What happened to Jack the Ripper?

Submitted by - Ian C Fyvie

Play background music







Foreword


The "Whitechapel Murders" -- sometimes known as the "Leather Apron Murders", but immediately recognisable as the crimes of "Jack the Ripper" -- have been a source of fascination from 1888 until the present day.


Just what is it that compels people of today to devote all their spare time, attempting to solve this ancient mystery?


The person that committed these heinous crimes is long dead and buried (for which we can all be eternally grateful) . So why the morbid interest? Simple; the fact that someone, for no known reason, suddenly started killing and mutilating London prostitutes. He killed without making a sound, then left as silently as he had arrived. After killing 5 and mutilating 4, "Jack" ... just as he started ... suddenly stopped, never to be heard of again!


SO! Who was "Jack the Ripper"? Well, the police in 1888 didn`t know, and despite all the guesses and confessions ... the movies and books ... the simple truth is: even today, we don`t know and, sadly, may never find out.


The main problem with the case of "Jack the Ripper" is that so many people claim to have proof of his identity, but under scrutiny, the claims always prove to be false, with information being invented and passed off as real, thus hiding any possible clues that were relevant.


A great many books have been written on the subject of the murders; Hollywood have also had their fair share of films. Sadly, most of these only distort the facts and present theories that are quite ridiculous.


Surprisingly, Quite a lot IS known about the man called "Jack the Ripper", and in this article I will use only known facts about the killer. However, you as readers must clear your mind of all that you think you know about JACK and his crimes.


To start with, his name was probably not Jack. The term or name "Jack the Ripper" was signed on a letter sent to the police. It is almost certain that this letter was a hoax sent in by a newspaper reporter. In 1888, cheap daily newspapers were in their infancy; undoubtedly, some enterprising reporter decided that using the name "Jack the Ripper" would sell more newspapers than simply referring to the "Whitechapel Murders", as they had been called. Instances of the press naming unknown criminals can still be seen today: "The Black Panther", "Yorkshire Ripper", "The Boston Strangler", and "The Cambridge Rapist" are all prime examples.


Secondly, forget the Top Hat, the Black Hat, the Swirling Cape, the Blood Red Eyes. These are reserved for Hollywood films. One of the main reasons "Jack" was never discovered was that he blended in with the normal populace of Whitechapel. In other words, he was an ordinary-looking fellow that attracted little attention.



ripperpeople


As you can see above, we have what people think Jack looked like compared to an actual photo taken in 1888.



Before moving on to "Jack's" crimes, we shall take a little time to explain HOW "Jack" killed these unfortunate women.


Whitechapel in 1888 was a slum. The streets and yards were littered and filthy. Even the lowest of prostitutes would not have considered having sex lying down; this would have resulted in the woman's clothing becoming very dirty, and would have put off any further custom.


The prostitutes offered their favours in two ways: The woman would fling her skirts over her behind and, bracing herself against a wall or fence, would offer her body for anal sex; alternatively, she would lean her back against a wall or fence and lift up her heavy Victorian skirts and petticoats to offer frontal sex.


In the frontal sex position, the prostitute could observe her client's actions. However, as both hands were outstretched holding up her skirts, "Jack" would simply grab her by the throat and strangle her. This movement was swift enough to stifle any noise the woman could make. After his victim had slipped into unconciousness, "Jack" would lower her to the ground, then kill her with two rapid and hard slashes to the throat.


This article is entitled "What happened to Jack the Ripper Why did he suddenly stop killing? There are several theories on this subject, as follows:

Jack moved away from the area --
Had Jack moved elsewhere, it is almost certain he would have continued his crime spree. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Jack would halt his slaughter.

Jack died --
Jack took bodily organs from some of his victims. These have never been found. Later in this article you will learn to what great lengths he went to take the organs; he must have stored them somewhere, possibly in his home. WHY then, were they never found?

Jack was so sickened by his last killing that he stopped --
Jack was a killer. Killers generally do not get "sickened" by their crimes. Each of Jack's mutilations was worse than the previous; he was positivly enjoying himself.

Jack was arrested for an unrelated crime --
The man called Jack the Ripper enjoyed his fame, so much so that criminal profilers will tell you that he would NOT have been able to keep his secret from other prisoners; he reveled in being infamous.

Jack's mental health suffered and he was sent to a mental home --
While it is possible that the man went totally mad and was incarcerated in a mental institution, why, when they cleared out his dwelling, did they NOT find the body parts he took from his victims as a morbid prize?

To read this article in its entirety, you will need to "click" on various links built into our pages. These links will take you to "casebook.org", probably the best source of modern day information on the "Ripper" murders. We at the CRYPT would like to thank the staff and owners of "casebook.org" for their assistance in the preparation of this article and the use of their pages and photographs.


Casebook: Jack the Ripper



Let's now step into the world of "Jack the Ripper" and examine in detail his crimes. At the end of the article I will present MY theory on the evidence -- as far as I am aware, a completely new insight into "WHAT HAPPENED TO JACK THE RIPPER?"



bloodbar



myworld.gif



As we do not know the identity of the murderer, it is difficult to be certain of the number of his victims or even when he started his killing spree. Yes, I did say He, for this killer was certainly a man. Five killings, all similar in style and all committed between August and November of 1888, have been attributed to Jack the Ripper.

The five known victims were as follows :

Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols, murdered Friday, August 31, 1888.
Annie Chapman, murdered Saturday, September 8, 1888.
Elizabeth Stride, murdered Sunday, September 30, 1888.
Catharine Eddowes, also murdered Sunday, September 30, 1888.
Mary Jane (Marie Jeanette) Kelly, murdered Friday, November 9, 1888.

Almost immediately we notice that all the crimes were commited on weekends, between Friday night and Sunday night. From this can we infer that the murderer was in employment? Was that why he only went out on weekends?




Polly Nichols




(Click here)


Polly Nichols' body was found at around 3:45 AM in Bucks Row. Upon arrival at Bucks Row at 4:00 AM on the morning of August 31st, Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn. after only a brief examination of the body, pronounced Polly Nichols dead. He noted that there was a wine glass-and-a-half of blood in the gutter at her side, but claimed that he had no doubt that she had been killed where she lay.

From this doctor's statement we can assume that "Polly" was actually strangled to death. Had she died from having her throat slit, there would have been much more blood around the body.


Unfortunatly, the doctor had only completed a quick examination of the body, and failed to notice deep incisions in the abdomen. (NOTE: In 1888, a doctor was only called to confirm death; Dr. Llewellyn cannot be faulted for missing these injuries).


At around 5 AM, the doctor was called again to examine Polly, as deep cuts had been found in the abdomen. Dr. Llewellyn described the injuries thus:

"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side, there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries had been done by the same instrument."

So why did the good doctor not notice the abdominal injuries on the first examination? Simply because, after making these cuts, the murderer pulled Polly`s clothing back down into the normal position. Was this an attempt by the murderer to hide his actions? Was he ashamed of his brutality -- or was it something else?

The cruel death of Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols caused little more than some idle gossip among the residents of Whitechapel; after all, violence and attacks on prostitutes were not uncommon. However, a certain "Jack the Ripper" had a surprise in store for them.


Murder Map





Annie Chapman



(Click here)

Annie Chapman's body was found at 6:30 AM in the back yard of the house at 29 Hanbury Street. Unlike his treatment of "Polly", the "Ripper" positively DISPLAYED his work on poor Annie Chapman.

The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages, with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed.

No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously, the work was that of an expert -- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the ppelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which therefore must have been at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed the examiner in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

The examiner surmised that the instrument used at the throat and abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6 to 8 inches in length, probably longer. Further, the injuries could not have been inflicted by a bayonet or a sword bayonet. They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument. Those used by slaughtermen, well ground down, might have caused them. He thought the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade.

There were indications of anatomical knowledge. The deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when the examiner first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood. There was no evidence of a struggle having taken place. The examiner was positive the deceased entered the yard alive.

Victorian London was shocked at the level of violence used in the mutilations. Jack the Ripper was on everyone`s lips. Was it the same person that killed poor Polly? Why did he rip open Annie? Why was he not seen? But the Ripper was not yet finished with the prostitutes of London!



Murder Map







Elizabeth Stride



(Click here)


At 1:00 AM, Sunday 30th September, Louis Diemschutz, a salesman of jewellery, entered Dutfield's Yard driving his cart and pony. Immediately at the entrace, his pony shied and refused to proceed. Diemschutz suspected something was in the way but could not see since the yard was utterly pitch black. He probed forward with his whip and came into contact with a body, whom he initially believed to be either drunk or asleep.

He entered the Workingman's Club to get some help in rousing the woman, and upon returning to the yard with Isaac Kozebrodsky and Morris Eagle, the three discovered that she was dead, her throat cut.

It was believed that Diemschutz's arrival frightened the Ripper, causing him to flee before he performed the mutilations. Diemschutz himself stated that he believed the Ripper was still in the yard when he had entered, due to the warm temperature of the body and the continuingly odd behavior of his pony.

There was a clear-cut incision on the neck. It was six inches in length and commenced two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, one half inch in over an undivided muscle, and then becoming deeper, dividing the sheath. The cut was very clean and deviated a little downwards. The arteries and other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through.

The cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and tailed off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw. The deep vessels on that side were uninjured. From this, it was evident that the hemorrhage was caused through the partial severance of the left carotid artery.




Murder Map





Catherine Eddowes




(Click here)

After the death of Elizabeth Stride, the streets of Whitechapel were crawling with police. However, this did not deter Jack.

At 1:45 PM, PC Watkins discovered Eddowes' body in Mitre Square, a small enclosed square on the edge of the city. It is defined by Mitre Street, King Street (Creechurch Lane, today), Duke Street (Duke's Place, today), and Aldgate. Between King Street and Mitre Square lies St. James Place, known then as the Orange Market. Between Duke Street and the Square was the Great Synagogue and Kearly and Tonge's Warehouse. Another warehouse belonging to Kearly and Tonge formed the northwest side of the square along with Police Constable Pearse's house. Between Aldgate and the Square stands the Sir John Cass School.

London police surgeon Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, called in at the murder, arrived at Mitre Square around 2:00 AM. His report is as follows:

"The body was on its back, the head turned to left shoulder, the arms by the side of the body as if they had fallen there. Both palms upwards, the fingers slightly bent. The left leg extended in a line with the body. The abdomen was exposed. Right leg bent at the thigh and knee. The throat cut across.

"The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder -- they were smeared over with some feculent matter. A piece of about two feet was quite detached from the body and placed bettween the body and the left arm, apparently by design. The lobe and auricle of the right ear were cut obliquely through.

"There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left side of the neck round the shoulder and upper part of arm, and fluid blood-coloured serum which had flowed under the neck to the right shoulder, the pavement sloping in that direction.

"Body was quite warm. No death stiffening had taken place. She must have been dead most likely within the half hour. We looked for superficial bruises and saw none. No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs. No spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middle of the body. Several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There were no traces of recent connexion."

Sunday, September 30, 1888, was a bad day for London Police. The Ripper had claimed two victims on one night and brought his murder count to four. The police were no nearer to apprehending the killer now than they were at the start.



There were two other incidents occurring that night.

At 2:55 AM, approximately 1500 feet and 3 streets away, P.C. Alfred Long found a piece of bloody cloth which proved to be a piece of Catherine Eddowes' apron. It was found just inside a doorwell. Directly above the apron part was some graffiti scrawled in white chalk.

"The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." Unfortunately, nobody can seem to agree on the actual wording or spelling of the message. Some say "Juws" others "Jewes" or "Juwes". Sir Charles Warren, Police Commissioner for Whitechapel, ordered it washed off before it was bright enough to photograph. However, P.C. Long and an Inspector both testified that the word was "JUWES"

Next, bloody water was found in a little-known public sink off nearby Dorset Street. Did the Ripper stop to wash the blood from his hands? The bloody water in the bottom of the sink offered mute testimony that the Ripper could well have been there that night.

A strange connection; Dorset street was not only the home of Annie Chapman, but very close to Jack's final Victim.



Murder Map





Mary Jane (Marie Jeanette) Kelly


Click here



On 9th November 1888, the mutilated remains of Mary Kelly was found on the bed in her flat at 13 Miller's Court. Mary Kelly had been subject to the worst mutilation of any of the Ripper`s victims. This was the first and only time Jack killed indoors. London at that time was busy with police patrols through the streets because of the Whitechapel Murders. Prostitutes who did not have their own room or place found getting custom difficult because of police activity. Mary Kelly had her own room, and unfortunately, met the man known as "Jack the Ripper"

Perhaps one of the surprising things was why it took Jack so long to select another victim. In general, he seemed to strike around every two weeks. However, this time he waited 40 days (almost 6 weeks). After this lapse of time, some thought that perhaps the brutal murders were over. But when Jack did show his handiwork, it was to be the worst ever mutilation. Jack, working indoors, had time on his side, and made good use of it.

After the murder and dreadful mutilation of Mary Kelly, The man known as "Jack the Ripper" was never heard of again. He alipped into the obscurity from whence he came.



Murder Map



bloodbar



My Theory on What happened to jack the Ripper




Jack the Ripper: Was he in the medical profession? Certainly the police seemed to think so at the time, something picked up also by the newspapers. However, most of the examining doctors actually said only that the killer must have had a certain amount of anatomical knowledge.

However, Dr. George Bagster Phillips describes the body of Annie Chapman: "Obviously the work was that of an expert -- or one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic oorgans with one sweep of the knife"

This unfortunate statement convinced some that they were looking for a man in the medical profession, when in fact this may not be the case. Jack the Ripper certainly had some anatomical knowledge. He appeared to know what the organs were and where they were placed in the body. (Remember, Jack worked in the dark).

But could Jack simply have been a worker in one of the great many slaughter houses in Whitechapel at the time? This would explain (a) his skill with a knife, and (b) why so much pressure was used to slit the throats. Some people believe Jack was trying to behead his victims, because the wounds were so deep. However, cutting the throat of a cow (which was the method used in slaughter houses in 1888) would require a lot more strength and effort than cutting the throat of a human.

Of course, if Jack was simply a slaughter man, how did he get his anatomical knowledge? After all, the internal organs in cows or sheep are totally different from that of a human in size, shape and bodily positioning.

However, in the 1800s, cannibal tribes referred to European whites as "Long Pigs", presumably because we taste like pork, but also because the pig is one of the closest animals to humans, in an anatomical sense.

Don't believe me? Check here: http://www.bio.davidson. Yes! Even today, we use pigs for teaching students anatomy.






Was Jack the Ripper a serial sex killer? Not really! Jack never indulged in the sex act either before or after his murders. There is no proof that Jack masturbated or ejaculated over his victims (something more often done than we care to think about). If you have read the inquest reports, you might have noticed the doctor reporting "No Connexion", the Victorian way of saying no penetration. The fact is that Jack the Ripper showed absolutely no interest in sex with his victims.







So, why did Jack the Ripper stop killing? Simple! He was dead himself. But was he killed? Certainly if he died a natural death, something would have been found in his home -- organs, bloodstained clothing, newspaper reports etc. The fact is, Jack just seemed to disappear off the face of the Earth..

After studying this case for 5 years, I have developed a theory as to what happened to Jack. You may agree or disagree with this theory, but to my mind it could have possibly happened, and would go a long way toward explaining some of the mysteries of this case.

Let us start with Jack's first victim. Several points in the murder of Polly Nichols are different from the others.

(a) The mutilations to the abdomen were a lot less severe -- more stabs and slashes, rather than the deep body opening cuts made to the other mutilated women.

(b) After the mutilations, Jack pulled Polly's clothing back down, covering the wounds. All of the other victims were actually left in a display position -- legs bent and wide apart.

To me, the less severe mutilation of Polly was simply because this was the FIRST time the Ripper had carried out a mutilation. He may well have killed before (although I doubt it), but this was the first time he mutilated.

Any man alive today can (if pushed enough) go into a "Killing Frenzy". We describe it as a "red mist"; we act without thinking. Often in the case of a killing, the murderer returns to normal and is shocked and sickened by what he has done. So! Let's say a man was scorned by a prostitute because he could not perform; might he then go into this killing frenzy? Perhaps. But Jack the Ripper was not a frenzied killer. Jack acted with a cool clear head; he knew exactly what he was doing. He may even have actually planned his killings (not necessarily his victims) for months or years.

So why, in the case of Polly Nichols, did he cover the wounds? There is another reason why he might have done this.

Humans are strange when it comes to death and nakedness. If we find someone we know lying dead and naked the first thing we would do is cover the sexual organs of the person (an act of respect -- friends retain their dignity even in death). This is certainly true if we knew the dead person in a sexual sense (man assummes his partner's sexual organs are his private property; vice versa for the female).

We know Jack had good knowledge of how prostitutes operated, so it is more than likely he had used their services in the past. Now, suppose Jack had decided to murder and mutilate one. Would it not make sense to pick a prostitute that he had used before? Certainly if she knew him slightly as a past customer, she would have been relaxed in his company, making Jack's work easier.

I believe that the murder of Polly Nichols was a "Trial run" to Jack the Ripper. It was a test, to himself, to see if he could actually do the deed and get away with it, which he DID.

The murder of Annie Chapman was a different kettle of fish. Jack showed the city of London just what he was capable of. She was slaughtered, ripped open; Annie's intestines lay over her right Shoulder, the uterus and its appendages, with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed and have never been found. Jack left Annie in a displayed position, on her back, legs apart, naked from the waist down. It was a clear message from Jack: LOOK WHAT I CAN DO!

The night when we can find out a lot more about Jack the Ripper is 30th September 1888, the night of the double murder. First to be killed was Elizabeth Stride. At 1:00 AM Louis Diemschutz, entered Dutfield's Yard, when his horse shied at something -- the body of Stride. It is almost certain that Jack was disturbed before he could carry out his mutilations on Stride. It's likely that as Louis Diemschutz drove his cart into the Yard, Jack was hiding in the shadows, knife and hands wet with Elizabeth's blood. Stride was STILL ALIVE at this point, blood still flowing from the neck wound.

As Louis went to get help, Jack made his escape. Try to imagine the feeling running through Jack's body. Intense fear; he had almost been caught; adrenalin coursing through his veins. Jack must have known the terror he had instilled in Londoners. If he was caught, there would be a good chance a mob would string him up at the nearest lamppost. However, there was perhaps another thought running through Jacks mind -- concern. Was Stride dead? Sure, he had cut her throat, but if she was not actually dead when the crowd arrived, perhaps shee could give them a description of him. Jack would have needed to find out if she was DEAD or NOT.

Is it possibe that this is when Jack used the public toilet on Dorset Street? Did he clean himself up, and then return to the scene of the murder, joining the crowd that had gathered, checking to ensure she was DEAD. That is certainly what I might have done, should I have attacked and thought I had killed someone.

The next actions of Jack the Ripper show us a lot of what was in his mind. At 1:45 AM, the body of Catherine Eddowes was discovered in Mitre Square. Her throat was cut and there were severe mutilations to the body and face. Jack had struck again. Only 45 minutes after he attacked Elizabeth Stride, he killed and mutilated Catherine Eddowes.

Jack had killed Stride. Why was he not satisfied? Why did he have to kill Eddowes? The fact is staring us in the face! Jack the Ripper went out at night with only one thing in mind: to mutilate the prostitute. Murder to Jack was simply a "by-product", something that was required to allow him to carry out his mutilations. If he was annoyed at almost being caught at the scene of Stride's murder, it was Catherine Eddowes who paid the penalty. The mutilation on both the body and face are almost too gross to describe. Suffice it to say her womb and left kidney were missing; the intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder.


The Bloody Cloth at Goulston Street.

At 2:55 AM PC Long found a piece of blood soaked cloth in a passage leading to the staircases of 108-119 model dwelling house. Above it on the wall was written in chalk - "the jews/juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing..."

It is assumed by some that this piece of cloth (a piece of Eddowes' apron) was used by the Ripper to wipe his hands and knife, and was discarded in the passage as he walked by. Catherine's body was found at 1:45 AM. The cloth was found at 2:55 AM, an hour and ten minutes later.

Of course, the piece of cloth might have been lying in the passage for some time. PC Long reported that when he passed by the location on his patrol at 2:20 AM the apron was not there. This seems to be backed up by a report from Detective Halse who said at the inquest "...about 20 past two I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found. I did not notice anything".

From this we can establish that the piece of apron MUST have been dropped in Goulston St. between 2:20 and 2:55. This still leaves us with an hour between the discovery of Eddowes' body and the cloth being dropped.

Look at any map of the area between Mitre Square & Goulston Street and note the many turns he made and streets he crossed, covering over 1/3rd of a mile. It is ridiculous to think that Jack would walk all this way, wiping blood from his hands and knife, an action that would take perhaps a minute or two at the most.

Let us now turn to the cloth (a piece of Eddowes' apron). How big was this portion of apron found in Goulston Street? We happen to have one account of a statement by Detective Sergeant Halse:

"When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam."

Also, Sir Henry Smith, though heavily criticized for being inaccurate in some statements, was at least known to be present for this report:

"By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'.

P.C. Long had found 'about half of it' or, if we allow for a little error in judgement on the high side we have 5-6 square feet, and if we allow for error on the low side, something in the order of 3-4 square feet. That is a sizable piece of cloth. Did Jack require all that just to wipe his hands and knife? Let's also think about when jack cut this piece of apron. Eddowes was found with her intestines "drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder -- they were smeared over with some feculent matter. A piece of about two feet was quite detached from the body and placed bettween the body and the left arm, apparently by design". It becomes pretty obvious that Jack must have cut this piece of Apron BEFORE he started the body mutilations. Would anyone kill a woman and then think to himself " I'm going to get pretty bloody here better get something to clean up with before I start?" I donít think so.

My theory is that after Jack killed Eddowes, he realised he had nothing in which to hide the organs he wanted to carry off. He then cut the apron, folded it over beside the body, and used it to wrap up her womb and left kidney. This would certainly explain why parts of the cloth were described as blood-soaked -- something that would not result from cleaning your hands.

If Jack used the apron piece to carry away Eddowes' organs, presumably he returned to his home, adding then to his growing collection. He was then faced with disposal of the cloth. Jack must have realised that this bloody piece of apron was a direct link to the murder of Eddowes, highly incriminating evidence. Surely the smartest move would be to burn it on his fire, but no -- Jack left his house with the apron piece and headed to Goulston street. Amazing, considering that should he be stopped and searched, he would be guaranteed to be arrested and convicted as "Jack the Ripper". Why did he take this risk? It was bordering on insanity.

There can be only one reason. Jack wanted the cloth to be found by the police -- but why?

Some think that Jack was trying to lay a false trail, directing the Police away from the area he lived in -- but why? The Police had no idea who he was, nor what area he stayed in. There was no need to lay a false trail.

There could be only one reason Jack left the Apron at Goulston street -- he wanted the police to find it. Thus, there must have been something important at the area, and all that was there was thee chalk message, the Graffiti.

"the jews/Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing..."

This message had not been noticed previously by the block occupants, and some police testified that it looked freshly written. If Jack did write this message, what did it mean?

Was Jack trying to lay the blame for these crimes on the Jewish community? Why would he? If he disliked the Jews, why did he not kill them instead of the prostitutes? It makes no sense.

Jews or Juwes? ... will we ever know? The difficulty is that a chalk message written on black bricks is very difficult to read. And considering the writing was also very small (the capital letters were only three quarters of an inch high), it is understandable why so many disagreed on the message.

What about "Juwes"? Author Stephen Knight claimed that Juwes is a word in Freemasonry to refer to Jubelo, Jebula and Jebulum, the three killers of Hiram Abif, a legendary figure in Masonic ritual.

Although some sources after Knight have repeated this information, this idea has been rejected by most experts. There is no verifiable reference that anyone prior to Knight had ever referred to those three figures by the term.

However: Benjamin B. French Lodge #15, F.A.A.M., District of Columbia writes:

The Hiram Abif legend was not used when modern Freemasonry started in 1717. By 1730 (just a few years later) it was the central part of the Masonic ritual. Today it remains the heart of the ritual. It is supposed to teach us Masonic lessons.

Our Grand Master Hiram Abif, having finished his devotions and other duties, attempted to retire by the South gate where he was accosted by Jubela, who thrice demanded of him the secrets of a Master Mason, or the Master's Word, and on being refused he gave him a blow with a twenty-four inch gauge across his throat. He then endeavored to pass out by the West gate where he was accosted by Jubelo, who in like manner thrice demanded of him the secrets of a Master Mason or the Master's Word, and on being refused he gave him a blow with a square across his breast; upon which he fled and endeavored to make his escape by the East gate where he was accosted by Jubelum, who in like manner thrice demanded of him the secrets of a Master Mason or the Master's Word; and on his being refused he struck him a violent blow with a Setting Maul upon his forehead which felled him dead on the spot.

Jubela - Jubelo - Jubelum, collectively known as the Juwes. It is possible that the three names could have been shortened by the masons to "Ju`s" .. and around 1888 the migration of Jewish settlers into London (certainly in Whitechapel) was very high. In fact, Londoners in 1888 were beginning to protest the number of Jews in the area, and the shortage of work. It is possible that a mason could have decided to strike at both baddies and combined the names to Juwes, a reference to both the killers and immigrants. Well, you decide. Just remember today's terms. A few years ago, cars were fitted with "satellite navigation". It did not take long for people to refer to it as "SatNav". Similarly, in the 60s and 70s, Marc Bolan was in the group Tyrannosaurus Rex. Imagine you've had 8 pints of beer and someone asks you "What's your favorite Group?" Perhaps that is why they soon shortened it to T-Rex. I see no reason to doubt that th is habit existed in 1888 and Jubela - Jubelo - Jubelum was shortened to something smaller, like a collective "the Ju`s" or "the Juwes".

If the word Juwes was a Masonic term (even just a term used in a Whitechapel lodge), and it was written on the wall at Goulston street, then it is possible that Jack was a Freemason. Why would he write it? To pass a plea on to another Freemason?

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Charles Warren was an active and high ranking official of the Freemasons. The first time Commissioner Warren is recorded to have visited a Ripper crime scene was at Goulston Street, which is somewhat surprising considering that two women had been slaughtered throughout the night. Why would Goulston street be the Police Commissioner's first port of call?

Detectives from the City of London, where Eddowes had been killed, wanted the message photographed as evidence. However, the morning was too dark, and they would have to wait at least another hour before photographs could be taken.

Warren overruled this and ordered the graffiti washed off the wall -- thus destroying vital evidence in a murder investigation. Why would he do that? Perhaps to honour his Masonic pledgee to assist and protect a brother Mason? Commissioner Warren was publically condemed over the removal of the message, and was asked to send a full report to the Home Secretary. Read HereRead Here

It is worth noting here that while Warren uses the words Jews & Jewes in his letter, he makes no mention of the word "Juwes" although this word (Juwes) was witnessed and confirmed by a police Inspector & PC Long.

Let me make my feelings very clear here. I am not suggesting that the Freemasons had any hand in the Ripper murders. It is my belief that Jack was the sole killer, that he alone preyed on these unfortunate women. However, one fact is plain: there was a killer, and that killer could have been a member of the Freemason order.

Let us imagine, that Juwes was a Masonic term (or Masonic slang used in London). Warren recognised this and realised that the killer he was hunting was actually a member of the Brotherhood, and he was pledged to help him.




"All Masons above the third,  or Master's degree,  are sworn to keep inviolate the secrets of a brother,  murder and treason excepted,  up to the seventh,  or Royal Arch degree.  In the oath of this degree the candidate,  as we shall see,  swears to keep all the secrets of companion of this degree,  murder and treason not excepted.  All Masons of and above this degree are solemnly bound to do this.  The same is true of all the points sworn to in this obligation which we proceed to examine.

In reviewing this and the degrees above it,  I shall not need to give them in full,  as they are substantially and almost verbatim alike,  except as new points are added as the candidate goes on from one degree to another.  The Royal Arch degree is taken in a lodge called a chapter.  A Mason of this degree is called a companion,  while in the lower degrees Masons address each other as brothers.  After swearing to the same points contained in previously taken oaths,  the kneeling candidate,  with hands on the Holy Bible,  proceeds:  "I furthermore promise and swear,  that I will aid and assist a companion Royal Arch Mason when engaged in any difficulty,  and espouse his cause so far as to extricate him from the same,  if within my power,  whether he be right or wrong.


Here,  then,  we have a class of men sworn,  under most frightful penalties,  to espouse the cause of a companion so far as to extricate him from any difficulty,  to the extent of their power,  whether he is right or wrong.  How can such a man be safely intrusted with any office connected with the administration of the law?  He means to abide by and perform this solemn oath,  or he does not.  It he does,  will he not inevitably defeat the due execution of law,  if intrusted with office connected with it?  Suppose he is a magistrate,  a sheriff,  marshal,  or constable,  will he not be able to prevent the execution of justice,  if he does all within his power,  as he is solemnly sworn to do?  If on a jury,  if sworn as a witness,  how can he be trusted,  if he fulfills his Masonic vows?



What a terrible position Charles Warren must have found himself in. Faced with the choice of breaking the ethical police code of his employment, or breaking his Masonic pledge -- which to do? Actually, he had already made his choice by removing the message from the wall, thus assisting in concealing JJack`s identity.

Now, Warren could not talk to anyone apart from high ranking members of the Masons about Jack's message, but if he did, then it would not have taken them long to discover an identity for the Ripper.

(a) Left handed
(b) Doctor/surgeon/slaughterhouse man
(c) Skilled with a knife
(d) A loner
(e) Lived by himself
(f) A Freemason probably living in Whitechapel.


In fact, it is possible that the killer made contact with Warren or other high ranking masons; after all, he was safe under the Masonic pledge -- they could not pass information about him to the police. Perhaps the Masons tried to talk him out of further murders and thhat is why he refrained from acting for 60 days before killing Mary Jane Kelly.

There an odd connection here. Charles Warren resigned his position in the police on the same day that Mary Jane Kelly was found murdered. Perhaps he felt he could no longer remain as police commissioner, because he knew what was about to happen.

If the high ranking Freemasons in London did know the identity of Jack the Ripper, they also knew that he could not be allowed to continue with his murderous spree. If he did, Jack would eventually be caught; his luck could not hold out indefinitely. If Jack was caught and a link established between the killings and the Freemasons, all hell would break loose.

Lodges would be firebombed, Masons would be attacked in the street, high ranking members of society who were also Masons would be forced out of office. And there is no telling just how high the Masons had members.

So! How do you protect the identity of a murderer but also ensure he stops killing? The Masons had pledged to protect Jack's secret, and by arranging the death of Jack, that would be protected forever.

Many of the high-ranking Masons were doctors or surgeons. It would have been easy for a party of Masons to visit Jack at his home, overpower him, inject a death inducing drug, or even an air bubble in the blood and cause a massive heart attack. After the execution, the Masons would go through his belongings with a finetooth comb, removing all traces of his Ripper attacks (body parts, knives, bloodstained clothing etc.) and also removing any connection he had to the Freemasons.

Jack's death would be recorded as "natural causes", and he would have been buried in Whitechapel, a normal service for a normal man. and the truth and identity of Jack the Ripper would be lost forever!

Remember, the Freemasons are NOT a Secret Society; they ARE a Society with Secrets. Could one of them have been Who Killed Jack the Ripper?


Ian C Fyvie






image12







© RIYAN Productions