they are just as good. The actual FBI
profiling system, much maligned by those who can’t use it to “fit up” their own
suspects, is a serious and complex instrument designed to help criminal
investigators and never a guarantee in itself of solving a crime. Most critics
hastily dismiss profiling without ever giving it any serious consideration. I
would highly recommend trying to plow your way past the fluff and contemplate Mindhunter
by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, Serial Murderers and their Victims by
Eric W. Hickey, and/or Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives by Robert
K. Ressler, Ann W. Burgess and John E. Douglas before you rush to judgment.
“Criminal profiling will never take the place of a thorough and well-planned
investigation nor will it ever eliminate the seasoned, highly trained, and
skilled detective.”
“Information the profiler does not want included in the case materials
is that dealing with possible suspects. Such information may subconsciously
prejudice the profiler and cause him or her to prepare a profile matching the
suspect.”
From The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper
documentary (1988), some words from FBI men John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood:
JD: “…after reviewing the autopsy protocols and the medical photographs, the
person who perpetrated these crimes did not have the surgical skills or medical
expertise…”
RH: “…profiles are only provided in unsolved crimes of violence and they were
written in a manner designed to help the police focus on a particular type of
individual, not a particular person, but a particular type of person.
The creation of a profile begins with an analysis of all available
documentation pertaining to that particular crime. Such documentation would
include autopsy and investigative reports showing significant locations,
information pertaining to the victim, death scene photographs and material of
that sort. From that documentation we reconstruct the crime from the original
confrontation between the killer and the victim all the way through the crime
until the time he actually leaves the death scene. We study his behavior with
the victim, in other words what he did to the victim and how he did it; and
from this behavior we are able to illicit a motivation for the commission of
that crime. Based upon that motivation, we then provide the police with
characteristics of their unidentified offender: characteristics such as age,
race, marital status, arrest history, education or intelligence level and other
characteristics of that type.”
JD: “Jack the Ripper was like a predatory animal; he would go out seeking
victims who were weak, susceptible- victims of opportunity where he could carry
out his grotesque sexual fantasy on his victims. Historians and criminologists
as well as authors kind of give us the impression that there was no pattern, or
looking for patterns in his crimes; and really you won’t find patterns, because
these killers go out on the hunt nightly for the victims and their downfall is,
if you want to apprehend them, is that they go back to the scenes where they’ve
been successful in the past so they’ll go in these areas, the crime scene areas
as well as the gravesites, so if you want to apprehend them, you’ll set up a
surveillance at these two locations.
“Jack the Ripper was a white male, he was in his mid to late twenties, of very,
very average intelligence, and Roy and I both believe that he really wasn’t that clever
as he was lucky.”
RH: “Jack the Ripper was single and he had never been married- in fact he had
probably not (socialized) with women at all; he had a great deal of difficulty
interacting with people and women in general; also the times the crimes were
committed (between midnight and 6am) that would indicate he’s not accountable
to anyone, therefore, not married. We believe that Jack lived very close to
where the crimes were being committed, because these types of individuals
generally start killing within very close proximity to their homes- and he was
obviously very familiar with the area and lived there. If Jack was employed it
would have been in a menial type of job, a job requiring little or no contact
with the public, again, he did not interact very well with people at all…as far
as his criminal history goes- as a child Jack would probably have set fires or
abused animals; as an adult he would have engaged in erratic behavior, causing
neighbors to call the police because of that erratic behavior; but I believe
that of more significance would be his mental history.”
JD: “Jack the Ripper was a product of a broken home; he was raised by a
dominant female figure in his household who in all probability physically, if
not sexually, abused him as a child- and a way for offenders of this type to
cope with this is to internalize their feelings and withdraw themselves into
society and become very, very asocial and become quite a loner and withdraw
from the community; he would also be described as having very, very poor
personal hygiene, would be disheveled in appearance and people would notice
that he was nocturnal, meaning he would prefer to go out in the evening hours,
under the cloak of darkness, stalking, walking many, many blocks, looking for
potential victims.”
RH: “Jack hated and feared, at the same time, women; he was also very
intimidated by women- I’m sure everyone noted how quickly Jack would subdue and
kill his victims; and this is very important in understanding Jack because it tells
us, in the fact that he killed very quickly, it tells us that taking of life
was not of primary importance to him, it was of secondary importance to the
mutilation itself; it was through the mutilation that we are able to
understand- that is actually the key to understanding Jack the Ripper- the
mutilations were sexually motivated and by displacing the victims’ organs, the
sexual organs, and mutilating them, he was, in fact, neutering or de-sexing
them and therefore no longer anything to be feared.”
JD: “…from a behavioral point of view, I definitely believe Kosminski would fit
the general profile; if he didn’t do it, someone just like him in Whitechapel
committed this crime.”
An updated version of Mr. Douglas’ thoughts on the Whitechapel murderer, the
first chapter of The Cases that Haunt Us deals exclusively with Jack the
Ripper and the preparation and analysis that went into forming the “general
profile” of the killer, with more detail and contemplation, and his profile is
refined and defined. Some interesting bits to ponder:
“It’s my opinion that there were other attacks in the Whitechapel area that
either went unreported or for some reason were not considered to be crimes of
this offender.”
“If there were to be further murders, then, particularly if they were outdoors,
we would not expect the subject to engage in such elaborate mutilation; he
would not have the time.” (After Mary Kelly; Alice McKenzie?)
“If time and law enforcement resources were to be expended on the identity of
the author or authors of the communications, emphasis should have been placed
on the Lusk letter.”
“As noted earlier, these homicides may be classified as lust murders. This has
no less to do with the traditional meaning of the word than with the fact that the
subject attacks the genital and sexually oriented areas of the body.”
“It would be…after I’d presented my profile and suggestions that we’d
consider the local investigators’ list of suspects.”
“The search for Jack the Ripper’s identity…has become a Rorshach test that
often reveals more about the beholder than the subject beheld.”
Mr. Douglas was hand-fed Martin Fido’s theory that several men, of the same
background and possibly “Leather Apron”, were confused with one another by the
various officials; this theory I find most appealing, although in the end too
much speculation does some damage to the credibility of the conclusion…Nathan
Kaminsky could have been Aaron Davis “David” Cohen who could have
been “Leather Apron” who could have been the Whitechapel murderer
who could have been confused with Aaron Kosminski…maybe “Kaminsky” could
have been a different “Kosminski”…
“The situation is further complicated by another fellow, generally referred to
as Nathan Kaminsky, an immigrant Jewish bootmaker, the same age and general
description as both Kosminski and Cohen. He was treated for syphilis in a
workhouse infirmary shortly before the murders and then suddenly and
inexplicably vanishes from the records. He lived right in the heart of the
Ripper’s comfort zone. There are no death records for him.
“So I think there is every chance that these three immigrant Polish Jews with
documented emotional problems were combined and confused by the various police
officials and agencies. I don’t set much store in elaborate conspiracies and
cover-ups, but I’ve seen enough bureaucratic gaffes and fumbles in my time to
believe quite heartily in them. And yet, what is the element of truth or
consistency that runs throughout the three accounts and also squares with the
profile of the Whitechapel Murderer?
“As we have seen, it’s impossible to be certain of the true identity after all
these years, but the behavioral evidence as to the type of individual he
was is plentiful and compelling. Therefore, I’m now prepared to say that Jack
the Ripper was either the man known to the police as David Cohen…or someone
very much like him.”
I think this is the closest we’ve come so far…but we’re definitely not there
yet and anything can happen between now and our arrival.
Something to be considered is that it appears that Sir Robert Anderson and Sir
Melville Macnaghten got it right when categorizing the Whitechapel murders as
being sexually motivated- I honestly believe that their logical and
methodological ways of thinking demonstrated the same “intuitiveness” that
would guide the “art” of modern profiling a hundred years later.
I don’t believe that I have allowed any one particular school of thought to
dominate my ways of thinking; I’ve tried to figure out, for myself as well as
for anyone who may have the occasion to read this, how and why
I’ve come to the immediate conclusions that I describe here; I’m not satisfied
that I’m there yet.
Data gathered by the experts then and now has to be weighed against our own unprofessional
opinions.
Anatomical knowledge or surgical skill?
Several authorities at the time and many since have explored and debated this
question. It has been fodder for far too many inane forums of discussion
pertaining to whether or not Jack the Ripper was a doctor, mostly in efforts to
pin the crimes on a particular “suspect”, and after all is said and done, at
the end of the day it just doesn’t seem plausible- you might need to
investigate further before you form an opinion; but since I’ve basically
made up my mind on this one, I’m not very excited about dragging out this
issue.
He knew how to use a knife, but I don’t believe that there was necessarily any
medical background at all. Somewhere he learned a quick and quiet way to
kill. Author Robin Odell’s suggestion that the Ripper may have been a shochet,
or Jewish ritual slaughterer, is interesting in itself, but I would be a bit
more inclined to think he may only have been aware of or witnessed such
practices at some time- if, and especially, taking into consideration the way
the victims’ throats had been cut (facilitating a rather quick death and
allowing for a minimal amount of exposure of the murderer to the blood, by
directing it away from the probable position of the perpetrator during
the act).
“I did not see all the murdered women, but I saw most of them, and all I can
say is that if the wounds they sustained are representative of a doctor’s skill
with the knife, it is a very simple matter to become a surgeon. This is
certainly true of the case of Marie Kelly, whose poor body had been hacked
about in a manner far more suggestive of a maniac than a man with a knowledge
of surgery.”
“Not even the rudiments of surgical skill were needed to cause the mutilations
I saw.”
The extractions of the uteri were inconsistent and, in one case incomplete… A
butcher or slaughterer? A qualified surgeon? A shoemaker? A midwife? A mortuary
attendant? Despite the removal of certain organs, this does not appear to be
the work of someone skilled in surgery. The perpetrator of these killings was
apparently no stranger to the knife, and not a soul without a propensity for
violence; he didn’t, apparently, torture his victims. Beyond this, I don’t
believe he was entirely ignorant of human anatomy…If it was a particular
organ that was initially sought, he must have been familiar enough with the
human body to have succeeded, if the uterus was, in fact, the target;
but I’m not so sure, despite his possible sexually deranged impulses, that this
was specifically the case…at least not consciously- maybe it was not until he
realized (for example, via the press) after his mutilation of Annie Chapman
exactly what he had done. The killer may have been trying to copy himself
when he took the organ from the body of Catherine Eddowes…
The “Jack the Ripper” letters.
All bogus, but a curious vein with the Lusk Letter. That’s my fairly firm
conviction. For some time I pondered the possibility that the Lusk letter and
kidney were genuine articles supplied by the murderer- and this led me to
consider George Lusk himself as a suspect- staring at his photo did nothing to
convince me otherwise, but I’ve since come to the belief that this is yet
another red herring.
The Goulston Street Graffito.
“All in all, I tend to agree with the police that the graffito was an
incidental finding, not related to the murder.”
Was this the opinion of the police?
I strongly lean toward the belief that the graffito was directly
relevant to the murder of Catherine Eddowes. Graffiti would serve a better
purpose if left in more conspicuous places where it would be seen by as many
people as possible. Though, according to Sir Charles Warren, “The writing
was…visible to anybody in the street…”, its location might suggest that the
person responsible was inside the open arch, hence obscured from full
view- possibly, knowing his peril, this would enable him to remain hidden while
he paused to reflect and gather his wits (?!). Also, it seems unthinkable that
between the examinations of the inhabitants of Wentworth Model Dwellings and
the subsequent publicity of the writing, no one would have come forward to
refute the speculation that it was written by the killer by testifying that it
had been there prior to the murders of Elizabeth Stride and a Catherine
Eddowes; Surely, with all the comings and goings, someone would have
taken notice, especially with its racial insinuations.
Of the elimination of: “This Sir Henry Smith maintains was a fatal mistake, as
the writing might have afforded a valuable clue. Sir Charles had it done as he
feared a rising against the Jews.”
Different Weapons.
In the Martha Tabram murder, the statements by the examining physician, Dr.
Timothy Robert Killeen, regarding the inflicted wounds, created an early and
often repeated assumption: He believed that, with the exception of one (of 39),
all the wounds could have been “caused by an ordinary pen-knife”, the
remaining one, struck through the breastbone (?), had “apparently been made
with a dagger or sword-bayonet”
–this does not necessarily indicate that two different weapons were used- it
only stresses the assertion that the wound on the sternum could not have been
inflicted by “an ordinary pen-knife”; this blow had obviously been struck with
a strong knife- but descriptions of the other wounds do not conclusively
exclude the possibility that the weapon that caused this particular injury also
caused the others.
This has led to much speculation regarding the actual weapon or weapons used,
and also the possibility that more than one assailant was involved- but a
careful reading may simply be exposing or hinting at another of the many red
herrings that continue to thrash, splash and flounder happily about throughout
this saga.
More importantly, the suggestion that the weapon that took the life of
Elizabeth Stride was different than the one used to kill and mutilate the
remainder of the “canonical five” has been the subject of debate, especially
when the arguments involve her possible exclusion from the aforementioned
group; at the inquest of Elizabeth Stride, it came to pass that, on the evening
following the murder, a bloody knife had been found on a doorstep not far away
from the scene of the murder. The knife had a blade about 9” or 10”. The coroner
questioned Dr. George Bagster Philips, divisional police surgeon, about the
knife and the possibility that it could have been the one that had caused the
fatal injury:
“On examination I found it to be such a knife as would be used in a chandler’s shop,
called a slicing knife…It has been recently blunted and the edge turned by
apparently rubbing on a stone. It evidently was before that a very sharp knife.
Such a knife could have produced the incision and injuries to the neck of the
deceased, but it was not such a weapon as I would have chosen to inflict
injuries in this particular place; and if my opinion as regards the position of
the body is correct, the knife in question would become an improbable
instrument as having caused the incision.”
As with all of the canonical murders, with the exception of Mary Kelly (because
of the complete destruction, it was never ascertained), it was the opinion of
the professionals involved that the murderer had inflicted the fatal wounds
from the right side of the body, while the victim was lying on the ground.
“I am of opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right side of the
deceased, and therefore arises the unlikelihood of such a long knife having
inflicted the wound described in the neck, taking into account the position of
the incision.”
Responding to a question from the coroner as to whether there was “anything in
the cut that showed the incision first done was made with a pointed knife”,
Philips responds “No.”
So from these statements, certain all-knowing Ripperologists convince
themselves that this weapon, the one responsible for Stride’s death, had a “short,
round ended blade”. Hmmm…again, as with the previous assumptions regarding the
weapon used to despatch Martha Tabram, clouded heads prevail.
From the testimony of Dr. Frederick William Blackwell, sited from the same
primary and secondary sources credited:
“With respect to the knife which was found, I should say I concur with Dr.
Philips in his opinion that although it might have possibly inflicted the
injury it was extremely unlikely that such an instrument was used. The murderer
using a sharp, round-pointed instrument would severely handicap himself, as he
could only use it one way.”
So it appears that the knife found was in fact, “round-pointed”; so
throw away the references to any doctor concluding that the weapon used on
Stride was such a weapon, fair enough?
While we’re on the topic of Elizabeth Stride, it has been suggested that her
lover, Michael Kidney (nearly ironic, wouldn’t you say?), who had had
documented physical confrontations with Stride (or at least who had been
officially accused by deceased), had committed this murder, independent of the
others; considering he was a witness at the inquest and there was at least one
witness (Israel Schwartz) who had seen Stride being assaulted only moments
before the apparent time of death, common sense precludes Kidney not being
subjected to an identification by Schwartz as her attacker, does it not? And
another thing- for those who believe that Stride’s killer had the time to
mutilate her body, but for some reason chose not to, (again leading to the dull
conclusion that this murder was unconnected to the others)- even if the
murderer wasn’t “disturbed” by the arrival of Louis Diemschutz and his
pony, his actions most definitely were hastened by the apparently surprising
appearance of Schwartz- the attacker knew he had been seen, so was most
probably already in a hurry…it also may have fortified his murderous
impulses- his adrenaline would have been pumping and the fear that his career
was now potentially shortened may have made his hunt more desperate; and his
next victim, Catherine Eddowes, unfortunately, would bear the brunt of his
warped passion…or maybe I’m just making this up as I go along.
The October Lull.
The longest gap between the murders of the “Autumn of Terror”, the entire month
of October passed without the appearance of Jack the Ripper. The killer had
to be conscious of the increasing police and local scrutiny. Could he have
been incarcerated for some unrelated offense? Was he being extra careful? Or
did the right opportunity just not present itself? Food for thought…
The Official files and the loss of the City Police files.
What remains of the “official” files on the Whitechapel murders (although “The
extant police and Home Office records on the murders,…are vast and impossible
to quote in full,…”),
in relative substance is scant and vacuous; just take in everything that you
can find from every primary source…notice something? Press clippings,
descriptions of monetary allotments, curious and vague exchanges among
officials…yet no detailed accounts of interrogations, house to house searches
or plans of attack; lots of nothing. We’ve been told that the City Police files
were lost during the Blitz in WWII, but that doesn’t explain the sheer,
less-than-skeletal remains that have been preserved and are accessible to the
public- the Metropolitan Police files most probably were much larger, but obviously
what is left is not very much more helpful, with the exceptions being the
medical reports on the victims, which are the bare-naked facts, without
prejudice, minimally speculative and, more importantly, not specifically
incriminating- we’ve been assured by the present authorities that there are no remaining
secret or classified documents pertaining to the murders; files have been
purged and pilfered, destroyed and lost; it can be tedious and time-consuming
to examine what does remain in full, but regardless of the effort one must put
forth, in the end there seems to be very little that we can find that will get
us any closer to the truth. And what about the missing “suspects” file? Or was
it the missing “missing suspects” file? Why were so many seemingly
insignificant papers preserved while so many potentially enlightening papers
have been “lost”? There may very well be authentic documents somewhere
that could let the cat out of the bag, good luck to us in finding them.
My confident assertion is: The police knew who the murderer was and were
satisfied that he was no longer a threat to the public. And the circumstances
surrounding this conclusion probably warranted some sort of suppression of any
records of the means by which this conclusion was arrived at- maybe to mask
illegalities-, maybe for the sake of the murderer’s relatives-, maybe to quell
any more potential anti-Semitic feelings…The police didn’t want the public to
know what they were thinking, then or ever, or who their man was, but not for
the scandalous reasons that have been popularly suggested- doubtless it was a
noble reason. That’s what I think.
The “Suspects”.
From Joseph Merrick (the “Elephant Man”) to George Lusk to Friedrich
Nietzsche…these are some of the extreme examples of those who I have at one
time or another entertained myself with thoughts that they may have been
possibly “Jack the Ripper”; needless to say I’ve abandoned these theories…Aaron
Kosminski, Severin Klosowski (alias George Chapman), Joseph Barnett (Mary Kelly’s
“boyfriend”), George Hutchinson, Thomas Cutbush, Francis Tumblety, James
Maybrick, William Henry Bury, Montague John Druitt, Walter Sickert, Robert
D’Onston Stephenson…the list goes on and on; for years authors have explored,
expounded and exploited their findings and fantasies. Almost every book
dedicated to one theory or another can be compelling and convincing- too bad
none of them stand up adequately enough to withstand the rigors of Ripperology
in its vigorous pursuit of the truth…Try them all, I have.
The Murders of 1889-91.
The murder of Alice McKenzie has the most in common with the canonical five,
but I remain skeptical as to the thought that this crime was by the same hand;
the wounds appear imitative, less severe, and dissimilar- more so, in my
opinion, than those of the previous Whitechapel murders; the Pinchin Street
torso case seems clinically dissimilar and far more organized; the murder of
Frances Coles, despite the possible interruption by PC Thompson, seems isolated
enough, in time frame and circumstances to be considered as unrelated; I cannot
say that I’m not leaving doors open, though.
The “least unlikely” of the names so far.
“Kosminski” was the “suspect” fingered by Anderson, according to Swanson’s penciled notes in his copy of
Anderson’s The Lighter Side of My Official Life; “Kosminski”, according
to the Macnaghten Memoranda, was a “strong suspect”. So just exactly who was
“Kosminski”?
In searching workhouse and asylum records, Martin Fido uncovered one Aaron Kosminski,
age 23 at the time of the murders, who resided in Sion Square, Whitechapel (in
the immediate area- “the very heart of the district where the murders were
committed”, according to Macnaghten- of previous suspect and admitted “Leather
Apron” John Pizer and one Nathan Kaminsky, who we will meet again shortly) and
who had seen time in the local workhouse infirmary and who was eventually
committed to Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum; he had at one point been released
prior to his incarceration at Colney Hatch into the care of his “brother” (as
the Swanson Marginalia states of “Kosminski”); According to Colney Hatch
records, the cause of his insanity was “self-abuse” (masturbation), which jives
with Macnaghten’s accusations of “indulgence in solitary vices” and would seem
to mirror Anderson’s recollection of “utterly unmentionable vices”;
If the identity of the murderer was, then, “a definitely ascertained fact”,
then it appears pretty simple: Aaron Kosminski was responsible for the
murders;…But not so fast…
If you compare details of Swanson’s “Marginalia” with those of Aaron Kosminski,
there is a singular, glaring discrepancy: Swanson says “Kosminski” died
“shortly afterwards” (his incarceration at Colney Hatch): Aaron Kosminski
lived until 1919…
Despite this seemingly large discrepancy, author and historian Paul Begg seems
convinced that Aaron Kosminski was “Anderson’s suspect”, but he doesn’t commit
to the belief that he was Jack the Ripper;…Conversely, I believe that
“Anderson’s suspect” was, in fact “Jack the Ripper”, but I’m not yet convinced
that Aaron Kosminski was the murderer…You’ll really have to read Begg,
Fido and Sugden to get the real poop on the opposing viewpoints- with a dose of
Douglas and Hazelwood- …no doubt it’s a sure-fire recipe for a splitting
headache…
Martin Fido’s theory in a nutshell:
Aaron Davis Cohen, a.k.a. David Cohen, was arrested at the beginning of
December, 1888 (in what may have been a raid on a brothel)) by a Whitechapel
Division constable and charged with being a “lunatic wandering at large”. He
was subsequently sent by the court to a workhouse infirmary for observation and
then sent to Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum where it was noted that he was
“violent, noisy and difficult to manage”, later “restless, dirty, aggressive,
mischievous and destructive”; he was separated from the other patients, became
ill and died on 20 October of “exhaustion of mania…” He had no known relatives
and his residence was not clearly established (these are facts); Fido surmises
that the Metropolitan Police and the City Police were watching different
suspects, one Cohen, the other Aaron Kosminski; somehow the names and details
of each case became muddled, due to lack of communication or purposely
repressed information; Nathan Kaminsky, the same age and race as Cohen and Kosminski,
whose residence in 1888 was Black Lion Yard, may have, in all actuality, been
the real name of “Aaron Davis Cohen”, since he (Kaminsky) disappears from
records after that; and it was “Cohen” who had committed the murders.
Loose ends this theory does have, but it is very interesting, to say the least.
(Throw in the fact that Aaron Kosminski’s in-laws, “Lubnowski” [who lived in
the immediate vicinity of Aaron], later changed their surname to
“Lubnowski-Cohen”, and you’ve got the potential for some really good
fun…)
David Cohen fits too many particulars to be ignored, whoever he may have been.
Aaron Kosminski comes close also. We have no right to implicate Nathan
Kaminsky, but David Cohen cannot help but to grab my attention; one in the
same? There is nothing to substantiate this suggestion, but it is an
interesting direction to ponder- especially when considering the location of
Kaminsky’s residence in Black Lion Yard.
