GOOD KNIGHT: An Examination of THE FINAL SOLUTION
Unfortunately, it isn't. -- Donald Rumbelow
One of the most controversial Ripper theories was made in Stephen Knight's
1978 book, JACK THE RIPPER: THE FINAL SOLUTION. In it, Knight weaves a
fascinating tapestry of conspiracy involving virtually every person who
has ever been a Ripper suspect plus a few new ones. Knight's conspiracy
has become the most popular Ripper theory ever despite strong objections
raised by Ripperologists such as Donald Rumbelow and the recanting of pertinent
testimony from Knight's key informant. Still, it has received the most
exposure and support of any Ripper theory and continues to appear in other
areas of popular culture. Clearly, it manages to appeal to a great number
of people and we shall examine that reason shortly.
First, however, it is important to discuss the actual theory as Knight
presents it in his book. The basic genesis of Knight's theory actually
began in 1973 and had nothing to do with Knight at all! The Ripper murders
had recently increased in popularity to the point where the BBC decided
to produce a television program on the murders. In an unprecedented move,
they combined their theatrical and documentary departments to produce a
strange hybrid of a show that purported to solve the mystery once and for
all using documented evidence, but by including fictional television detectives.
It was decided that research would be extremely important to the shows
success so several assistants were assigned to obtain all possible information
on the murders. In speaking with a Scotland Yard detective, they were advised
to speak to a man named Sickert who knew about a secret marriage between
Eddy and a poor Catholic girl named Alice Mary Crook.
The researchers could not find evidence of the marriage or the man
Sickert. Puzzled, they went back to their Scotland Yard contact who revealed
that the details were slightly off (apparently to test their intentions)
he then gave them Sickert's address and phone number. The researchers tracked
down Sickert and were told an amazing story.
Joseph Sickert's father had been the famous painter, Walter Sickert,
who had lived in the East End during the time of the murders and reportedly
knew the truth behind them. Joseph briefly outlined a tale in which Eddy,
while slumming as a commoner under Sickert's guidance, met a girl named
Annie Elizabeth Crook in a tobacconist's shop in Cleveland Street. Eddy
soon got the girl pregnant and they were living quite happily until the
Queen discovered her grandson's indiscretion and became furious. She demanded
that the situation be handled as Annie was not only a commoner, but a Catholic.
Joseph explained that the government had been very vulnerable at that time
and the news of a Catholic heir to the throne was likely to cause a revolution.
Queen Victoria supposedly gave the matter to Lord Salisbury, her Prime
Minister, for resolution. Salisbury ordered a raid on the Cleveland Street
apartment and Eddy and Annie were taken away in separate cabs. Her child,
a girl by the name of Alice Margaret, had somehow escaped.
Salisbury then enlisted the aid of Sir William Gull who was the Queen's
personal physician. According to Walter Sickert, Gull had Annie put away
in the hospital and performed experiments on her which made her lose her
memory, become epileptic, and slowly go insane. The story would have ended
there if it had not been for Mary Kelly.
Kelly was found by Walter Sickert in one of the poor houses and he
brought her to the tobacconist's shop to help Annie. She soon became Alice's
nanny and it was supposed that Alice was with her when the raid took place.
Desperate, Mary placed the child with nuns and fled back into the East
End, falling into a life of drink and prostitution. But she knew the entire
story of Eddy's indiscretion and began spreading it around. Soon, several
of her cronies pressured her into blackmailing the government for hush
money. These cronies were Polly Nichols, Liz Stride, and Annie Chapman.
When Salisbury learned of the threat, he called on Gull once again.
Gull brought along John Netley, a coachman who had often ferried Eddy
in his forays into the East End, for help and soon devised a plan that
would rid them of the bothersome women and teach them a lesson about trying
to topple a government. Together with John Netley, he created Jack the
Ripper as a symbol of Freemasonry. To that end, the aid of Sir Robert Anderson
was also enlisted to help cover up the crimes and act as lookout during
the murders.
Eddowes, Sickert said, had been a mistake. She often went by the name
of Mary Kelly and the conspirators thought that she was the one they were
looking for. When the mistake became known, they found the real Mary and
viciously silenced her.
The murders were hushed up and a scapegoat chosen if anyone tried to
investigate too closely. The poor barrister, Montague Druitt, was chosen
to take the blame and possibly, Sickert hinted, was murdered for it. The
girl, Alice Margaret, grew up quietly in the care of nuns and later, by
an odd series of twists and turns, married Walter Sickert and gave birth
to their son, Joseph. Sir William Gull died shortly after the murders,
but there were rumors that he had been committed to an insane asylum. Annie
Crook died insane in a workhouse in 1920. Netley was chased by an angry
mob after he unsuccessfully tried to run over Alice Margaret with his cab
shortly after the murders. He was believed to have been drowned in the
Thames.
Joseph said that his father was fascinated with the murders and bore
great guilt over them. Walter Sickert, after all, had been the one who
introduced Eddy to Annie and started the grisly game. To alleviate his
guilt, for he could say nothing safely, he painted clues into several of
his most famous paintings. Later, Walter Sickert supposedly married Alice
Margaret.
The researchers were amazed as no one had ever put forward anything
like this before. In checking the few facts, they did find that a woman
named Annie Crook lived in Cleveland Street at that time and that she did
give birth to a bastard daughter at the same time that Sickert said she
did. They felt that the theory was the correct one and they incorporated
it into the show.
When it appeared, JACK THE RIPPER (the BBC production) was confusing
to many viewers. The strange combination of facts with fictional detectives
and an outlandish theory prompted many to question the program's veracity.
Joseph Sickert appeared in the last episode and verified everything that
had been said. It was, they all felt, the only solution.
Stephen Knight enters the story a little later when he asks Joseph
Sickert for an interview for a local paper. After some indecision, Sickert
agrees. During the course of their interview, which took place over several
occasions, Knight also became convinced that Joseph Sickert believed he
was telling the truth. The story, he said, had been told to him by his
father to explain why his mother always looked so sad and why both she
and Joseph were partially deaf.
Once given the basic germ of the plot, Knight then proceeds to try and
confirm the theory. Eventually, he felt that the story warranted a book.
Joseph was disappointed as he had only agreed to be interviewed for an
article and wanted very little publicity. Undaunted, Knight went ahead
with his book in which he tried to prove that the conspiracy did exist,
that Eddy did father Annie's child, and (most amazing of all) that the
third man in the murderous trio was not Sir Robert Anderson at all but
Joseph's own father, Walter Sickert.
The book was initially released in 1978 and caused something of a sensation.
As both the BBC program and Knight's book were derived from Sickert's story,
they varied only in the identity of the third man. In essence, then, Knight
is reiterating the same story told to the BBC but is trying to validate
it as a serious theory. It is a fascinating piece of fiction, but very
little actual evidence is produced.
Knight makes great use of the infamous Ripper files held by Scotland
Yard and the Home Office (not to be opened to the public until 1992 and
1993 respectively and a source of much speculation in 1978) but it is difficult
to accept some of his conclusions. His logic is, at times, extremely flawed.
Having discovered the birth certificate of Alice Margaret, he verifies
the existence of Annie Elizabeth Crook and the fact that she was in Cleveland
Street. The fact that she is listed as being employed as a "confectionary
assistant" instead of a tobacconist is never fully explained. The
name of the father is left blank.
Knight then moves on to the story of a man who remembers his grandmother
foster feeding "a child of the Duke's." This story is strictly
hearsay with nothing to support it. Knight has proved that Alice Margaret
existed but then goes on to connect her with the child of the apocryphal
story. There is nothing to link the two and nothing to prove that the rumor
of a Duke's child had any basis in fact. Knight merely assumes that because
Alice Margaret did exist when Sickert said she did and because of this
story that they were one and the same. This is typical of much of Knight's
reasoning and logic. It is based primarily on assumption and the belief
that if "X was true than Y must also be true." This is wonderfully
faulty logic at its best.
A great deal of time is spent connecting Eddy with Cleveland Street.
At the time, it was considered a great mecca for artists and Knight postulates
that Sickert maintained a studio on that street. There is, outside of the
story he told his son, nothing to firmly state that he did so. He does
not appear on any of the registry books or as a rent payer. Knight explains
this by simply saying that Sickert may have avoided being listed in case
he had to make a quick escape from the landlord or something even more
sinister. He then implicates Eddy in the Cleveland Street scandal of 1889
in which a homosexual brothel was raided. Eddy was reportedly one of the
clients and, according to Knight and several other authors, a cover up
was done to erase his involvement.
Knight then goes on to say that the cover up was initiated not to conceal
Eddy's "bisexual nature (which was well known by then anyway), but
his connection with that particular street" (K 107). This is incredible
reasoning. Knight seemingly believes that Eddy would be no more than 'inconvienced'
if his bisexual nature was exposed. This is in spite of the strict anti-homosexual
laws which existed in England. Surely if Eddy was exposed as having homosexual
relations, the scandal would be quite large on its own without having to
worry about any other connections. It was these laws which brought Oscar
Wilde from fame to absolute ruin and disgrace. Would the outcry be any
less against a future King?
The connection is supposedly even greater when Knight mentions that
the infamous Aleister Crowley claimed in one of his books that he had compromising
letters from Eddy to a boy called Morgan who lived in Cleveland Street.
Knight then goes on to link these letters (whose existence has never been
verified or even been seen by another source) with a Mrs. Morgan who "ran
the very shop at No. 22 Cleveland Street in which Annie Elizabeth worked"
(K 103). Even if we accept that these unseen letters existed, there is
nothing to positively connect them with this Mrs. Morgan or Annie. Knight
assumes that if Eddy wrote letters to this boy then he surely must have
been a frequent visitor to the shop. Are we then to suppose that Eddy was
seducing both Annie and Morgan?
This is symptomatic of the entire problem with Knight's book and the
Sickert theory. It is based entirely on assumptions. There is no direct,
objective evidence to link Eddy with Annie, Gull with Sickert and Netley,
or even Warren and Anderson with the Masons. Knight builds his argument
through assuming that certain things are true. His proof is loose, lacking
in hard facts, and uses them to make further assumptions leading to the
murderous trio. It is a veritable house of cards which could be toppled
by the removal of the slightest piece of evidence.
One of the most detailed parts of the book involves Knight's attempts
to implicate the Masons into the conspiracy. Of course, Knight takes it
as certain that the conspiracy did exist because of some of the strange
evidence given at inquests (or not given) and the unexplainable actions
of several of the principals. It is absolutely necessary for Knight's theory
that there be a conspiracy so one is naturally assumed to have existed.
The Masons are chosen as the movers behind the conspiracy. As victims go,
the Masons are probably the best choice Knight could have made. Intensely
secretive, they would not allow anyone to consult their files and would
refuse all requests for information. This merely fuels Knights certainty
that they were implicitly involved in the conspiracy. Knight lists the
principal characters as Masons merely on assumption that in order to achieve
their political and social stature, they would have to be Masons. There
is no evidence to prove this which, of course, fits right in with Knight's
conspiracy.
This is actually one of the main reasonings behind his theory. Evidence
does not exist because the conspiracy made sure that all evidence was destroyed.
This is a handy excuse for lack of hard, objective facts. No marriage certificate
for Eddy and Annie? Conspiracy. No evidence that Gull, Salisbury, Warren,
and Anderson were Masons? Conspiracy. Evidence suppressed at the inquest?
Conspiracy. It is a handy excuse but one that requires an amazing amount
of trust from the reader.
The Mason connection is tenuous at best and relies entirely on Knight's
supposed 'revelations' about the sect. He discloses that the murders were
ritual re-enactments of the murder of Mason Hirem Abiff in Soloman's Temple
by three initiates Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum. Knight claims that further
evidence of the placing of the victims in specific areas points directly
to the Masons. One of these claims rests upon Mitre Square being significant
to the Masons as a local meeting place of various lodges and the words
Mitre and Square being symbols of Masonic tools. This is an example of
Knight's symbolic logic. Working from a list of Procedures, supposedly
dictating Masonic conduct, Knight believes that the murders were committed
to show Masonic power and had to include humor as well. This explains some
of Knight's stretches in logic as he identifies virtually everything to
have connections to Eddy or the Masons. For instance, John Netley is said
to have been killed, not by jumping off a bridge, but by being run over
by his own cab. This is significant, Knight implies, as it was probably
a Masonic killing which took place at Clarence Gate. The Clarence being,
of course, a veiled reference to Eddy.
Sickert is implicated because he knows too many details about the murders
to be an outside man. He must have been working with Gull and Netley. Knight
then goes on to suggest that the man seen by several witnesses was Sickert.
The parcel the man was carrying is said to be a portrait of Kelly which
they were using to track her down. This is confusing in that if Sickert
was involved because of his first-hand knowledge of Mary Kelly and the
Cleveland Street affair, why would he need a portrait to find Kelly? He
knew what she looked like perfectly well so why bring such a useless item
along?
In Rumbelow's revised edition of JACK THE RIPPER: A COMPLETE CASEBOOK,
he addresses the question of the Gull and Sickert theory. He does not find
much truth in the conspiracy. Criticizing Knight for his lack of facts,
Rumbelow goes on to prove that Annie Crook did indeed drift from workhouse
to workhouse before her death but Alice Margaret was with her during much
of this time! Also, in her 1918 marriage certificate, Alice Margaret lists
her father as William Crook who was actually her grandfather! This raises
just as much possibility that Alice was a product of incest as she was
a child of the Duke. In addition, Rumbelow has found that Alice's grandmother,
and Annie's mother, Sarah Crook had also been living in workhouses with
them and that she was also deaf and given to epileptic seizures. This raises
the possibility of Alice's medical problems coming from somewhere other
than the Duke.
Perhaps one of the strongest points Rumbelow makes against Knight is
when he proves that the actual location which Knight names in Cleveland
Street, could not have existed in 1888. The buildings were in a process
of being torn down and renovated during that time and could not have been
the scene of the dramatic abduction. Rumbelow then goes on to attack Knight's
accusation of Sickert as being unfounded. Much of Knight's theory has to
do with a red handkerchief which Sickert used in his painting. It is described
as being a tool he used to stimulate his memory. It implies the connection
that the last man seen with Kelly gave her a red handkerchief and this
is what makes Knight name Sickert. To be fair, he also includes Sickert's
intimate knowledge of the crimes and his moodiness. Rumbelow points out
that the use of the handkerchief is noted in 1917 and there is no indication
that he used it before then. Plus, he continues, Sickert had many moods
including his 'Ripper' phase which invalidates that argument.
One of Knight's points against Sickert was supposed 'hush' money paid
to him by Salisbury. The story went that Salisbury had abruptly appeared
in Sickert's Dieppe studio one day and, without looking at it, bought a
painting for 500 when it was barely worth 3. Knight says that Sickert had
originally attributed this story to the artist Vallon but confided to his
son that it had actually happened to him. Rumbelow discloses that the actual
painting was done by A. Vallon and was hung in Salisbury's home (where
it remains) and included his family which was why he had paid so much for
it. By assuming, rather than checking, Knight has left himself open to
accusation by the facts.
Knight himself is contradicted by Joseph Sickert who confessed shortly
after the book's appearance, to having made up the entire story. Knight
claimed that this revelation was simply in reaction to his naming Joseph's
father as one of the killers and not to be taken seriously. Yet Knight
also contradicts the testimony of Dr. Howard. There was an article printed
in a Chicago newspaper shortly after the murders in which a Doctor, while
drunk, confessed to having sat on a board of medical inquiry passing judgement
on Jack the Ripper. This man, reportedly named Doctor Howard, told how
the man was judged to be insane, committed, and a mock funeral given to
explain his absence. Knight jumps on this story and proves, through a circuitous
route, that the unnamed man mentioned in the story was Dr. Gull. In a postscript,
Knight mentions that a letter by Dr. Howard was found and published by
Richard Wittington-Egan in which Dr. Howard loudly discounts the story
and claims to have not even been in Chicago at the time. Knight explains
this rejection of an important part of his theory by saying that "Dr.
Howard would hardly have admitted that he had become drunk and broken the
solemn oath binding him to secrecy about the Masonic lunacy commission
proceedings" (K 211). Once again, he uses the conspiracy theory to
explain the existence of conflicting or nonexistent evidence. Clearly,
there is no arguing with Knight.
Another interesting point comes in Knight's examination of Gull as
a suspect. He states that Rumbelow and Farson have both discounted Gull
as a suspect due to his having a stroke a few years before the murder.
Knight then goes on to prove that a man can indeed function perfectly well
after major strokes and that Gull had only suffered one slight stroke.
Then, strangely, he relates the story of mystic Robert Lees leading a detective
to the house of a doctor claiming that the man was Jack the Ripper. Knight
establishes that this was Gull through another account in a memoir of Gull.
Be that as it may, Knight relates the story of Lees and the detective confronting
the man who confessed that his mind had been confused as of late and that
he had, on more than one occasion, woken up with blood on his shirt. Knight
appears to be laying a case for Gull having a split personality that resulted
in his committing the Ripper murders. This would appear to be in contrast
with the portrait of Gull which Knight earlier paints as a Masonic madman
intent upon saving the realm through an intricate plan. It is a strange
contradiction.
Ironically, Knight himself accuses Cullen and Farson of not checking
their facts when they accused Druitt. Their theories, he says, are based
on inaccurate copies of the MacNaughten papers and are thus worthless.
The same accusation applies to Knight as his lack of evidence makes his
theory just as worthless.
Despite the lack of hard facts, the Sickert theory remains one of the
most popular Ripper theories yet advanced. It continues to appear in popular
fiction and media, eclipsing all other theories. The reasoning for this
is quite simple. The conspiracy theory is a favorite among many people
as a large number of them often have persecution complexes and do not trust
the government. That aside, the Sickert theory makes an excellent story
regardless of whether it is true or not. It is far more powerful than a
tale of a lone madman stalking women. It involves powerful people subverting
justice for their own ends, romance, tragedy, and guilt. In short, it is
the perfect Hollywood story! This fact has not been missed by most as this
theory appears frequently in such different forms as movies, television
shows, comic books, and novels.
When read as fiction, it makes wonderful sense and provides an incredibly
enjoyable read. If taken as fact, Knight's book falls apart from the lack
of evidence supporting it. The entire concept is only effective if key
elements are believed on faith. The study of the Ripper requires much more
than that.
