The year is 1888. The stage, the shadowy and bog-filled streets of the East End of London. More specifically, the Whitechapel District, an area with a proclivity for violence and crime amongst the backdrop of poverty. But suddenly, a string of murders terrorise the public in a way never seen before. The culprit, a mad man with no clear motive. The world’s most notorious serial killer, Jack the Ripper.
While most believe the Ripper claimed the lives of only five, now referred to as “The Canonical Five”, others believe the Ripper claimed the lives of up to 11 women. All five of the canonical victims were prostitutes, as many women in the Whitechapel District had to turn to prostitution as a way to survive. The morbid intrigue is not a recent development. At the time of the murders, literacy was increasing amongst the general population, where the murders were covered in the newspaper, causing the public to become morbidly fascinated by them. In the end, the public was so upset at the failed attempts to identify the killer, that the police commissioner and home secretary eventually resigned.
On August 31, 1888 at 3:40 am, the body of Mary Ann Nichols was found in Buck’s Row in Whitechapel. The body was discovered by a man named Charles Cross, who claims he was walking along Buck’s Row when he noticed a bundle towards the western end. Another man named Robert Paul approached the body with Cross. Police would eventually arrive on the scene. Mary Ann Nichols was found on her back, her throat severely slashed, and she was disembowelled. It was determined she had only been dead for about a half hour, meaning the killer was likely nearby when Cross first saw the body.
On September 8, 1888, the body of Annie Chapman was found at 29 Hanbury Street. Her body was discovered by a man named John Davis, an elderly resident of the 29 Hanbury Street building. Her throat was cut and this time the violence escalated in that the murderer took her womb. Dr. George Baxter Phillips was serving as the divisional police surgeon at the time and proposed the idea that the killer had anatomical knowledge by the manner in which Annie Chapman’s womb was removed. This hinted to the profession of the Jack the Ripper being within the medical sector.
Later that month on September 27, 1888, the Central News Agency receives a letter from the apparent killer. It reads: “Dear Boss, I keep on hearing the police have caught me, but they wont fix just yet. I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits. I am down on whores and shant quit ripping them till I do get buckled. Grand work on the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal. How can they catch me now? I love my work and want to start again. You will soon hear of me with my funny little games. I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I can’t use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope. Ha. Ha. The next job I do I shall clip the lady’s ears off and send to the police officer just for jolly wouldn’t you. Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight. My knife’s so nice and sharp, I want to get to work right away if I get a chance. Good luck. Yours truly, Jack the Ripper. Don’t mind giving me the trade name.” This letter wasn’t released to the public until October 1st, 1888, and many believe that it was fabricated by a journalist, but regardless, it made its way to the papers. Once in the eyes of the public, the name stuck, and the killer from that point on went by the now famous moniker, Jack the Ripper.
Three days later on September 30, at 1:00 am, the body of Elizabeth Stride was found on Berner Street by a man named Louis Diemschutz. Only her throat was cut, which led police to believe that the murder was interrupted when Diemschutz approached. It was determined that she was dead for 30 minutes when examined around 1:15 am. Shockingly, only 45 minutes after the discovery of Elizabeth Stride, another body was found in Mitre Square, just west of the Stride murder. A woman named Catherine Eddowes was the second victim in the same night. Her body was severely mutilated, including her face. Her uterus was removed, as well as her left kidney. What’s odd here, is that after he killed Eddowes, he went back towards the direction of the Stride murder, hence running under the Police’s surveillance. It’s here that police would discover one of the few solid clues in the entire case, a piece of Catherine Eddowes’s Apron, found near the scene of the crime. The apron was found by Alfred Long in the doorway of an apartment block near Goulston Street, a nearby street east of the Eddowes murder site. Near this apron, a message was written in chalk that read: “The Juwes are the men that will not be blame for nothing”. A sign of the anti-Semitism that was common in the area. However, the crucial detail of this clue is the fact that it was found east of the Eddowes murder site, in the direction of Elizabeth Stride’s murder site, the murder that occurred just 45 minutes prior. This perplexing decision could mean that the killer willingly entered an area that was swarming with police. Aside from demonstrating the killer’s evasive abilities, this could suggest the killer lived in this East London area, as it possibly explains the motive for entering a dangerous situation. Later, a postcard is received by the police department dated October 1st and written by someone also claiming to be the Ripper with similar handwriting: “I was not coddling, dear old Boss, when I gave you the tip. You’ll hear about Saucy Jacky’s work tomorrow double event this time number one squealed a bit couldn’t finish straight off had not the time to get ears for police. Thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again. Jack the Ripper.” This postcard was received by the press agency the morning after the night of the double event. What’s strange about this is that none of the public knew about this double event because it hadn’t been in the papers yet. Yet this writer was able to describe what happened in detail.
On the 13th of October in 1888, the police spent a week searching every house in the East Densworth slums, but found nothing. Nearly a month later, on November 9, the body of the fifth and final canonical victim, Mary Kelly, was found at 13 Millers Court in her bed, by her landlord’s assistant, who was seeking rent. This murder was by far the most gruesome, as her body was disembowelled, and “virtually skinned down”. The landlord’s assistant stated: “The sight that we saw I cannot drive away from my mind. It looked more like the world of a devil than of a man”.
With Jack the Ripper’s reign of terror, one should wonder if anybody caught a glimpse, and it seemed that people did. When aggregating eyewitness testimonies of those who believed they saw the Ripper, a rough outline of the killer can be visualised. It can be assumed that he was between 25 to 35 years old, roughly 5’5 to 5’7, stocky, with a fair complexion, and a mustache. Allegedly, he was seen wearing a dark overcoat, and a dark hat. The Scotland Yard’s Violent Crime Command team has said that Jack the Ripper, who one could call evil incarnated, could be described in appearance as “perfectly sane, frighteningly normal, and yet capable of extraordinary cruelty”. Sir Melville McNaughten, the Scotland Yard’s head of the criminal investigation department in 1903 had a general suspicion of who the killer was. He knew that the Ripper had basic knowledge of anatomy, possibly a doctor and in McNaughten’s notes, he had narrowed his list of suspects down to three names. However officially, there are 6 suspects.
The first suspect was Montague Johnson Druitt, who was a barrister who may have had an uncle and cousin who were doctors. Around the time of his death, Druitt may have been around the age of 40 and supposedly had an interest in surgery. Montague possibly lived with his cousin who was practicing medicine close to where the Whitechapel murders occurred. It also appears that about a month before the first canonical murder, Montague’s mother went insane, and Montague had written in a note that he feared he was also going insane. In his notes, he adds: “From private information, I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer; it was alleged that he was sexually insane.” After the final murder, Montague disappeared, only to be found dead within four weeks of the last murder. His body was found floating in the Thames River on December 3rd, 1888.
The 2nd suspect was Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor and a criminal. Ostrog has been in an asylum previously for homicidal tendencies. McNaughten notes that Ostrog couldn’t provide a strong alibi for his whereabouts during the murders. Ultimately, he was not convicted because there wasn’t enough evidence linking him to the crime.
The 3rd suspect was Aaron Kosminski, a Polish and Jewish resident of Whitechapel, who spent some time in an asylum in 1889 after the last murder. Kosminski would actually reside in asylums until his death in 1919. Kosminski was known for his hatred towards women, particularly prostitutes. According to McNaughten, his appearance matched descriptions provided by the police of a man in Mitre Square, which, if you’ll recall, was the night of the double murder, where the Ripper likely zig-zagged between the police. Kosminski might be a name familiar to the public due to the fact that recently his name made headlines due to his being featured in a book entitled, “Naming Jack the Ripper”. In this book, Russel Edwards claims that a shawl purchased at an auction contains DNA evidence proving Kosminski is the killer. The shawl was bought under the impression that it reportedly was found at the murder scene of the person of Catherin Eddowes, the 4th ripper victim. Edwards enlisted the help of molecular biologist Jari Louhelainen of Liverpool John Moores University. Edwards and Louhelainen believed the blood-stained shawl is connected to Catherine Eddowes, based off of comparison from one of Eddowes’ descendants. They also claim that semen on the scarf is linked to relatives of Kosminski. With this discovery, many felt that the case was closed, including Edwards. Edwards states: “I’ve got the only piece of forensic evidence in the whole history of the case. I’ve spent 14 years working on it, and we have definitively solved the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was. Only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt. This is it now – we have unmasked him”. But much to the chagrin of Mr Edwards, that may not be the case. It turns out that the scientist may have made a critical error of nomenclature. Summed up, Dr. Louhelainen identified a mutation in DNA on both the scarf and in Eddowes’ relative named Karen Miller. This mutation was believed to be named 314.1C, a mutation only found in 1 in 290,000 people, making it very likely it was a match. However, this identification was reportedly incorrect, where it was in fact a mutation called 315.1C, which is a mutation shared by more than 99% of people of European descent, hence meaning that this DNA could be anyone, if true. Furthermore, Kosminski’s DNA was linked to the scarf, using mitochondrial DNA, using a subtype that is far from unique. Sir Alex Jeffreys, who’s regarded as the godfather of DNA fingerprinting, has said that this evidence “needs to be subjected to peer review. No actual evidence has yet been provided.” Further adding fuel to the fire, skeptics believe that the fact that Dr. Louhelainen has yet to publish this finding in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and has refused to answer questions to news outlets. Thus, making it impossible to verify his and Edward’s claims and effectively doing quite the opposite.
The 4th suspect is the notion that Jack the Ripper was actually a female. A theory that ripperologists call Jill the Ripper. This theory was allegedly a hunch of famed inspector Abberline, as well. The idea that all of the police were on the hunt for a man when they should have been searching for a woman would explain the Ripper being able to slip by without suspicion. As for the medical knowledge/experience during the murders, those skills could’ve been acquired from sufficient anatomic knowledge through a midwifery career, as well as the fact that blood on her clothing wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows. Though, it should be pointed out that all eyewitness testimony points to a man.
The 5th suspect is famed painter Walter Sickert, a theory mainly posed by the successful crime novelist Patricia Cornwell. After making millions on her crime novels, Cornwell has devoted her time to the pursuit of Sickert as the Ripper. In 2001, Cornwell spent £2 million buying 32 of Sickert’s paintings, letters, and even Sickert’s writing desk in one bizarre stunt. that was described by art curator Richard Shone as “Monstrous stupidity”. Cornwell cut up his paintings in search of clues. Aside from stunts, Cornwell rightfully claims that Sickert was obsessed with the Ripper, which was true. Sickert referenced the Ripper in some of his paintings, even titling one “Jack the Ripper’s bedroom”. Cornwell claims one painting mirrors the body position of Mary Kelly (5th victim). She claims another painting mimics the facial wounds of the 4th ripper victim, Catherin Eddowes. There are also reportedly accounts of Sickert cosplaying as Jack the Ripper. Cornwell also shoots down the notion that Sickert’s alibi was that he was in France at the onset of the murders. She cites sketches that place him in London, in music halls, at the time of at least 3 killings. However, the biggest piece of her case is the analysis of forensic paper expert Peter Bower. Bower identified 3 of Sickert’s letters and 2 of the Ripper’s letters as coming from a handmade paper run of only 24 possibly sheets. Therefore, the odds of both the Ripper and Sickert both writing letters on a batch of paper that only had 24 copies in existence is relatively slim. While this is compelling evidence, it should be reminded that all of the Jack the Ripper letters are unconfirmed.
The final suspect is Joseph Barnett, who is particularly suspicious, as he actually lived with Mary Kelly, the final Ripper victim. In fact, Barnett may have lived in 10 different locations in East London, making him well versed in the area, and capable of navigating back streets. Barnett worked as a fish porter, and it’s believed that Barnett was in love with Kelly. According to an issue of the Daily Telegraph, on November 10, 1888, Barnett refused to Mary Kelly as “his wife”, when she was in fact only a roommate. Barnett also disagreed with Mary’s life as a prostitute, and strived to make money to keep her off the streets. “Marie never went on the streets when she lived with me”. Some theorise that Barnett committed the first murders to scare Kelly off the streets, which, for a time, actually worked. But when Barnett lost his job, Kelly returned to the streets to make ends meet. Their financial struggles often led to fights, and Barnett also disliked Kelly’s love of gin. This culminated in one final fight over Kelly bringing home 2 different prostitutes, an act that Joseph found unacceptable, and thus lead to a violent fight/argument, where a window was broken in the process. Shortly after, Barnett moved out, and only 10 days later, Mary was found dead in her apartment. After the murder, Barnett was questioned for 4 hours, but eventually was set free. Having lived there, Barnett would have intimate knowledge of the household, including how to unlock the door from the outside. He was also aware of Kelly’s schedule and tendencies. Details from the scene suggest Kelly was killed in her sleep, not by an outsider she invited in. Her clothes were folded by the bed “as though they had been taken off in the ordinary manner”, and she was wearing a night gown. As a known associate of Kelly’s, he would be someone local prostitutes knew, hence allowing him to get close enough for a sneak attack. Reportedly, one newspaper of the time stated that Barnett’s friends called him Jack. He also matches both the physical and psychological profile created by the FBI. Furthermore, the murders allegedly stopped after Mary Kelly, the last canonical victim. After her death, Barnett would have no other reason to kill anymore now that his lover, who he was trying to keep off the streets, was now dead.
It is up to you, as a critical reader, to evaluate the pieces of evidence presented throughout this article, where sufficient deduction can be used to reject or accept these theories.
Comments