Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files Page 9
CHAPTER FOUR
THE SUSPECTS
The list of Ripper “suspects” now stands at over 200. Among such illustrious names put forward through the years are Lewis Carroll the famous children’s writer, and Dr. Barnardo, who did so much good work for orphaned children and in more recent times it has been suggested the killer may have been a woman and therefore aptly named “Jill the Ripper”.
So why is there such a long list? Well in addition to unsubstantiated theories in later years regarding likely suspects, it seems that at the time anyone who had a conviction for a stabbing offence or offering violence towards a female became a suspect, as did anyone confessing to being Jack the Ripper after a night of heavy drinking or anyone coming into police custody for any similar type of murder. So the list grew and grew. For several years after the murders ceased police still continued to interview anyone arrested for any offence involving the use of a sharp knife being used against a female in the hope of finding Jack the Ripper.
One has to bear in mind that in 1888 the police did not have the benefit of modern-day forensics and scientific methods, which are afforded to our officers today. The only way the police could secure a conviction was:
1.
To find the offender committing the crime.
2.
To have sufficient witnesses who saw the offender committing the crime.
3.
To have a suspect make a full and frank confession to having committed the crime in this case the following guidelines were applicable: The Police Codes of the day, set out below expands on the issue of confessions to avoid miscarriages of justice.
“Any confession made to police should be at once reduced to writing, signed, if possible, by the person making it, and witnessed by an officer.
“A person should, therefore, never be charged with an offence on his own confession before inquiry has been made as to its reliability.”
In many criminal cases circumstantial evidence played a great part in prosecutions, this is defined as:
1.
“Evidence not of the actual fact to be proved, but of circumstances from which that fact can be inferred with more or less certainty.”
2.
“Direct testimony is in all cases preferable, but in criminal cases, and especially in murder, where the act can rarely be proved directly, circumstantial evidence is often found to produce a strong assurance of the prisoner's guilt.”
To give an example as to the use of circumstantial evidence – The body of a woman is discovered, she has been stabbed repeatedly; there is no sign of the offender or the weapon used. Some 20 minutes later and half a mile away a man is stopped in the street he has blood on his hands and when searched he is found to be in possession of a long-bladed knife, which has traces of blood on the blade. If he gives no explanation or not even a plausible explanation for the blood on himself and the knife and as likely as not would be charged solely on that evidence the court would be able to use that evidence and draw an inference as to his guilt.
Before discussing specific “suspects” I will take time to expand and define the term “suspect” thereby giving readers and researchers alike the ability to assess and evaluate the viability of their favoured “suspect” because the vast majority of the suspects on the list do not fit into any of the categories shown below.
I would define “Suspect” as “A person who by their own actions or by their spoken or written words or conduct, arouses suspicion by others having regard to their likely involvement in the commission of an offence.”
That now leaves three specific subcategories within the suspect category:
“A person who is of interest”
“A likely suspect”
“A prime suspect”
A person of interest is self-explanatory and could be explained in many different ways. Firstly by a member of the public or the relative of a person giving the name of that person to the police by reason of unfounded personal suspicions they had against that person. Another example could be by the police themselves coming up with a name via their investigation, perhaps someone who was known to carry a knife or had been convicted of a knife offence, or someone who had assaulted a prostitute.
These type of incidents occurred many times during the murders. The police were also constantly in receipt of letters from the public providing names of likely suspects with an assortment of reasons why that person or persons was suspected.
An example of a likely suspect might be a male person who comes to the notice of the police in the following way; Mrs. Smith is the owner of a common lodging house right in the heart of Whitechapel. She takes in a male lodger who keeps himself to himself and doesn’t talk or discusses his private life, or discloses anything about himself. He leaves the lodging house late at night and comes back in the early hours of the morning carrying a parcel.
Mrs. Smith being aware of the murders contacts the police suggesting that her lodger could be the killer. This man at this point in time would be looked upon as a “likely suspect”. The police would then want to enquire further into the man. It is highly unlikely that they would make a move to arrest him. They would likely as not either follow him one night or simply go and speak to him. In this example the police enquiries revealed that the man worked at a night bakery thus eliminating him from further suspicion. The information initially received from Mrs. Smith would have been recorded and would have shown him to have been a “likely suspect”.
The second main “suspect” category is that of “prime suspect”.
For a person to be elevated to that status the following criteria might have applied:
The “suspect” lived in Whitechapel, the police believed the killer to live locally.
The “suspect” fits the description of the offender.
The “suspect” was known to carry a knife, or had convictions involving the use of a knife.
The “suspect” had convictions for violent assaults on women.
The “suspect” associated with prostitutes.
The “suspect” having been spoken to could not give a satisfactory account as to where he was or who he was with on the dates of the murders.
Over the years the main list of “prime suspects” has come down to the following:
George Chapman, Montague Druitt, Aaron Kosminski, Prince Albert Victor, Francis Tumblety, Joseph Barnett, Walter Sickert, John Pizer, Michael Ostrog, James Maybrick and Thomas Cutbush.
I would conduct a lengthy investigation into the aforementioned names in an attempt to prove or disprove their suggested involvement in the murders. I would also review the “evidence” already in existence, which researchers have been using to prove the viability of these suspects.
The difficulty I faced was that with the exception of Pizer none of the others were ever arrested and interviewed at the time of the murders. Most were suggested years afterwards. Some of them were allegedly suspected by investigating officers but these suspicions came in later years. As to how they came to be suspected and whether there is any substance to the suspicions I hoped my investigation would prove fruitful.
I went as far as to write to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth for leave to examine letters and correspondence within the Royal Archives. She was most helpful instructing the Royal Archives to forward me copies of several letters between Queen Victoria and Lord Salisbury relating to the murders, in addition to a detailed list as to the whereabouts of Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale at the time of the murders.
Unfortunately the letters revealed nothing other than the concern Queen Victoria had over the murders. One thing these letters also revealed was that even in Victorian days the need for secrecy was as important then as it still is today. The letters showed that whoever the writer was whether it was Queen Victoria or Lord Salisbury they were always written in code and then decoded on receipt. I also suspect that should there have been any sensitive material contained in any of the letters there would have been
a final paragraph stating, “After reading please destroy”. So realistically my new lines of enquiry were always likely to prove negative but, nevertheless, they had to be done.
An official from the Royal Archives did point me in the direction of the archives of Lord Salisbury at Hatfield House who was prime minister at the time of the murders. I ascertained that no previous researchers had taken this route so I was more than hopeful that there would be in existence letters and other documents between Lord Salisbury, Queen Victoria and the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews, which would reveal new evidence or clues on the murders. There was an important letter and statement found, which I will refer to in due course.
It was now time to look at each suspect individually. The first suspect I looked at was:
MONTAGUE JOHN DRUITT
Aged 31 at time of the murders Druitt was a barrister and a teacher. He was put forward as a likely suspect in 1894 along with two others, Michael Ostrog and a Jewish man referred to by surname only as Kosminski. These I will discuss later. The names appeared in a confidential memorandum in 1894 compiled by Sir Melville Macnaghten who joined the Metropolitan Police as Assistant Chief Constable, second in command of the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.) at Scotland Yard in June 1889. The aforementioned “likely” suspects were named in his now famous but highly contentious memorandum dated 23rd February 1894. A document, which has now been proved to be unsafe and inaccurate. There is no evidence of contemporary police suspicion against any of the suspects at the time of the murders. I will discuss the memorandum and its evidential value in due course.
Macnaghten was not involved in the investigation of any of the murders. But as a senior police officer in later years he would have been aware of ongoing enquiries in relation to the murders. He would have had access to files relating to all “suspects” who had come to the notice of police at the time of the murders and those who came to notice after the murders ceased. Those files would also have contained the results of those enquiries which had been conducted by a handful of officers, who initially investigated the murders at the time and those who continued the search for Jack the Ripper long after the murders ceased.
Sir Melville Macnaghten referred to Montague Druitt in the following quote:
“I have always held strong opinions regarding him, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become. The truth, however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames, if my conjectures be correct!
“Mr. M. J. Druitt a doctor of about 41 years of age & of fairly good family, who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, and whose body was found floating in the Thames on 31st Dec: i.e. 7 weeks after the said murder. The body was said to have been in the water for a month, or more -- on it was found a season ticket between Blackheath & London. From private information I have little doubt that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer; it was alleged that he was sexually insane.”
When Macnaghten says in the memoranda, "from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer," I looked closely at the content of that statement. It is obvious he has no evidence at all other than hearsay. There are no clues as to whom the informant was whom Macnaghten refers to, but from the way he words his statement, it would seem as if it was a Druitt family member. Yet if one of Druitt’s relations had informed Macnaghten that they believed he might have been the Ripper, would Macnaghten not have said he has evidence that Druitt's family believe him to be the killer?
The memorandum does not stand up to close scrutiny in any event. With regards to Druitt I found many discrepancies in Macnaghten’s notes regarding Druitt. He stated that Druitt lived with his family, but records show that he lived alone at 9, Elliot Place. He stated that Druitt had committed suicide around the 10th of November, three weeks before he committed suicide. Although this is not confirmed, when the body was examined only an approximate time of the suicide was given due to the effects of decomposition due to it being in the water for a long period of time. He also stated that Druitt was about 41 at the time of his death, when in fact he was only 31. Finally, he mentions Druitt as being a doctor, when he was a barrister and schoolmaster.
As to Druitt’s description. Some witnesses report the person suspected of being the Ripper as having a moustache, which Druitt had. He was also of respectable appearance, always known to have been well dressed. One witness described a suspect as having the appearance of a sailor. Another described seeing a man of “shabby genteel appearance” others described the man as respectable.
However, my theory that the killer did not live in Whitechapel could not totally rule him out as he was living at 9, Elliot Place, Blackheath during the murders. If he were the killer he could have used that address as a "base" for the murders. However, this address is a long way from Whitechapel, too far to walk and would have necessitated a train journey or a ride in a horse-drawn cab. Or, alternatively he could have used his barrister’s chambers at King’s Bench Walk, which were a walking distance away from Whitechapel and in the direction the killer is alleged to have taken after killing Eddowes.
In the defence of Druitt he was a keen cricketer and was known to have played cricket down in Dorset on September 1st, the day after Nichols' murder. Could he have had time to commit the murder and be down in Dorset for the start of play midmorning? I suspect not.
On September 8th (day of Chapman's murder) Druitt also played cricket in Blackheath at 11.30am. So could he have killed Chapman at 5.30am and had time to catch a train to Blackheath, remove his bloodstained clothes, wash up, eat breakfast, and be on the cricket field by 11.30am, possible but highly unlikely.
Another issue with Druitt was the fact that he was believed to have been a homosexual and the reason for his dismissal from the boy’s school where he was employed was believed to have been as a result in him engaging in homosexual acts with boys, and the disgrace of this was the reason for his suicide. If it is accepted that he was homosexual then would a homosexual commit crimes against women in this brutal way? The answer is no.
The truth is that the only “evidence” to suggest he was the killer came out in 1894 and it can be said that this is not evidence in the true sense. So why were the investigating officers not made aware of this at the time by the person who initially suspected Druitt? I would have thought that anyone with information leading to the apprehension of the killer would have been only too willing be a part of apprehending one of the most notorious killers that London had ever seen.
This leads me to believe that perhaps Macnaghten was basing his claims on simply hearsay and rumour, rather than actual private information he himself received. After all he was not appointed until 1889. Perhaps more evidence or documents will be found in the future, which may shed some light on Macnaghten suggesting Montague Druitt as being Jack the Ripper. After all Macnaghten apparently had stated that he had been in possession of other documentation regarding the murders and Druitt’s involvement, which for reasons only known to him he had destroyed.
So was Druitt the killer? Well as has been documented there were two more Ripper like murders in 1889 and 1891 both of which the police believed were the work of the same killer as well as looking closely at another Ripper suspect in 1895. If it is accepted that the other two murders after Mary Kelly were not committed by the same killer/s then he cannot be discounted totally. However, if it is not accepted then he was not the killer of all or any of the women.
His suicide and the fact that the police closed the enquiry in early January make him a convenient scapegoat. However, I personally do not believe him to have been the killer of all or any of the women.
I can find no evidence or any motives to support the theory that Druitt was the Ripper. In fact, his only true link can be made in his appearance and his likeness to the vague descriptions and the suggestion made by an ageing police officer years later.
THOMAS CUTBUSH
Thomas Cutbush is the suspect who was responsible for Macnaghten compiling The Macnaghten Memorandum in 1894. Although described in the memorandum as a likely suspect Macnaghten does state:
“No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders.:”
In 1891 Cutbush was arrested and charged with maliciously wounding two women in Kennington, South East London. Prior to this he had been in the Lambeth infirmary suffering from delusions thought to have been caused by syphilis.
His crimes hardly came within the scope of anything compared to the Whitechapel murders. The two offences he committed were somewhat of a sexual nature having regard to the fact that he came up behind two women walking in the street carrying a long-bladed knife and proceeded to stab them in their backsides as they were walking along. He was arrested almost immediately still in possession of the knife, which it was later ascertained he had bought in Houndsditch a week before he was arrested. Following his arrest he was deemed to be insane and was sent to Broadmoor Hospital where he died in 1903.
So why did Macnaghten think fit to mention Cutbush? It was probably as a result of several articles, which appeared in The Sun newspaper in 1894 in which the press were suggesting that Cutbush could have been the Whitechapel murderer.
Little is known about Cutbush or his whereabouts at the time of the murders. He is said to have studied medical books by day, and to have walked the streets at night, returning frequently with his clothes covered with mud; but little reliance could be placed on these statements, which were made by his mother or his aunt, who both appear to have been of a very excitable disposition.