Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files Read online

  In addition the use of public toilets was unheard of among this class owing to the fact that a penny was required (hence the saying “to spend a penny”) and most could not afford this. When outdoors they would relieve themselves wherever they could: waste ground, alleyways and stairwells. Could it have been that the piece of apron was cut or torn by Eddowes herself from her original apron or from half an apron for this purpose and then discarded when totally soiled or when she used the stairwell in Goulston Street as a toilet while passing through at some time before her murder or even earlier that day? After all, there was a six-hour gap from when she left home until her arrest for being drunk at approximately 8.30pm, and at least 45 minutes after her release from police custody before her murder. She was in the area earlier that day before being arrested for being drunk, and could have been in the Goulston Street area prior to her death.

  She could have easily made her way towards Flower and Dean Street where her lodgings were, after being released from the police station that journey would have taken her no more that 10-12 minutes. Perhaps she did, and then perhaps she didn’t relish the thought of a confrontation with her boyfriend. After all, she had on leaving the police station told the police that she would likely as not get a hiding when she did return back, and with that in mind then decided to head back in the direction of the city to try to earn some money prostituting herself. Either way her journey could have taken her along Goulston Street and past the archway.

  I note on page 157 of “The Complete Jack the Ripper A-Z” compiled by several eminent Ripper researchers, there is an interesting sentence regarding the movements of Eddowes prior to her death and I quote, “And that shortly before she died she was probably seen talking to a strange man at a dark corner in a direction leading away from the lodging house where she was staying”.

  As it stands that does tend to confirm that in fact following her release from Bishopsgate Police Station she did in fact make her way back towards Flower and Dean Street and her lodgings before making her way across to Mitre Square, a journey which could have taken her along Goulston Street. So it is quite feasible to suggest that it could have in fact been deposited by herself.

  The apron piece was in the stairwell, so if it had been raining it would not have become wet with the rain. Maybe the wetness was caused by Eddowes’ urine. It is a known fact that when drunken people are arrested and detained in police cells they sometime become incontinent and wet themselves. So that could explain the wetness of the piece found in Goulston Street. Sadly the police did not have the benefit of forensic or DNA tests. Had they been able to conduct those tests we would be able to come to a definitive answer.

  The second explanation I will seek to advance is that if Eddowes was in the vicinity of Goulston Street prior to her death then it is quite possible that she could have met a client and gone under the archway to indulge in some sexual act and at the conclusion simply used one of the pieces of old white apron to wipe herself down and then simply discarded it.

  There has been a further explanation suggested by some experts, which is of a far more serious nature and could show a police conspiracy to stir up further racial hatred against the Jewish community. To explore this in more detail we have to go back to Mitre Square the scene of the murder and in particular scrutinize the movements and activities of Detective Constable Halse from The City of London Police.

  At the time the body of Eddowes was found Dc Halse was talking to two other City of London Detectives, Outram and Marriott. They were very close to Mitre Square and on hearing the whistles being sounded they all ran to Mitre Square, arriving at approximately 1.50am. Halse stated in his inquest testimony that he directed other officers to conduct a search of the “neighbourhood”.

  He himself never waited for the arrival of the doctors or any other senior officer. He stated that he left Mitre Square then went by way of Middlesex Street to Wentworth Street where he stopped and spoke to two men who gave satisfactory accounts of their movements and he allowed them to go on their way. One burning question at this time is why did Halse make his way to Wentworth Street? Middlesex Street is on the border of the City of London Police district and Wentworth Street was covered by the Metropolitan Police. He then states he walked into Goulston Street passing by the archway, and then he made his way back to Mitre Square. Goulston Street as I have previously mentioned is within the Metropolitan Police district.

  We now have to look at the timings, which are also pivotal to this. Halse leaves Mitre Square at approximately 2.00am. A normal walking time to Goulston Street would be around eight minutes. I would have expected him to have been moving much slower than normal walking pace by reason of him perhaps checking out doorways and alleyways etc. On that basis a direct route would therefore have taken as much as twice the normal walking time sixteen minutes approximately or even more. It is impossible to know at what speed Halse was walking or what he did en route.

  However by his own admissions he did not go the direct route to Goulston Street, he went via Wentworth Street, which even under normal walking time would have added 5-10 minutes to a journey. On top of this he stops and speaks to two men before proceeding to Goulston Street. By my calculations that would have put him in Goulston Street between 2.20am-2.35am. Halse in fact stated at the inquest he came through Goulston Street at about 2.20am. So he was not walking very slowly which might suggest he was not doing thorough checks on buildings and alleyways en route.

  Halse goes so far as to say that he even passed by the spot where the apron piece was later found and he saw nothing. Halse apparently did not see or hear Pc Long of the Metropolitan Police who was on patrol in Goulston Street at that time. Pc Long stated at the inquest that he passed by the archway at almost the same time as Halse and saw neither, Dc Halse or the apron piece in the archway.

  The length of Goulston Street from end to end is approximately 280 yards. The distance from its junction with Wentworth Street and the archway where the apron piece was found is approximately 70 yards. I fail to see how at that time of the morning neither officer saw or heard anything of each other, or did they? No mention of them ever meeting was made at the inquest.

  Halse then suddenly decides to return to Mitre Square. I would have expected him to have returned to one of the police stations to obtain further orders and to be given an update.

  The accepted theory to date surrounding the apron piece has been that the killer discarded the apron piece, if that were the case then he was taking a chance of being seen and stopped in that location by either Pc Long or Dc Halse, or any other police officer on his route from Mitre Square. As I have previously stated I do not subscribe to that theory. So that leads me on to discuss the suggestion by some researchers of a police conspiracy.

  I should also refer to a letter dated October 3rd 1888 from Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser head of The City of London Police:

  My Dear Fraser,

  I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer.

  In order to do this it is necessary if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers-on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman.

  I shall be very glad if you can give me the necessary particulars on this point [?].

  Very truly yours, C.W.

  If Eddowes did not deposit it herself then the only other person who could have been in a position to have done that apart from the killer, would have been Dc Halse from The City of London Police. He was one of the first officers to attend the murder scene and would have had every opportunity to remove one of the apron pieces and take it with him to Goulston Street where he could have deposited it and may
well have even been responsible for the graffiti also found at that location. There is no logical explanation for him specifically making his way to Goulston Street other than perhaps for that purpose.

  It has been suggested that in fact Dc Halse could even have met Pc Long after he had deposited the apron piece. He then told Pc Long about the murder telling him to check all the alleyways etc. because Pc Long then suddenly finds the apron piece. It is suggested that Halse could have told him not say he had seen him as he was out of his jurisdiction and no one would have been any of the wiser with Pc Long getting the credit for finding the valuable evidence. It is an interesting speculative theory.

  So if that were the case what was the motive? Clearly the motive would have been to add even more weight to the belief that Jack the Ripper was a member of the Jewish community and to stir up racial hatred towards them.

  However, having mentioned this specific explanation I have to say that I do not subscribe to this. If Halse had removed the apron piece from the murder scene there would have been no need for him to deposit it in Goulston Street. He could have simply stated that he found it whilst searching the area following the discovery of the body. He would have been playing a dangerous game simply depositing it under the archway because he wouldn’t have been able to guarantee it would be found and linked to the murder in any event, unless of course he had met and primed Pc Long to check the doorways etc.

  The second piece of “significant evidence” was the graffiti found on the wall near to where the apron piece was found. It was suggested that this might have been written by the killer in an effort to implicate the Jews in the murders. As a result Sir Charles Warren the Metropolitan Police commissioner who visited Goulston Street in the early hours ordered that it be erased so as to not incite any racial hatred towards the Jewish community.

  According to Pc Long the graffiti read: “The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.” However, when Dc Halse later returned back to Goulston Street he noted the graffiti down differently he recorded it as: “The Juwes are the men that will be blamed for nothing.” Was this written by the killer, or someone not even connected to the murder? Or as some will ask did Dc Halse write it himself at the time he is supposed to have deposited the apron piece? After all when he later returned back to Goulston Street he became embroiled in an argument with Sir Charles Warren who wanted to erase it and Halse was opposed to that idea.

  If it had been written by the killer who had wanted to leave a message then why not leave it at the murder scene, which is what signature killers do. After all there was no similar graffiti found at any of the previous murder locations, nor would there be at any subsequent murder locations.

  According to Freemason folklore from the Old Testament, Juwes was the name given to Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum, the three assassins of the Grand Masonic Master, Hiram Abiff. Over the past 125 years many people have been trying to decipher and understand what the graffiti relates to and who wrote it. I have previously discussed this at length. As an investigator one has to always keep an open mind especially in a case like this where very little is conclusive.

  However, the search to interpret the writing has still gone on with the result that no one has come up with a plausible interpretation. The general consensus is that it referred to the Jewish community due to the word “Juwes” appearing in the writing. If the writer was referring to the Jewish community why should he single out men in his writing, surely he would refer collectively to the Jewish community by writing “People”,”Those”, “The Persons”, “They” or “The ones”, the writing is specifically aimed at “men”.

  However, if the graffiti was not connected to the murder there could be another interpretation. I would now seek to put forward what could be a plausible explanation. The English spoken and written language has always been at times difficult for many people to grasp in particular people from foreign countries. We have words that are written differently to how they are spoken or pronounced, and in Victorian times I would imagine it was even more difficult with a larger percentage of the population not even being able to read or write and of the others who could read and write were not proficient in correct spelling but merely wrote as they spoke.

  In view of that an alternative explanation could be the writer of that graffiti intended to write, “The Jurors are the men that will be blamed for nothing” and wrote how he spoke. When spoken quickly the “R” and the “W” are very similar. Further corroboration to this theory is borne out by the fact that in 1888 all juries in criminal trials in this country were all male. It was not until 1919 that women were allowed to sit on a jury. So the graffiti could have been written by a disgruntled person who had perhaps been convicted rightly, or wrongly by a jury, or someone who had sat on a jury and had been ridiculed for being responsible for finding someone guilty who others thought should have been acquitted.

  I have said many times during my investigation and on a daily basis to other researchers it is for each individual to read, assess and evaluate what is presented to them and to accept or reject my explanations regarding the apron piece and the graffiti having regard to the fact that neither cannot be conclusively proved or disproved, which is the same for most of the theories surrounding the mystery. All of my new theories go against all that has been accepted for over 125 years, and Ripper researchers still find it hard to accept new evidence and theories.

  So now I believed I was making progress by already casting a major doubt about several important evidential issues surrounding The Ripper mystery but I was still no nearer in identifying “Jack”.

  MARY JANE KELLY

  The next victim in chronological order was twenty-five-year-old Mary Kelly. Unlike the other prostitutes, who were killed on the streets where they worked, Kelly had her own private room. She met her death on the night of November 8th 1888, at 13, Miller’s Court, off Dorset Street, where she was disembowelled, disfigured and dismembered in a fury of madness. The post-mortem found no defensive wounds, nor any signs of a struggle. She may even have been killed as she slept or rendered unconscious first. Most of her vital organs had been removed from the body and were found in various parts of her room, but none appear to have been taken away despite the doctor’s initial report stating that the heart was absent from the pericardium. There was no suggestion that any organs had been removed with any medical precision. I think this fact alone adds more weight to my earlier suggestion that the organs removed from Chapman and Eddowes were removed by someone other than their killer.

  The last person who supposedly saw her alive was a man by the name of George Hutchinson. He stated he was in the location of Miller’s Court at around 2.00am on November 9th and states he saw Kelly with a male and watched them walk off together towards the direction of her lodgings. For whatever reason Hutchinson did not come forward at the time but waited several days until after the short inquest to give his account.

  The details of his statement are:

  “About 2.00am, 9, I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I met the murdered woman Kelly and she said to me, 'Hutchinson, will you lend me Sixpence?' I said, 'I can’t, I've spent all my money going down to Romford,' she said, 'Good morning, I must go and find some money.' She went away towards Thrawl Street, a man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her, they both burst out laughing. I heard her say, 'Alright,' to him, and the man said, 'You will be alright for what I have told you,' he then placed his right hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand, with a kind of strap round it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head public house and watched him. They both came past me, and the man hung down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face, he looked at me stern.

  “They both went into Dorset Street, I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her, s
he said, 'Alright my dear, come along, you will be comfortable.' He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss; she said she had lost her handkerchief. He then pulled his handkerchief, a red one, out and gave it to her. They both then went up the court together.

  “I then went to the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out, they did not, so I went away. The man was about, 5ft 6" in height and 34 or 35 years of age, with a dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. Wearing a long Astrakhan coat, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark spats with light buttons over button boots and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it. He had a heavy moustache curled up, and dark eyes and eyelashes, he had no side whiskers and his chin was clean-shaven. He looked like a foreigner. He carried a small parcel in his hand, about 8 inches long and it had a strap round it, he had it tightly grasped in his left hand, it looked as though it was covered in dark American cloth. He carried in his right hand, which he laid upon the woman's shoulder, a pair of brown kid gloves. One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly. I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain.”

  It is a very detailed statement, which I would suggest doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. As well as Hutchinson hearing every word spoken between the two, he goes to great lengths to give such great detail about the man and items of clothing the man was wearing and also the jewellery the man was wearing, despite very poor street lighting around Miller’s Court.