Jack the Ripper Story
by Riyan Productions
Introduction to the Case
This is a brief review of the Jack the
Ripper murders that occurred in London
more than a hundred years ago. Much
of the original evidence gathered at
the time has been lost, and many
"facts" are actually opinions by the
various writers who have written about
the case during the past century.
Many aspects of the case are therefore
contested, and so what follows is a
summation of the case in general.
There are many books available to the
student of crime who wishes to grapple
with the many mysteries associated
with the case.
"Jack the Ripper" is the popular name
given to a serial killer who killed a
number of prostitutes in the East End
of London in 1888. The name
originates from a letter written by
someone who claimed to be the killer
published at the time of the murders.
The killings took place within a mile
area and involved the districts of
Whitechapel, Spitalfields, Aldgate,
and the City of London proper. He was
also called the Whitechapel Murderer
and "Leather Apron."
Significance and Importance
Jack the Ripper has remained popular
for a lot of reasons. He was not the
first serial killer, but he was
probably the first to appear in a
large metropolis at a time when the
general populace had become literate
and the press was a force for social
change.
The Ripper also appeared when there
were tremendous political turmoil and
both the liberals and social
reformers, as well as the Irish Home
rule partisans tried to use the crimes
for their own ends. Every day the
activities of the Ripper were
chronicled in the newspapers as were
the results of the inquiries and the
actions taken by the police. Even the
feelings of the people living in the
East End, and the editorials that
attacked the various establishments of
Society appeared each day for both the
people of London and the whole world
to read. It was the press coverage
that made this series of murders a
"new thing", something that the world
had never known before. The press was
also partly responsible for creating
many myths surrounding the Ripper and
ended up turning a sad killer of women
into a "bogey man", who has now become
one of the most romantic figures in
history. The rest of the
responsibility lies with the Ripper.
He may have been a sexual serial
killer of a type all too common in the
1990s, but he was also bent on
terrifying a city and making the whole
world take notice of him by leaving
his horribly mutilated victims in
plain sight. Lastly, the Ripper was
never caught and it is the mysteries
surrounding this killer that both add
to the romance of the story and
creating an intellectual puzzle that
people still want to solve.
The Victims
It is unclear just how many women the
Ripper killed. It is generally
accepted that he killed five, though
some have written that he murdered
only four while others say seven or
more. The public, press, and even
many junior police officers believed
that the Ripper was responsible for
nine slayings. The five that are
generally accepted as the work of the
Ripper are:
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 that
same date.
Mary Jane (Marie Jeanette) Kelly,
murdered Friday, November 9, 1888.
Besides these five there are good
reasons to believe that the first
victim was really Martha Tabram who
was murdered Tuesday, August 7, 1888,
and there are important considerations
for questioning whether Stride was a
Ripper victim. As to the actual
number of women that the Ripper
killed, Philip Sugden wrote in his
excellent book, The Complete History
of Jack the Ripper, "There is no
simple answer. In a sentence: at
least four, probably six, just
possibly eight."
All five of these listed plus Tabram
were prostitutes and were killed
between early August and early
November 1888. All but Tabram and
Kelly were killed outdoors and there
is no evidence to suggest that any of
them knew each other. They varied in
both age and appearance. Most were
drunk or thought to be drunk at the
time they were killed.
Method of Operation
Surprisingly, a full understanding of
the Ripper's modus operandi was not
established until several years ago.
The Whitechapel murderer and his
victim stood facing each other. When
she lifted her skirts, the victim's
hands were occupied and was then
defenseless. The Ripper seized the
women by their throats and strangled
them until they were unconscious if
not dead. The autopsies constantly
revealed clear indications that the
victims had been strangled. In the
past some writers believed that the
Ripper struck from behind when the
victims were bent forward, their
skirts hiked up their backsides while
waiting to engage in anal sex. This
is a very awkward arrangement and the
risk that they may scream or elude his
clutch's make this unacceptable. The
Ripper then lowered his victims to the
ground, their heads to his left. This
has been proven by the position of the
bodies in relation to walls and fences
that show that there was virtually no
room for the murderer to attack the
body from the left side.
No bruising on the back of the heads
shows that he lowered the bodies to
the ground rather than throwing or
letting them fall. Given the
inclement weather and filth in the
streets it is unacceptable that the
prostitutes or their client would have
attempted intercourse on the ground.
He cut the throats when the women were
on the ground. Splatter stains show
that the blood pooled beside or under
the neck and head of the victim rather
than the front which is where the
blood would flow if they had been
standing up. In one case blood was
found on the fence some 14 inches or
so from the ground and opposite the
neck wound and this shows that the
blood spurted from the body while in
the prone position on the ground.
This method also prevented the killer
from being unduly blood stained. By
reaching over from the victim's right
side to cut the left side of her
throat, the blood flow would have been
directed away from him, which would
have reduced the amount of blood in
which he would have been exposed. If
the victim was already dead before
their throats were cut, then the blood
spilt would have not been very much.
With the heart no longer beating the
blood would not have been
"pressurized," so only the blood in
the immediate area of the wound would
have evacuated gently from the cuts.
The Ripper then made his other
mutilations, still from the victim's
right side, or possibly while
straddling over the body at or near
the feet.
In several cases the legs had been
pushed up which would have shortened
the distance between the abdomen and
the feet. No sign of intercourse was
ever detected nor did the Ripper
masturbate over the bodies. Usually
he took a piece of the victim's
viscera. The taking of a "trophy" is
a common practice by modern sexual
serial killers. In the opinion of
most of the surgeons who examined the
bodies, most believed that the killer
had to have some degree of anatomical
knowledge to do what he did. In one
case he removed a kidney from the
front rather than from the side, and
did not damage any of the surrounding
organs while doing so. In another
case he removed the sexual organs with
one clean stroke of the knife. Given
the time circumstances of the crimes
(outside, often in near total
darkness, keeping one eye out for the
approach of others, and under
extremely tight time constraints), the
Ripper almost certainly would have had
some experience in using his knife.
The Ripper Letters
It is commonly accepted by the experts
on the case that none of the letters
purported to have been written by the
Ripper were in fact written by him. A
letter dated September 25 and received
on the twenty-seventh by the Central
News agency was the first to be signed
"Jack the Ripper". A postcard post
marked October 1 followed. Because it
referred to a "double event" the
police thought it might be from the
killer since it was posted the day
after the Ripper killed two women.
The post card also referred to the
letter and must have come from the
same source as the letter had not been
released to the public yet. If the
post card had been sent on September
30, the day of the "double event",
instead of October 1, the likelihood
that it was really written by the
murderer would be significantly
greater. The Whitechapel Murderer may
have written the letter/post card but
there is no evidence to suppose that
he did and the police seem convinced
that they were the work of a
journalist. A recently discovered
document states that a journalist from
the Central News agency, Tom Bulling,
was the writer.
One other letter may have been written
by the killer. In mid- October a
small parcel was sent to George Lusk,
who was head of a vigilance committee
in Whitechapel. Inside was half a
human kidney and a letter from someone
claiming to be the killer, and that it
was part of the kidney he removed from
the victim Eddowes. It is impossible
to know for sure if the Ripper really
did send it. Most of the arguments in
favor of it being from Jack have been
based on inaccurate information and
the myths rather than the facts
surrounding the case. However,
Eddowes did suffer from Bright's
disease and the description of the
kidney does match what a Bright's
disease kidney would look like.
Evidence
In a time before forensic science and
even finger printing, the only way to
prove someone committed a murder was
to catch either him or her in the act,
or get the suspect to confess. The
Whitechapel Murders unhappily fall
into this period of time. One
interesting feature of this case is
that not one, but two police forces
carried out investigations. The
Metropolitan Police, known as Scotland
Yard, was responsible for crimes
committed in all the boroughs of
London except the City of London
proper. The single square mile in the
heart of London known as the City of
London had their own police force.
When Eddowes was killed, it was in
their territory and this brought them
into the Ripper case. It is believed
that the rank and file of the two
forces got along and worked well
together, but there is evidence that
the seniors in each force did not. To
what degree, if any, their failure to
cooperate fully had on solving the
case is not known. Most sources do
not fault either police force for
failing to solve the Jack the Ripper
mystery, rightly pointing out that
catching serial killers is still a
hard task even by today's science and
technology. Other than autopsies and
taking statements from everybody who
might know something there was little
else that the Metropolitan police
force did. The attitude of the people
at the time was that the police were
incompetent and that the Commissioner,
Sir Charles Warren, was only good for
policing crowds and keeping order
rather than detective work. He was
especially criticized for not offering
a reward in the hope that a
confederate or accomplice would come
forth and inform against the Ripper.
In fact, Warren had no objections for
a reward being offered and it was his
superior, Henry Matthews, the Home
Secretary who refused the sanction of
a reward. The City of London Police
seems to have done a better job
although they did not apprehend the
killer either. City police officers
made crime scene drawings, took many
photographs of the victim Eddowes, and
even though she was not in their
jurisdiction, they took photographs of
the Kelly victim. She is the only
victim who was photographed at the
crime scene. One of the splits
between the leadership of the two
forces was over graffito found in
Goulston Street on the night of the
"double event". A piece of Eddowes'
apron, which the Ripper used to wipe
off his knife, was found by a
constable near a doorway that had a
chalked message over the door. This
message, "The Juwes are the men That
Will not be blamed for nothing", may
have been written by the Ripper and
the City police officers wanted to
photograph it. Warren felt that
leaving it until it was light enough
to be photographed might cause riots
against the Jews living in Whitechapel
whom the bigoted English residents
already believed were responsible for
the murders. Warren did not even
compromise by willing to erase or
cover up the word "Juwes" only. In
the end the police never charged any
suspect with the murders committed by
the Ripper which shows they did not
have a sufficient amount of evidence
that would gain a verdict of guilty in
criminal court.
Suspects
In 1894, Sir Melville Macnaghten, then
Chief Constable, wrote a confidential
report in which he names the three top
suspects. Although some information
concerning the suspect he believed
most likely to have been the murderer
had been available before the turn of
the century, the name of that suspect
was not made public until 1959.
Macnaghten's suspect was M.J. Druitt,
a barrister turned teacher who
committed suicide in December 1888.
Unfortunately for Macnaghten who wrote
his memoranda from memory, the details
he ascribes to Druitt are wrong.
According to the Chief Constable,
Druitt was a doctor, 41 years of age,
and committed suicide immediately
after the Kelly murder. In actuality
Druitt was 31, not a doctor, and
killed himself nearly a month after
the last official murder. No other
police officer supported Macnaghten's
allegations, and one in fact, stated
that the theory was inadequate and
that the suicide was circumstantial
evidence at best that the drowned
doctor was the Ripper. While it is
still possible that he was the Ripper,
correct information gathered about
Druitt so far makes him seem an
unlikely candidate.
In 1903, Frederick Abberline, a
retired crack detective who had been
in charge of the Ripper investigation
at the ground level stated that he
thought that multiple wife poisoner
Severin Klosowski, alias George
Chapman, might be Jack the Ripper. As
with Macnaghten, no other officer has
concurred with his opinion and modern
criminal profiling science tends to
reject Klosowski as a serious
candidate.
The name of Macnaghten's second
suspect was confirmed as Aaron
Kosminiski in the early 1980s when a
researcher came upon Donald Swanson's
personal copy of Robert Anderson's
book of memoirs. Both Swanson and
Anderson were officers who
participated in the Ripper
investigation; indeed, they were the
ones given the responsibility of being
in charge of the case. Anderson had
written in his memoirs that appeared
for the first time in 1910 that the
police knew who the Ripper was.
According to Anderson the Ripper was a
Polish Jew who was put away in an
insane asylum after the crimes, and
then died soon after. Swanson had
made some notes in his copy of the
book concerning Anderson's suspect,
and wrote that the suspect's name was
Kosminski. At first it seemed that
the case had been solved, but research
has found a number of problems with
the theory. No other officer
supports' Anderson's allegation, and
Swanson's notes seem to question his
superior's claims rather than support
them. Aaron Kosminski was a real
person and was placed in an insane
asylum. His records show him to be a
docile and harmless lunatic that heard
voices in his head and would only eat
food from the gutter. The dates of
his incarceration are wrong, and he
did not die soon after his committal
but lived on until 1919. Some
researchers have tried to explain the
problems by saying that the name
Kosminski' was confused with another
insane Polish Jew, who really was
dangerous. The search continues. The
third Macnaghten suspect, Michael
Ostrog, has been investigated and
there is nothing to indicate that he
was nothing more than a demented con
man.
Dr. Francis Tumblety, the latest
serious suspect, only became known to
students of the Jack the Ripper
murders in 1993. A collector of crime
memorabilia obtained a cache of
letters belonging to a crime
journalist named G.R. Sims. Among
the letters was one from John
Littlechild, who had been in charge of
the Secret Department in Scotland Yard
at the time of the murders. Dated
1913, Littlechild writes to Sims: "I
never heard of a Dr. D. (which many
assume is a reference to Druitt as
Macnaghten thought Druitt was a doctor
and Sims was a confident of the Chief
Constable), in connection with the
Whitechapel Murders but amongst the
suspects, and to my mind a very likely
one, was a Dr. T . . . He was an
American quack named Tumblety .
" A book by the collector who found
the letter goes to great lengths in
trying to prove that Tumblety is the
final solution for the mystery.
Unfortunately, he fails to do so.
There is no doubt that Tumblety was a
legitimate suspect and that when he
fled to America, Scotland Yard
detectives came over to investigate
him further. It is unlikely that
Scotland Yard continued to view him as
a serious suspect. James Monro, who
succeeded Warren and was in overall
command of the Secret department
before becoming Commissioner, thought
that the Alice McKenzie murder of July
1889 was the work of the Ripper. He
stated in 1890 that he did not know
who the Whitechapel murderer was but
that he was working on his own theory.
Ripper Research
At the time of the murders and for the
next few years, a lot was written
about the murders including some
tabloid type books. Most of it is
worthless and only helped to set up
many myths that have clouded serious
attempts to figure out what really
happened that autumn in London. Other
than memoirs of officers who worked on
the case, which is valuable, little
else was written until after the first
world war. In 1929 the first full
length book in English about the
Ripper, The Mystery of Jack the Ripper
by Leonard Matters, was published.
Once more there was growing interest
in the murders again in that the
Ripper was appearing in both
nonfiction works and fictional formats
such as Alfred Hitchcock's The Lodger.
Cult-like interest, the interest that
has really never left, began in the
1950s. Dan Farson did a television
show about the Ripper and uncovered a
version of the McNaghten memoranda.
The first really good books began to
be published in the 1960s, such as Tom
Cullen's Autumn of Terror and Robin
Odell's Jack the Ripper in Fact and
Fiction. Interest in Jack the Ripper
exploded in 1970 when a new theory was
published in which the grandson of
Queen Victoria, Prince Albert Victor,
Duke of Clarence and Avondale, was
accused of being the Ripper.
Just like his nemesis in fiction,
Sherlock Holmes, the 1970s saw Jack
being either paired with someone
famous or identified as being someone
famous. It was a decade that also
featured some entertaining but
patently absurd conspiracy theories
explaining who the Ripper really was.
Plots involving Freemasons, court
physicians, and sinister figures from
occult organizations, have been
paraded before the public as the final
solution. In the midst of the madness
some good came out. Donald Rumbelow's
The Complete Jack the Ripper was
published, and police files still
existing from the investigations were
made available to all and sundry. The
1980s saw a tide of books published to
cash in on the centennial of the
Murders in Whitechapel, and lost
evidence was returned anonymously to
the police and Swanson's notes on
Anderson's suspect were found. The
FBI's Behavioral Science Unit did a
criminal profile of the Ripper and
aspects of the murders were discussed
in various professional journals.
During the 1990s, two new books have
appeared that are musts for people who
are interested in the Ripper murders.
The Jack the Ripper A to Z by Paul
Begg, Martin Fido, and Keith Skinner
is indispensable for doing research
and Sugden's The Complete History of
Jack the Ripper has replaced
Rumbelow's worthy tome as the
authoritative source for information.
An interesting phony diary supposedly
written by the Ripper was published
and the authentic letter revealing the
suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety has also
been released to the public.
The Future
In the past ten years more evidence
has been recovered, new information
garnered through the young criminal
sciences, and serious research
conducted on the mystery of Jack the
Ripper than at any other time since
the case was officially closed in
1892.
After more than a hundred years the
case is still fascinating, and results
are still being gotten through
research. Nick Warren, a student of
the crimes and a practicing surgeon,
studied the second Kelly crime scene
photograph that was recently
recovered, and was able to establish
that a hatchet was used by the Ripper
to split one of his victim's legs!
The likelihood of the case ever being
solved is open to debate. If the
police solved it but for some reason
kept the Ripper's identity a secret,
then I think that the odds are good
that the answer will be rediscovered.
Unfortunately, I and I think most
serious students on the subject, do
not think that the police did solve
the case. Individual officers had
strong opinions on who Jack the Ripper
was, but not the Forces as a whole.
This makes the challenge much more
difficult as today's researchers must
find new evidence rather than unearth
that which has been lost. The
evidence lost is considerable.
Virtually all of the City of London
Police files were lost in the Blitz
during the last world war. What
remains of the Metropolitan Police
files are available to the public but
the files are sparse. Some have
claimed that the files were
purposefully destroyed to keep the
Murderer's identity a secret.
The truth is more pedestrian and
unromantic. Almost from the beginning
items were removed for souvenirs.
Often in those olden days when they
ran out of room, the clerks would go
to the end of the shelve and simply
dump out the old files by the armful.
When Abberline was interviewed in
1903, the journalist noted that the
retired Scotland yard Inspector was
surrounded by official files.
Once, upon the death of a retired
officer, a trunk full of files
concerning his old cases was found in
his possession. Modern day
"Ripperologists" were not above
souvenir hunting themselves. A number
of documents were taken in the late
1970s/early 1980s and as a result the
remaining material was put on
microfilm. It seems perfectly
possible that Jack the Ripper's
identity may one day be discovered; it
may be one of the serious suspects
mentioned in this report, or one that
the police dismissed too cavalierly
all those years ago, or it may be
someone completely unknown at this
time. The future may or may not
reveal the Ripper's name.
