Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Confessions of a Ripperologist

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.

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.

…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:

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.

“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.”[41]

“Savage though this crime was, it was but one murder in many violent deaths which occurred in the East End.”[42]

“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.”[43]

“But for now the incorrect assumption that the murders of Smith, Tabram and, for that matter, Fairy Fay[44] might have been committed by the same person was not to be altered by any official statements from the police or Home Secretary.”[45]

“…it is necessary to eliminate the charge, often made by police and coroners, that the first Ripper crime was the killing of Emma Smith…”[46]

“The murder of Emma Smith can also be reasonably taken off the list of Ripper victims.”[47]

“Although the sheer brutality of the attack had shocked the East Enders it was still a crime generally accepted as understandable.”[48]…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.”[49]

“Emma Elizabeth Smith…(frequently and wrongly ascribed by the press to the Ripper)”[50]

“…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.”[51]

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.

“It was a most heinous street crime indeed, but not the work of Jack the Ripper.”[54]

“The crimes of ‘Jack the Ripper’ are so inextricably woven with the Whitechapel Murders that often one is mistaken for the other.”[55]

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).”[56]

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.

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.)[57] 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.

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.

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?

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.

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 31^st. 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.”[59]

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 1^st 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 31^st 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 3^rd 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 31^st 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 10^th 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.

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.

“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.”[60]

“…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.”[61]

Describing the murder of Elizabeth Stride: “The woman was seriously injured about the head, and must have been thrown down with great violence,…”[62]

“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.”[63]

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…”[64]

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.”[65]

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!”[66]

“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.”[67]

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,…”[68]

“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.”[69]

“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.”[70]

“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.”[71]

“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.[72]

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.

“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.”[74]

“The press felt that the City Police, under his direction, were frank and helpful whereas the Metropolitan Police were obstructive and secretive.”[75]

“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.’”[76]

“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.”[77]

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].”[78]

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.”[79]:

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”[80]:

“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.

“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.”

“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.”[81]

Had the murderer been there that day? Was the sight of this spectacle what inspired him to return there the following night?

“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.

“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.

“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.”

“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.[82]

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.”[83], 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.’

“’After the suspect had been identified at the Seaside home[84] 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.

“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.”[86]

It has been put forth that Sir Robert Anderson “…did not take an active part in the investigation”[87], 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”[88]

“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.”[89]

“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.”[90]

“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.”[91]

Anderson wanted badly to bring Jack the Ripper to justice but his bitterness is tempered by his conscience.

“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.”

“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.”

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.

Can we utilize psychological/criminal profiling, with modern subjects as models- and are the same principles applicable in the cases of Victorian vs. 21^st 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.”[92]

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.”[93]

“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.”[94]

From The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper[95] 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.”[96]

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.

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.”[97]

“Not even the rudiments of surgical skill were needed to cause the mutilations I saw.”[98]

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…

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.

“All in all, I tend to agree with the police that the graffito was an incidental finding, not related to the murder.”[99]

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.”[100]

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”[101] –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.”[102]

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.”[103]

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.”[104]

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 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…

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,…”[105]), 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.

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 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.

“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…

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.

Where are We Now and Where do We Go from Here?

I don’t believe we’ve exhausted our resources yet. I do think that we should concentrate on specific avenues of research that are more likely to yield a clue than chasing particular suspects. There’s got to be more out there…some possible hiding places:

-relatives and/or descendants of police/doctors/coroners/etc.

-Poor Jews Temporary Shelter/Board of Guardians records, etc.

-Black Lion Yard, Sion Square, etc, including business and residential records

-Court records (names, locations, offenses, c. 1885-92)

-Asylum records (public and private): deaths, admissions, etc;[106] doctors/attendants who were employed there

-Jewish/Polish records (England and Poland): births, deaths, marriages; hospital/asylum/doctor/police; emigration & immigration

Who do I think it was? (Or more appropriately, Who do I think it wasn’t?)

I cannot say that I believe it was or wasn’t Aaron Kosminski, David Cohen or Nathan Kaminsky; I have strong doubts that it was Druitt, Chapman, Stephenson, Tumblety, Barnett, Bury, Cutbush, or Hutchinson; and there is no doubt in my mind that it wasn’t the person or persons who authored “The Diary”, Prince Eddy and/or Royal conspirators/relations; many more names have popped up now and again, but none of which have made a significant enough impression on me to mention one way or the other.

Again, I can’t help but to think about the murderer being aware of the social/political consequences; and just maybe he was deliberately antagonizing…maybe his motives evolved parallel with his methods.

It is apparent by now that I am strongly inclined to the belief that the murderer was a Polish Jew, of a common class. I am not anti-Semitic. The evidence that it was a strong possibility needs to be taken into consideration. The locations of the murders were no doubt in areas with a high concentration of immigrants, as well as the English poor. The killer must have felt comfortable and not out of place; although in 1888 the Jewish population in the East End had yet to peak, around the turn of the century it had swallowed up much of, especially, Whitechapel. According to Jerry White in Rothschild Buildings:

“The believer had a choice of shuls in Artillery Lane,…Duke’s Place, Fournier St…, Goulston St, Hanbury St, New Court (Fashion St), Old Castle St, Old Montague St, and White’s Row. In Thrawl St there was a Rabbinical seminary…All of this was apart from the numberless nameless stiebels, local synagogues organised on the old village community basis.”

Again, the proximity of Jewish clubs and the presence of Jewish witnesses, together with the bloody apron found in the doorway of the primarily Jewish Wentworth Model Dwellings in Goulston Street, not to mention the curious writing on the door jamb on the night of the “double event” suggests that someone who was intimately familiar with and confidently comfortable in these specific areas committed these crimes. It is extremely doubtful that this was some complicated anti-Semitic demonstration; although there was enough anti-Jewish sentiment to create excitement, to take two separate hatreds to such extremes is stretching the bounds of probability. Taking into consideration all of the details, it escapes me how anyone who is really paying attention can come to any other conclusion. Doubts of the actual identity of the criminal known as “Jack the Ripper” notwithstanding, I believe to look elsewhere for the murderer would be pointless. Still the truth remains elusive.

More Shameless Campaigning on Behalf of Sir Robert Anderson and the Police.

I will now take this opportunity to beat a dead horse once again. Sir Robert Anderson has been accused of being egotistical, boastful, delusional and worse yet, dishonest. Mostly by twentieth century writers and self-styled experts. Anderson was clearly a proud man, yet examples of his humility are obscured by “reckless accusations.” This is unfair and unbalanced. The following are some examples of Anderson’s writings (not necessarily about the Whitechapel murders) and selections from writings about him by his son, A. P. Moore-Anderson, with testimonials of the man’s character. As most tributes tend to be overly sympathetic, especially if they originate with a close relation, these writings do fall under this category, but they should offer a glimpse into Sir Robert Anderson’s most positive attributes; in turn, I hope to restore some credibility to a much-maligned and most important figure in our hunt for Jack the Ripper.

“Poverty is no crime, but, human nature being what it is, tempts to crime; and, therefore, facts that would carry no weight in the case of a man of means and of known position of character, have a terrible significance in the case of one who is penniless and friendless.”[107]

Anderson wrote extensively on religious topics, much more so than about his “official life”, and many remembrances come from this circle.

“’I pray our Master’s blessing on this close study of the witnesses for the glory of Christ, done not by an official advocate of the Faith, but by one long versed in weighty and difficult duties of civil law and order, and accustomed through his whole life to the keenest quest of facts and to the ruthless exposure of fallacy.’”[108]

“The quality in Sir Robert Anderson’s books, as well as in his numerous other writings, which appealed with special force to many people, was the strength and certainty of his own beliefs and the clearness of their expression.”[109]

Moore-Anderson is very sentimental in his “Tribute and Memoir”, as is to be expected:

“Sir Robert Anderson was no opponent of legitimate criticism, being, as he often said, by temperament and training a sceptic and critic himself;”

In a letter Sir Robert wrote to a “correspondent on the Continent”:

“’…and I learned that while I boasted of being a superior person and a critic, I was but a poor ignoramus.’”

From “The Rev. H. Adler, late Chief Rabbi:”, writing to Sir Robert:

“’At a time when, unhappily, writers seem so eager to sap our belief, it is comforting to see so doughty a champion as you entering the lists to defend our sacred Scriptures.’ And again, ‘Permit me to assure you that it will be a source of gratification to me to assist you at any time in your valuable researches in our Holy Scriptures.’”

“’In one aspect Sir Robert Anderson’s theological writings reflect the man- his sturdy Ulster inheritance and training, his clear-cut, logical habit of thought, his impatience with any form of “mediating” theology, his capacity for dealing hard, straight blows, and his unsparing condemnation of anything he judged to be a departure from the truth. What they do not reflect in adequate measure in his fundamental geniality, beautiful simplicity of spirit, and abundant kindness of heart. These things are enshrined, not in his books, but in the hearts of all his friends.’

E. H., in The Christian, Nov. 28^th, 1918.”

“From Major Arthur Griffiths, formerly one of H. M. Inspectors of Prisons:

‘Although we do not meet often nowadays, my heart is ever warm towards one of my oldest and best friends.’”

“…a brief address was given by Dr. Dixon. ‘…he loved the truth and he hated error.’”

“From Lieut.-Colonel J. W. Richards Adams: ‘I knew your father for more than thirty years, and I can say that he was one of the ablest men I ever knew; in any case, where the facts were all before him, he seemed almost intuitively to arrive at a correct conclusion.’”

“The Council of the Victoria Institute, at their meeting of December 22^nd, 1918, passed the following minute:-

‘The Victoria Institute has to lament, in the death of Sir Robert Anderson, K. C. B., LL. D., the loss of an old and valued member. In early life he was engaged in important confidential duty in the service of Government, in which his sagacity, ability and knowledge of men and affairs made his work of great value to the country, as shown by the high honour conferred on him…The qualities which made him eminent in official life, together with his loyalty to truth and incisive logic, rendered his advocacy of those causes weighty and influential.’”

Back to words from Sir Robert himself:

“Even men holding high office may indulge in ‘terminological inexactitudes,’ and very few people are capable of repeating accurately a conversation of yesterday…”[110]

“Naturally I made some grave mistakes.”[111]

Returning to Criminals and Crime, Anderson defends his much-maligned force and again demonstrates his desire to clear the air, alluding to the Whitechapel murders, but in biting his tongue he teases us once more:

“It is to this habit of dealing with criminals instead of with crimes that the phenomenal success of the Criminal Investigation Department is largely due. I have no reserve in praising a department of which I was recently the chief, and for the excellent reason that no one knows better than I to whom the praise for that success is due. With a chief who did not enjoy the fullest confidence and respect of his subordinates success would be impossible; but the best of chiefs can do little more than stand behind the working staff- a body of officers that, as a body, when judged by the double test of efficiency and character, are unequalled in the world. Character I include with emphasis because it is often overlooked when judging of the relative merits of different forces.

“When I speak of efficiency some people will exclaim, ‘But what about all the undetected crimes?’ I may say here that in London at least the undetected crimes are few. But English law does not permit of an arrest save on legal evidence of guilt, and legal evidence is often wholly wanting where moral proof is complete and convincing. Were I to unfold the secrets of Scotland Yard about crimes respecting which the police have been disparaged and abused in recent years, the result would be a revelation to the public.”

“But if I were writing only for those who, knowing me, know that I am in the habit of weighing my words, I would use far stronger language to describe our present methods. The public, however, might attribute this to hysterics- a complaint I do not suffer from.”

“…my apology for thus repeating myself again and again must be that it is only by constant repetition that venerable traditions can be overcome, and stupid satisfaction with the present state of things can be disturbed.”

“When I took charge of the Criminal Investigation Department I was no novice in matters relating to criminals and crime. In addition to experience gained at the Bar and on the Prison Commission, secret service work had kept me in close touch with ‘Scotland Yard’ for twenty years, and during all that time I had the confidence, not only of the chiefs, but of the principal officers of the detective force. I thus entered on my duties with very exceptional advantages.

“I was not a little surprised, therefore, to find occasion to suspect that one of my principal subordinates was trying to impose on me as though I were an ignoramus. For when any important crime of a certain kind occurred, and I set myself to investigate it a la Sherlock Holmes, he used to listen to me in the way that so many people listen to sermons in church; and when I was done he would stolidly announce that the crime was the work of A, B, C, or D, naming some of his stock heroes. Though a keen and shrewd police officer, the man was unimaginative, and I thus accounted for the fact that his list was always brief, and that the same names came up repeatedly…, one name or another being put forward according to the kind of the crime I was investigating.

“It was easy to test my prosaic subordinate’s statements by methods with which I was familiar in secret service work; and I soon found out that he was generally right. Great crimes are the work of great criminals, and great criminals are very few. And by ‘great crimes’ I mean, not crimes that loom large in the public view because of their moral heinousness, but crimes that are the work of skilled and resourceful criminals. The problem in such cases is not to find the offender in a population of many millions, but to pick him out from among a few definitely known ‘specialists’ in the particular sort of crime under investigation.”

Sir Robert Anderson is not afraid to make mistakes, and when speaking of a different crime he even uses the words “but my inquiries were fruitless.” His writings on his experiences with crime and criminals is cerebral and philosophical, not simply a collection of anecdotal reminiscences. The passages which I have chosen to include hopefully bear some relation to the Whitechapel murders and/or Anderson’s veracity. (Padding the job, I guess.)

For a comprehensive collection of files and facts, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook (also published as The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion) is an absolute necessity. It includes and expands on many of the quotes contained here. Among the many inclusions relevant to my dribblings are some transcripts of exchanges between Anderson and the Jewish Chronicle, relating to Anderson’s revelations that had appeared in Blackwood’s Magazine prior to their somewhat modified form in The Lighter Side of My Official Life. Anderson’s discretion was again called into question, and it his discretion, or lack thereof, that, in my eyes, may be the most disagreeable element to all he has left us with. But I cannot condemn him for setting this fire, for it was, again in my opinion, an attempt to defend his service and the efforts of those dedicated to public service. And it may ultimately serve as the means to extinguish, with sublime redemption, the inferno that has engulfed our modern New Age science of Ripperology.

“I have already committed the indiscretion of telling how near I came to being locked up on one occasion. I will cap my indiscretion by narrating how I was actually locked up upon another occasion.”

Sir Robert does choose his words carefully, and with the opportunity to read and re-read what he had written before it was published, a serious distinction must be made between these words and those quoted by others in interviews (whether it be to pressmen or otherwise), second-hand testimonials or hearsay. Even the notes made by Donald Swanson in his copy of The Lighter Side of My Official Life must be taken for what they are- scribbled notes, written who knows how long after the book had been published (1910). It remains a mystery why Swanson would have needed to write these “marginalia”…Did he hope someday that this would exonerate Anderson? Did he want to be remembered as the one to settle this conundrum? Clearly this doesn’t settle anything. Could this have been one final way to keep us all arguing and wondering? The Kosminski that we assign to Swanson’s jottings clearly did not “die shortly after” his committal to Colney Hatch Asylum; but as of this moment, we know of no other Kosminski who fits this description…So what should we make of this? We can’t satisfy ourselves no matter what we think. Was there another Kosminski? Was Swanson the one with the big mistakes? Damn, this is frustrating.

See Paul Begg’s Jack the Ripper: The Facts for the most detailed and compelling assessment of Aaron Kosminski.

In Criminals and Crime, Anderson says “during the weeks the fiend was on the prowl”. “Weeks” would seem to imply that he was put down shortly after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, would it not?

Curiously, at least to my mind anyway, Mary Kelly was buried not far from where her landlord, John McCarthy, who had apparently let her run up a considerable debt, was buried…

There may very well have been more of a connection between them…

…Just another intriguing and diversionary possibility, among many.

The Ten Bells…memories of Murphy’s Stout…

Spitalfields Market. The Ten Bells can be seen to the right of the tree.

Between Thrawl Street and what was Flower and Dean Street.

Another view of Mitre Square from Mitre Street.

Where the original “White Chapel”, St. Mary’s Church stood in 1888.

In Whitechapel Road.

Where Emma Smith died.

And where Joseph Merrick, the “Elephant Man” lived.

And the jury returned the verdict “Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown…”

Continue to Part Four »

FOOTNOTES:

[41] The Pocket Essential Jack the Ripper.

[42] Jack the Ripper: Summing Up and Verdict by Colin Wilson and Robin Odell.

[43] The Mystery of Jack the Ripper by Leonard Matters.

[44] “Fairy Fay” was a nickname ascribed to a (probably) imaginary or fictitious early victim which may have been a hazy conglomeration of details from various accounts of different cases.

[45] The Ripper Legacy by Martin Howells and Keith Skinner.

[46] The Identity of Jack the Ripper by Donald McCormick.

[47] Jack the Ripper in Fact and Fiction by Robin Odell.

[48] From Hell: The Jack the Ripper Mystery by Bob Hinton.

[49] The Ripper Legacy.

[50] The Crimes, Detection and Death Of Jack the Ripper.

[51] Jack the Ripper: Anatomy of a Myth by William Beadle.

[52] The Jack the Ripper A-Z.

[53] The Complete History of Jack the Ripper.

[54] Alias Jack the Ripper by R. Michael Gordon.

[55] The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

[56] Serial Murderers and their Victims by Eric W. Hickey.

[57] Currently there is some question as to the accuracy of statistics of murder, and there has been some contradictory, if unsubstantiated, information to emerge lately, although, at least here, the jury is still out.

[58] From the “Littlechild Letter,” Evans and Gainey’s The Lodger. (see also The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook/ Companion.)

[59] See The Facts, A-Z and Ultimate Companion for transcripts of the different and more complete versions of the Memoranda.

[60] From Constable to Commissioner by Sir Henry Smith (1910).

[61] Ibid.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Ibid.

[64] This is part of a translation of a letter in the Home Office files dated 15 August, 1887 from one Dr. Apatowski, who claimed to be an “Israelite myself.”

[65] From Constable to Commissioner.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid.

[69] From TUJTRS, “The next mention of theories appeared in The People of Sunday, 9 June 1912, in a series of articles entitled ‘Scotland Yard and its Secrets’ by Hargrave L. Adam:”

[70] Ibid.

[71] The Complete History of Jack the Ripper.

[72] Ibid.

[73] TCHOJTR (footnotes) pgs.498-99.

[74] Ibid., an obvious allusion to Anderson’s “addle-headed nonsense.”

[75] The Jack the Ripper A-Z.

[76] Ibid.

[77] Ibid. Actually, this is not quite accurate. The following is from the Introduction in Adam’s Trial of George Chapman: “As everyone knows, who this mysterious criminal was has never been cleared up. Several prominent officials have from time to time asserted that they had established his identity. The late Sir Melville Macnaghten, the late Sir Robert Anderson, Sir Henry Smith, and many others of less importance have assured us regarding this…These declarations, as mere declarations without evidence to support them, are unsatisfactory. It is quite certain that nobody ever did know for certain who Jack-the-Ripper was.”

[78] Ibid.

[79] The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

[80] The Jack the Ripper A-Z.

[81] Dew was speaking about the death of Annie Chapman.

[82] A man carrying a black bag was seen “hurrying away” from the scene of Elizabeth Stride’s murder at some point around the time of her death, but this man eventually came forward to show that he had no knowledge of the crime. Matthew Packer told conflicting stories to the press and police about selling grapes to Stride and her supposed killer, and he was basically discredited by the authorities who shared the views of most of us today that he was simply seeking publicity. Also, although talk of photographing the victims’ eyes was one of the desperate measures considered by the authorities, no evidence beyond Dew’s recollection has been discovered. I do suppose this is still a remote possibility though.

[83] The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

[84] The definitive identity and location of the Seaside home has been subject to much debate and remains conclusively unsolved but could play an important role in establishing time-lines of the supposed identification of Kosminski.

[85] The Trials of Israel Lipski.

[86] The Gospel and Its Ministry by Sir Robert Anderson.

[87] The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

[88] From the preface to The Police Encyclopedia: Volume IV by H. L. Adam (1920).

[89] The Lighter Side of My Official Life.

[90] Ibid.

[91] Ibid.

[92] Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives by Ressler, Burgess & Douglas.

[93] Ibid.

[94] Ibid.

[95] Panelists were given a rather lame choice between Prince Albert Victor (Prince “Eddy”, Duke of Clarence), Royal physician Sir William Gull, Occultist Robert Donston Stephenson, barrister Montague John Druitt and Aaron Kosminski to choose which would have been least likely and who would have been most likely of the group to have been Jack the Ripper.

[96] The Cases that Haunt Us.

[97] I Caught Crippen.

[98] Ibid.

[99] The Cases that Haunt Us.

[100] Police Work from Within.

[101] The Jack the Ripper A-Z. According to The Times (via The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook), “The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument”: This interpretation seems to be the same one used by most of us today- but obviously I have my doubts.

[102] The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, quoting a report from The Times newspaper.

[103] The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

[104] Ibid.

[105] Ibid.

[106] The researches of Martin Fido and Philip Sugden, et al, have been enlightening, but there may still be haystacks hiding needles out there somewhere.

[107] Criminals and Crime.

[108] Sir Robert Anderson K.C.B.,LL. D. A Tribute and Memoir, quoting Dr. Handley Moule, Bishop of Durham, commenting on Anderson’s The Lord from Heaven.

[109] …A Tribute and Memoir.

[110] The Lighter Side of My official Life.

[111] Ibid.