|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Jack the Ripper Revealed (Wilding)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
Jack the Ripper Revealed (Wilding)
Author: Raphael Buri
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:47 am |        | "Jack the Ripper Revealed" by John Wilding contains 15 chapters. In Chapter 1, Wilding gives an introduction to the site with a review of its history and the circumstances of life through the ages and particularly through the period of the Ripper crimes.
Chapter 2 is contributed to Mary Nichols. Life and death of Nichols are reported with great accuracy and does not need to be repeated here, for the facts should now be generally known among the Casebook readers.
The same goes for Annie Chapman in chapter 3.
Chapter 4 is titled "Panic And Investigation" and contains several extracts of newspaper articles, public opinion and critizism of authority. Furthermore it includes the stories of Pizer and Kosminski, short but quite accurate. Wilding then brings up arguments against Pizer, Kosminski or someone else of lower class living at the area to be the Ripper. Kosminski, for example, lived only a few minutes away from Flower and Dean and Thrawl Street and was well known as a mad man without money. Neither Nichols nor Chapman nor any other prostitute would have accepted such a man as a client. The noiselessness of the murders disproves that the murderer did force his victims into a dark corner with a knife; all evidence points to a surprise attack.
Further arguments against a working class Ripper are: 1. His education and the possibility to write letters with ink, if only one letter is accepted to be genuine. 2. He was countable enough to get the confidence of his victims. 3. He was not familiar with the area, otherwise he wouldn't have chosen the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street as a scene of the crime, because it was very busy, especially at dawn. 4. The coins found at Chapmans feet: a member of the lower class wouldn't leave them behind. (This argument is rubbish. It now should be definitely be proved that these coins never existed.) 5. The murders were committed on weekends. A member of the working class of the East End either was jobless or was working six days a week. 6. Jack was bloodstained after the crimes and he had to clean down himself. But the houses were crowded and private washing facilities were rare.
Chapter 5 deals with the double event. In the case of Stride, Wilding brings up an interesting point: Matthew Packer, the greengrocer, made contradictory testimonies relating the time when he sold grapes to a couple, and he claimed, no detective or constable interviewed him. But it was Sir Charles Warren himself who made an interview with Packer. And he wrote a marginal note, it was requested by the CID to turn the times mentioned in several statements by Packer from 11:45 PM into 11:00 PM. Why should the CID have the desire to manipulate the testimony of a (doubtful) witness? Wilding sais: Obviously strange things were going on behind the stage of official investigation.
In the case of Eddowes, Wilding focuses his attention on the times of police presence at Mitre Sq. Urgently he repeats:
01:30 AM -- P.C. Watkins passes through Mitre Sq.
01:38/39 AM -- P.C. Harvey stands in Church Passage at the entrance to Mitre Sq.
01:45 AM -- P.C. Watkins returns to Mitre Sq. and discovers the body. This leaves the Ripper only six or seven minutes to kill and mutilate his victim.
Chapter 6 deals with the letters to police, media and Lusk. Wilding does not say yet, whether he believes in their genuineness, but he sais that the part of the kidney sent to Lusk was found in an unhealthy state, showing traces of Bright's disease, from which Eddowes was suffering. (I don't know, what that's worth.)
And then there is Major Henry Smith, searching for the Ripper himself through the East End and supposing that he just missed him for a few minutes, when he discovered water mixed with blood running down a drain in a washhouse at Dorset Street. Wilding sais, Smith must have frogotten that the bloodsucked piece of apron had been thrown off at least an hour before. It's unlikely that Jack, dripping with blood, still was staying in the area. But who was in the washhouse in the early morning, washing his bloody hands? Wilding promises to pick up that matter later.
Beside the life and death of Mary Kelly, object of chapter 7, Wilding deals with Kelly's relationship to her lover Joe Barnett and their separation. One theory about the reason why Barnett left Kelly was that she shared her room with other prostitutes, for which she had been accused of having lesbian tendencies. But there are no clues pointing to any strong emotional relationships between Kelly and other women. After eighteen months living together with Barnett, Kelly should have known that Barnett would not allow her to share a room and bed with other women and, because of such behaviour, would leave her. Did Kelly try to bring Joe to quit their common room?
Wilding mentions Thomas Bowyer, who saw Kelly accompained by a man two days previous the murder. This man had a dark moustache and very strange eyes and was very well dressed. This man never has been identified. Wilding cites Paul Begg who said, it is extremely strange that a man of upper class visits Kelly in a such dangerous area like Dorset Street.
Another witness of interest is George Hutchinson. In this matter, as Wilding sais, there are two suspicious facts: 1. His description is noticeable detailed for a short look in a dark Street at a rainy night. 2. Hutchinson made his testimony on November 12th at 6:00 PM. This day examination was held and investigation was completed just at 6:00 PM. This means that his testimony couldn't get scrutinized sufficiently or examined in-depth before the court. Did Hutchinson wait with intention till official investigation was completed?
If he did so, the question is: Why? Could it be that his remarkable presentation was made all up and that he was encouraged by someone to state it? Who could have the desire to spread such lies? (It's all Wilding!)
Considering the hard rules at East End, why was Kelly allowed to build up rent arrears of 35 Shillings, which was a lot of money in 1888.
Among all the facts and events around Miller's Court, there is the story about the door to Kelly's room. The Landlord McCarthy received order to break it open. Why didn't the police enter like Joe and Mary did: grab through the broken window to operate the spring lock. (As we all know, the key had disapeared earlier.) Was there a barrier lying behind the door? Wilding does not accept this, for there were signs that somebody entered the room few hours after the slaughter.
At the End of this chapter, Wilding tries to get an impression of Kelly's character. He cites Tom Cullen: "Black Mary" was not at all unknown at the Britannia. Lots of times she was rushing into this pub after she had ransacked drunken sailors, to exchange her scarf with other prostitutes, because she knew the police wouldn't find her dressed up like that. William Pearson is mentioned, who assures that such a behaviour was common to mislead the police, as well as false names. And, according to Barnett, Mary once used to live at the area around Ratcliffe Highway, a very notorious and dangerous place. Having read all the contradictionary discriptions on Kelly's character and behaviour, Wilding compares her to Jekyll and Hyde.
In chapter 8, Wilding lists up several clues to a cover-up by high ranks of Scotland Yard and authorities. Authority kept back information to the press. Dr. Bagster Phillips was very reserved when he was asked to bear witness in the Chapman case.
Even truth-loving Wynne Baxter, as chairman of examination on the Stride case, seems to handle the affair with laxity.
The testimony of Schwartz was recorded by Chief Inspector Swanson. But Schwartz himself never was asked to present his statement to the court. Wilding: There can't be a more significant sign to a cover-up movement by authorities. Why didn't Baxter insist to summon Schwartz to the court? According to Howells and Skinner, Edwin Thomas Woodhall wrote in about 1930, the main difficulty in the search after Jack the Ripper was the lack of support by the people dealing with the crime. Woodhall was a man of great experience and member of CID, Special Branch and Secret Service. These offices should have make it possible to him to access secret information.
According to Knight, there was a strange quarrel between Coroner Roderick McDonald and an unknown juror during the examination of the Kelly case. The juror voiced his doubts about the competence, because session was held at Shoreditch, but the crime took place at the district of Whitechapel. Further, McDonald offended against existing law which sais that in case of violent death all injuries and the depth and dimensions of all wounds shall be recorded as well as the weapon which inflicted the wounds. To general astonishment, McDonald completed the hearings after only one day.
Wilding does agree with conspiracy theories, not at least because the statement of Hutchinson seems to be very suspicious.
In chapter 9, Wilding asks, whether a member of royal dynasty was involved in the Ripper murders, and his answer is "yes". Although not direct, there is a link to royal dynasty: It was the behaviour of the Prince of Wales, future King Edward VII. which destroyed life of at least five impoverished prostitutes at East End. Wilding now examines the influences which formed Edward's character; it was the character of a hopeless victorian rake.
His titles were: Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Prince of Saxony, Earl of Dublin, Earl of Carrick and Baron Renfrew. But by his family he was called "Bertie".
His parents, Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert, wanted Bertie to become a second issue of his father: a man who was interested in academic studies and who found pleasure in discussing religeous and theological topics for hours. (I'm sure this included cold bathes and prayers.)
Bertie was held under hard government by tutors and teachers without any sense of humor. His early years were marked by an absolute lack of personal liberty and independence. he attempted to escape, but he couldn't. The first scandal he inflicted while he was in military service in Ireland (during vacation, as a part of education, nota bene). He spent a night with one Nellie Clifton, an actress which belonged to the company of an officer at Curragh.
After his marriage to Alexandra of Danmark, on March 10th 1863, he set up his own house. Finally independent, he now did what he always wanted to do: To drink, to whore around, to have pleasure. He got under bad influence of the Marquis of Hastings. Several weeks, Bertie and his mates went every night to the Watling Street Firestation, where they played fire fighting. This became his eccentric hobby.
Wilding points that it's rather important to know something about the life of Bertie's son Eddy. (It's interesting anyway.) Chapter 10 does the job quite well. Bringing up and education was similiar to Bertie's, but Eddy had a brother aside, called George. Eddy wasn't an apt scholar, and first it was suspected that he was suffering under brain weakness, but then it was found out that he was almost deaf. nevertheless, he became a gentle, charming and popular young man. When he was separated from his brother, which joined the Navy, Eddy fell into crisis. To prepare Eddy for the entrance into the best education institute of the world, it was decided to engage a formidable young man of excellent family as his tutor: James Kenneth Stephen. Eddy was very glad to be accompained by this gentle, good looking and scholar new friend which took the place of Eddy's brother.
None of the two men could know at their first meeting that their relationship would turn out to be disastrous for both of them, or that their meeting means the death of five women.
J.K.Stephen is subject of chapter 11. According to many contemporary accounts, Stephen appears as a mysterious, excentric, brillant and extremely emotional young man. Also he had a touch of venturesomeness and was of volcanic temper. The deep friendship between J.K. and Eddy is not surprising. Both of the two young men were good looking, charming and longing for affection. And both of them had homosexual tendencies. The result was a love affair. But J.K. must have realized that his power and influence over the future monarch was growing. What dreams the ambitious private tutor may have had, Wilding said, the aphrodisiac of total control over an important person is addictive, and the break of powerful dreams may cause massive explosions.
The reader of the book may expect that chapter 12 is concerning about M.J.Druitt, but it doesn't. It's titled: Who And Why? At first Wilding rejects theories about Eddy being directly involved in the murders. It was in 1970 when Eddy came under suspicion. Dr. Thomas Stowell, an experienced Doctor who was born in 1885, claimed to have read the private notes of Sir William Gull. Stowell wrote in The Criminologist, among the Gull records had been confident notes suggesting that Eddy possibly was Jack the Ripper. But for Wilding it's not very interesting whom Gull called a murderer; much more it's interesting that Gull anyway thought he knew the murderer's identity. Why should the private physician of the Queen do so?
Nigel Morland, founder and first publisher of The Criminologist, claimed that F.G.Abberline suggested, not to look out for the Ripper in the lower social classes of London, but far higher above. This statement does suggest the presumtion that Abberline did know the true identity of JTR. And perhaps it's of some interest that the famous detective, contrary to lots of other leading police officers, never wrote any memoirs.
Wilding now brings up a couple of reasonable arguments against the notorious Knight theory claiming Eddy to be the Ripper. For example: If Mary Kelly wanted to blackmail the establishment, she would never let several women into that secret, women with the Gin bottle as their best friend. Wilding's own theory bases on the claim that Kelly in some way did blackmail the establishment indeed. But she did it alone and she did it with another lever. It was not Eddy who was involved in the secret, it was Eddy's father, the Prince of Wales.
During his research, Wilding discovered that Bertie together with Sir George Chetwynd, Lord Richard Grosvenor and some others rented a flat in the East End, just bording to Kelly's territory. Berties passion for women was notorious, and of course the flat was rented to let their passions run wild. It may be that one of the hired prostitutes was Mary Kelly, for she was good looking and experienced in dealing with upper class gentlemen since she had been working in a West End brothel. Berties escapades would not have caused massive reactions of the public or the establishment. But two complications would have alarmed the powers behind the throne: Pregnancy and Catholicism.
Wilding brings up all the trouble of the relationship between England and Catholicism. In short: Catholicism appeared as a great danger; it could cause rebellion and throw down the throne.
Besides the fear of revolution causing catholics there is another piece in the puzzle created by Wilding: The behaviour of the establishment to cover a member.
In 1870 Bertie was involved in a scandal which brought him before the court: Indiscreet Lady Mordaunt confessed to her husband that she had been unfaithful; among her lovers also Beretie was mentioned. Before the court Bertie denied any sexual relationship between himself and Lady Mordaunt, but in fact he has had a sexual affair with her. So he committed perjury. In this occasion the royal family was been saved by the father of Lady Mordaunt who declared his own doughter insane. Leading doctors confirmed that Lady Mordaunt temporary was not accountable. Well, this story should be an example how a member of the establishment was telling lies to save a royal, even by breaching the oath of Hyppocrates. Every sacrifice had to be brought for Queen and Country.
The establishment was alarmed by the riots of Black Monday in 1886 and Bloddy Sunday in 1887. There was an atmosphere of massive discontentment and civil anxiety before the bachground of voices shouting for the republic.
Wilding claims that in this uneasy times Mary Kelly, a catholic prostitute, chose a reliable contact and told that she was pregnant by the Prince of Wales. If the establishment came to conclusion that this story is to believe, it is immaginable how panic rose in the corridors of power; and there was thorroughly reason to believe in this story.
Was Mary Kelly pregnant? Wilding thinks yes. There is the witness statement of Caroline Maxwell who claimed to have spoken with Kelly (the morning after the murder) in which occasion Kelly said she felt sick. And there is Donald Rumbelow who said that Kelly was pregnant for almost three months. But the body found at Miller's Court definitely was not pregnant...
If Mary, short time after she met Bertie, got pregnant, there is no difference whether the father of the littel was the Prince, one of her clients or Joe Barnett. Mary was intelligent enough to see the chance of a paternity suit against the Prince.
Anyway, Wilding believes in a royal pregnancy of Mary Kelly and that in Mary's oppinion she had a right to be supported in any way. In which way could she approach the establishment with her demand?
Chapter 13 - it's Druitt's turn. Wilding mentions a really strange thing: After Druitt's death his estate came to L1,300. In today's value this is about L58,000. And in 1882 Druitt was almost impoverished. Of course he had several jobs at the same time: He led his own office, he was working as a teacher at the school in Blackheath and he was working as a special pleader too. And this last point is quite interesting. A job as a special pleader was anything but desired by barristers, and the only reason to work as a pleader was the sheer lack of money. Druitt started to work as a pleader in 1887. Although it's impossible to say how much he earnt in this job, it's unlikely that he would have been able to save such a high amount within a year.
Druitt's death is another subject of interest. His brother William H. Druitt apeared at the official examination and said, among other statements, that M.J.Druitt had had no further relativs. This is obviously untrue; why did he lie?
Wilding suggests that Druitt died on the first of December, according the date on the return ticket. If this date of death is true, Druitt's behaviour as a man who is going to commit suicide is very strange. Why this complicated voyage by train? If he wanted to drown himself, a long walk from Blackheath (where his journey by train started) over the Heath and Croom's Hill would have led him to the shore of the Thames, a place comfortable enough to jump into the water. The today's value of the cheques and cash he had in his pockets is almost L3,000. Lots of money, indeed. (And I'm sure, all serious Ripperologists will agree that the death of M.J.Druitt is highly mysterious anyway.)
Chapter 14 is the great preparation for the final act, and Wilding does it quite interesting. For his theory Wilding needs a connection between Kelly and Druitt. It's right that she has had connections to the West End; previously she was working in a brothel there and she accompained a rich lover to France. She could have heared of Druitt, she even could have met him. But perhaps she simply knew that the tutor of Bertie's son, J.K.Stephen, was acquaintede with the barrister M.J.Druitt. Wilding assumes that the acquaintance betwenn Stephen and Druitt is very likely. Both were of the same social class, both were homosexual - it's suggested that the victorian austerity the misfits moved closer -, both were educated in law, both were sportsmen and both belonged to the "Old School Tie" which chains young men together for their whole life. This is important for the further plot, for only a simple acquaintance would not explain the unconditional loyality which is a conditio sine qua non for the suggested teamwork. But there are more similiarities: Both, Stephen and Druitt, did not reach the importance wich their previous talents had let expect, both were of questionable mental condition and both were anti-catholic. According to Wilding's reconstruction, Mary went to Druitt in his office in the Temple, where she informed him about the pregnancy and the assumed fatherhood. She might asked him for his council, but without leaving an adress behind. Probable she promised to come back after he has had sufficient time to think about her case. Druitt saw the consequences of Kelly's information among the establishment ranks and he went to Stephen, who was known as a pure royalist.
Stephen's reaction is imaginable. His habit of mind already being somewhat thrown out of joint, anxiety and outrage grew to a dangerous anger. Wilding cites all the known poems to prove Stephen's misogynous feelings. About the growing insanity he cites the leading article of the very last issue of Stephen's magazine "The Reflector" in which Stephen makes a lot of cryptic remarks, and it's understandable that Wilding sees innuendos all over, concerning Stephen's intention to save the crown by a killing.. (I can't possibly translate back this article, so I must leave it up to you to get it somewhere else. This text is tantalizing anyway.)
Considering the hypnotic personality, it shouldn't have been too difficult to get Druitt's support for Stephen's murderous plans to save the crown. And probable there was money as an additional bait - remember the large amount in the pockets of drowned Druitt, and in spring of 1888 he was in need of money.
To find out Kelly's address should have been quite easy, probable by powerful contacts, friends with influence to the police of East End. But now Stephen had to wait for the evidence of Kelly's story: the visible signs of pregnancy. Wilding supposes that Kelly got pregnant at the beginning of April. (which fits the date of publishing the last issue of The Reflector with its remarkable article by Stephen, but which does not fit the cited Rumbelow's note, Kelly had been - at the time of the murder, early November - almost three months pregnant. I think it's a pity that Stephen didn't stop publishing The Reflector four months later...)
As soon as murder was resolved, logistics had to be worked out and plans had to be made. For not being conspicuous, Stephen and Druitt had to change their habit to look like alle the people in the East End did. This must have been quite a pleasure to Stephen, which was fond of theatrical performances, as the flaunting manner of the slaughters should prove - the Ripper left his victims behind just like he wanted to say: "Look what I've done!" (This, of course, is a suggestion of Wilding.) Wilding is convinced that Druitt and Stephen were in possession of a horse cart, which probably contained clean clothes for a change, damp towels and, at last but not least, a long knife, all hidden under a tarpaulin. Carts were cheap and London was plenty of stables (like, for example, the certain one in Buck's Row).
And now here comes the theory of master Wilding about the first murder. In the night to the 31st of August, Stephen and Druitt went to the East End, both in dangerous weak of mental condition, looking out for Mary Kelly to killer.
From the Yard in Buck's Row, where they stored the cart, they drove to Dorset Street, where Stephen got off the cart and entered Miller's Court to have a look at the scene. Kelly, looking out of her broken window, could have seen the stranger and got distrustful, because she might have expected difficulties after her contact to the establishment. To test the stranger, she left her flat, dressed with a bonnet, and went to the Britannia pub. On her way she might have discovered that the stranger was following. According the usage of changing clothes in such kind of danger, Kelly lent her bonnet to Mary Nicholls in the crowded pub. Similiar changing of clothes were common in the East End as a part of the hide-and-seek between small criminals and the police. Well, this could explain Nicholls' bonnet; let's have a short look on it:
Obviously the bonnet was new in her possession. If it has been a gift from a client, Nicholls rather would have sold it for drink or the doss house fee. The same, if she had found it. It sounds quite convincing that she had the bonnet on loan and that she got it short time before she went to the doss house.
Nicholls, proud of her new bonnet, left the Britannia, followed by Stephen and Druitt recognizing the "bonnet" as Mary Kelly. At the doss house, Stephen perhaps supposed that the "bonnet" visited a friend there. What ever he thought she did there, he hadn't to wait for a long time; Nicholls was refused by the deputy. Stephen followed her through the narrow streets, where she was looking for a client. "Are you Mary?" he might have asked her, what she did confirm. Stephen never had seen Kelly face to face, and Nicholls looked at least ten years younger than she actually was, as her own father and a journalist stated at the mortuary. Wilding supposes that Stephen invited the supposed Kelly to get on the cart, where Druitt sat on the box, the face hidden by shawl and hat, because he didn't want to be recognized. Thus he didn't took notice of the mistake. For Nicholls it seemed to be rather more comfortable to do it on the stage of a cart than in dirty backyard while standing.
Stephen now choked her, while Druitt drove the cart to the stables in Buck's Row. Bevore entering the yard, Stephen threw the body from the cart, and while Druitt put cart and horse in the stable, he cut her throat and injured the vagina, the focus of his hate. |
Author: Linda Stratmann
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 10:38 pm | | | Re: Jack The Ripper - Revealed. My review of this book is published on my website at www.parmaq.com/JackTheRipper2/htm. It makes an awful lot of suppositions backed by no evidence, many of which do not stand up to close examination. |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 02:48 pm | | Raphael -
Well its only been 4 years since you posted this synopsis of the book but it is my first time reading it and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I had never considered the possibility that Nichols had the "jolly bonnet" on loan. Just the thrill of wearing something new and pretty like that, that would explain her drawing special attention to it as she did that night. And we all know "black Mary" enjoyed dressing in black....
I personally do not believe in the Royal Conspiracy theory, but Raphael's synopsis sure does make it just a tiny bit more believable. |
Author: David Knott
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 01:18 pm | | Hi all,
Is this not the theory where the Goulston St Graffito turns out to be an anagram of: -
'F.G. Abberline. Now hate M.J Druitt. He sent the woman to hell'
or was it
'No! What feeble rot. Here - that John Wilding must be mental!'
(apologies - that's just the way the letters came out)
Perhaps we can have a Goulston St Graffito anagram competition to keep us busy over the festive period.
Best wishes to you all.
David |
|
|
|
|
