Berner Street

There's a turn up.

When I research a person, I use original sources – as far as possible. This sometimes discloses a mismatch with other researchers who’ve traced the same character. Mostly, my research reveals the same or similar results. Nonetheless, reading another’s outcome prejudices investigation. It’s surprising how often information is reproduced without questioning the process by which the originator arrived at their hypothesis. There is no reason to assume another researchers’ work is correct, incorrect, or is acting honestly, dishonestly, is or isn’t just plain barking.

Note to self and advice to other researches – and a gift from my old lecturer after I’d delivered a ten-page essay and managed to avoid, in the word storm, answering the question: Question, doubt, and ask that huge three-letter word, WHY? Follow that up with, HOW? But do not assume you know, or they know. They might be correct. You could be accurate. But how do you know?

This is the second time, by this process, I’ve arrived at a distinct data subset from other researchers. I don’t know which is correct – not yet, maybe never. The (main) character within this grouping has little-recorded background, but suddenly I’m looking at a set of surnames I’ve previously encountered – when examining another individual.

It’s intriguing but also a time-consuming distraction. It’s not what I expected, but I can’t ignore it. I’ll attempt to understand the ramifications of this ‘discovery’ if I can establish a relationship between these people – later.

Introducing my dead relative.

I thought life couldn't become more hellish for the inhabitants of Whitechapel. That perhaps I would like to be one of those middle-class tourists who would visit the East End much as one would tour a zoo -- with assistance from H G Wells' transportation. I'm not brave enough ...

 On the occurrence of a death amongst this description of labourers, what do you find to be the general condition of the family, in relation to the remains. How is the corpse dealt with?—Nearly the whole of the labouring population there have only one room. The corpse is therefore kept in that room where the inmates sleep and have their meals. Sometimes the corpse is stretched on the bed, and the bed and bed-clothes are taken off, and the wife and family lie on the floor. Sometimes a board is got on which the corpse is stretched, and that is sustained on tressels or on chairs.

Sometimes it is stretched out on chairs. When children die, they are frequently laid out on the table. The poor Irish, if they can afford it, form a canopy of white calico over the corpse, and buy candles to burn by it, and place a black cross at the head of the corpse. They commonly raise the money to do this by subscriptions amongst themselves and at the public-houses which they frequent.

What is the usual length of time that the corpse is so kept?—The time varies according to the day of the death. Sunday is the day usually chosen for the day of burial. But if a man die on the Wednesday, the burial will not take place till the Sunday week following. Bodies are almost always kept for a full week, frequently longer.

Have you had occasion to represent as injurious this practice of retaining the corpse amidst the living?—I have represented in several communications in answer to sanitary inquiries from the Poor Law Commission Office, that it must be and is highly injurious. It was only three or four days ago that an instance of this occurred in my own practice, which I will mention.

Do you observe any peculiarity of habit amongst the lower classes accompanying this familiarity with the remains of the dead?—What I observe when I first visit the room is a degree of indifference to the presence of the corpse: the family is found eating or drinking or pursuing their usual their usual callings, and the children playing.

Practise of internment in towns. Edwin Chadwick

Life in Whitechapel

LLOYD’S WEEKLY
The London Hospital

15th April 1888:-

“Malvina Haynes, who received very serious injuries to her head and scalp on the night of Bank holiday, has been from that time until this week lying quite unconscious at the London hospital, no sounds but moans having escaped her lips.
The sufferer has been under the care of Mr. George Haslip, the house-surgeon, and on Tuesday the patient, upon regaining consciousness, was only able to briefly to relate the circumstances of the outrage.
It appears, however,  that on many points her memory was an entire  blank : and when questioned  as to what her assailant was like, she replied, “I cannot remember; my mind is gone.”
The hospital authorities at once communicated Detective-sergeant William New, who  has charge of the case, and certain information,  which casually passed from the woman’s lips may perhaps lead to a clue respecting the would-be murderer.
Mr. Haynes, the husband, who is a hard-working house painter residing at 29, Newnham-street Great Alie-street, Whitechapel, has expressed his deep sense of the unremitting skill and kindness his wife has received from the surgical and nursing staff at the hospital, and from a statement which he has made, it appears that his wife, himself, and some friends spent the Bank holiday together by seeing some of the sights of the metropolis, and in the evening Mrs Haynes returned with them to their home.
She went out later on, and screams were shortly heard in the vicinity of Leman-street railway station.
A constable found Mrs. Haynes lying insensible on the ground, in a pool of blood.
Besides her brain being affected by the injury, Mrs. Haynes is suffering from a scalp wound of rather an extensive character.
A man who was said to have been near the unfortunate woman at the time of the occurrence, and who resided in the district, has since left the neighbourhood. The police hope that he may come forward, as his testimony might aid the ends of justice, by relating what he saw of the outrage.”

Thinking allowed, and aloud.

Okay, the difference between mass killers and serial murders is apparent. The first explodes into rage and kills suddenly and violently knowing he will be caught, killed, or intends suicide.
The serial killer is driven, ‘not by a slow-burning rage that erupts one day in a single, cataclysmic act of gun-crazed vengeance—but by a profound sadistic lust, a terrible joy in inflicting suffering and death on helpless victims.’
Therefore, the question is: why did Jack the Ripper kill women so quickly they hadn't time to cry out or show defence wounds – Mary Kelly excepted.
So what did he gain from slaying? It’s almost as if the women aren’t important. Okay, they’re not important in any serialists’ actions, but Jack the Ripper didn’t inflict pain on his victims – he didn’t torture them. He dispatched the women quickly, much as a slaughter man kills an animal in an abattoir – speedily and as humanely as possible. So what was his motivation if it wasn’t the fear on those women’s faces?
Just knowing he could kill and get away with murder? Showing his power, but to whom was he displaying his prowess? Not the women. They were no sooner in is orbit than he killed them. He was showing off his ability to capture, control, and escape, to who? Proving it to himself? He didn’t doubt his skills. His belief in his abilities caused him to place himself in sites of maximum danger – Two police constables Mitre Square, with minutes between beats. An ex-policeman worked as night-watchman, and a policeman lived on the square. It was a contained location, with just three exits, two of which encompassed the beats of the two officers on duty. The third exited into St James Place where a night-watchman oversaw a building site, and just to add to the potential difficulties, St James Place was the site of a manned fire station. Miller's Court had but one escape route.
Jack the Ripper was displaying his bravado and demonstrating his ‘skill’, but who did he seek to impress, or ridicule? Was he saying, “I outwit you.’ And consequently, ‘I am smarter than you.’ To whom was he shaking his peacock tail?
So, the question is: who is The Boss?
Even if a newspaper marketeer wrote the Dear Boss letters, who did the journalist (when he adopted the Ripper’s persona) think Jack the Ripper wrote to when he dipped his pen in red ink?
Boss: A person who exercises control and makes decisions. A person with control over workers. What was the organisation or company?

Mary Jane Kelly

No it isn't Mary Kelly, even though she has several internal organs at her feet. It's an Anatomical Venus. The “Venerina” or “Little Venus” wax anatomical model by Clemente Susini, 1782. Photo by Joanna Ebenstein at, appropriately enough, The Whitechapel Gallery. Courtesy of the Palazzo Poggi, Bologna, Italy. 2010.

Dear Boss letter

The 17th September letter isn't written by the same author as the Dear Boss letter of the 25th September. It isn't just superficially different but structurally distinct. Strange, considering the 17th September missive used language similar to the Dear Boss letter!

A herd of Marys

The most popular ten female names in Ireland of the 19th century, in descending order, were Mary, Bridget, Margaret, Ellen, Catherine, Kate and Annie. Kelly was the most common surname after Murphy. So Mary Kelly is the Irish equivalent of John Smith. Of course, that doesn’t mean Mary Kelly wasn’t her birth name, but if she wanted to hide it’s easier amid a shoal of Marys and a herd of Kellys.

And she certainly recoiled against the moniker, stating she was really Marie Jeanette and not plain Mary Jane.

During most of the 19th century, the most popular given names in England were Mary and either John or William.

She stated she married a Davies whose first name was John. Davies is the 2nd most common surname in Wales and 8th most common in England. Oh, and her brother Henry was called Johnto or John too. Seems plain Mary Jane had rather a theme going here.

If she wanted anonymity she certainly succeeded. The question is, as always, why?

And just to add to the anonymity she says her father's name is John (Kelly) – or John Smith if she were English. I don't believe her.

What's that mean?

I’ve endured several days of pedestrian research – e.g. what is the burn time of a bull’s eye lamp? Google has discovered every ‘for sale’ lantern on the planet. ‘Burn time’ linked to, and dredged various torture sites.  But never mind. I’m basking in the afterglow of discovering the meaning of that GSG word.

So blindingly-bloody-obvious, but it only appeared after an indirect search. Certainly wasn’t looking for it. It doesn’t mean Jews, feminine, woman or yours.

Lesson learnt: disregard consensus thinking.

I’ve completed three chapters of my book – times it by ten, and it’s finished.

That chalked message

This is a map showing the tangle of alleys en route from Mitre Square to Goulston Street. Something slightly amusing about several of the narrow alleys called Hutchison. The killer could have discarded Eddowes’ soiled apron anywhere in these back streets

. But he didn’t. The killer wanted that apron found, which means he was making a declaration. Flinging down his gauntlet, alright in this case apron, and it served to underline that chalked message.

A farrier’s axe

A farrier’s axe dating from the early 19th century. It belonged to the Royal Horse Guards. The spike on the axe was used to put severely injured horses out of their misery as humanely as possible.
In order to account for all animals killed in action, the sharp axe blade was used to chop off the hoof of the deceased horse. Branded numbers in the hooves kept track of horses killed in battle and prevented a soldier from selling his horse to civilians in war zones. Horses were used for  both transportation and food.

Ceremonial use today.

Erm. Now what was that about JTR being a slaughterman?

Poof he vanishes.

The same man recurs after every string I use to track Hutchinson. But all to no avail because he vanishes. Not dead, not emigrated, just ceases to exist in the records. So has he changed his name again? If he has assumed another identity and given a different DOB that's the end of my trail.
I don't think I'll ever finish my non-fiction JTR. I'll leave it running in the background and work on it as and when. It's done when it's done.
I'm working in London next week so I'll make time to view original data.

Was Mary Kelly a Fenian?

In the Autumn of 1884 female body parts were found with a tattoo ink mark on the forearm indicating the victim was most probably a prostitute:

Tottenham Court Road Mystery of 1884.

October 24, 1884

The Times reported that, “Yesterday considerable excitement was caused in the neighbourhood of Tottenham-court-road by the discovery of human remains, supposed to be those of a woman, under circumstances suggesting foul play.” A skull with flesh still adhering to it, as well as a large piece of flesh from the thighbone, were discovered. Around the same time, a parcel containing a human arm was found in Bedford Square. The arm, which had been thrown over the railing, contained a possible clue to the victim’s identity, a tattoo, which more then likely, meant the woman had been a prostitute.

Five days later, a police constable was passing Number 33 Fitzroy Square, when he noticed a large brown paper parcel. Upon investigating, he found it contained a portion of a human torso. The murderer, it would seem, was one who was exceedingly daring or lucking in depositing the remains. According to the Pall Mall Gazette, “the side walk in front of the house is constantly patrolled by police . . . It is believed that the parcel was deposited between ten o’clock and ten fifteen, when the police relief takes place.” The building that the remains were placed in front was also a military drill-hall and armoury.

So what’s so intriguing about that?

Allan Pinkerton

wrote to Gladstone to offer the assistance of his organisation claiming that British detectives:

 are, so far as my experience with them is concerned, a body of first class, intelligent men and many of their operations could not be excelled for brilliancy and important results. But is of the “shadows” or “informers” that I wish to speak . . . Pinkerton to Gladstone, July 8th, 1882.

(Abberline worked for Pinkerton after he retired from the police force.)

The Special Irish Branch was formed in March 1883, to combat the threat of Irish terrorism. The Fenians (Irish Nationalists) exploded a bomb at Scotland Yard in 1884, and the following year they bombed the Tower of London and Houses of Parliament. The “Irish” label was dropped in 1888 as the department’s remit was extended to cover other threats. They became known simply as Special Branch the original headquarters of the Metropolitan Police was a house at 4 Whitehall Place, not far from Trafalgar Square, but the rear entrance, which the public used, was in Scotland Yard.

Scotland Yard paid their informants.

From 1837 Cobb explored cases, particularly murders, to find the right type of officers to act as detectives. In turn, the most successful of these officers began to discover and use rudimentary methods that went on to become the basic tools of the modern day detective e g the surveillance of suspects, the use of informers and the gathering of evidence.

Monro’s memoirs confirm the use of Pinkerton’s Detective Agency as the preferred operational contact point:  (Monro memoirs, 1903).

“Pinkerton, Robert requesting assistance for his detective in Cronin case”. Entries show that the detective was a J R Saville and his job was “looking after John Hayes suspected of the murder.” Dr Patrick Cronin was a prominent Chicago member of Clan na Gael who, after falling out with its leader Alexander Sullivan over the use of the organisation’s funds, was expelled and murdered on May 4th, 1889 (Le Caron, 1894). 

Entries reveal that, whether by accident or design, Metropolitan Police Special Branch arrived at an ideal intelligence gathering scenario, with two or more informants working unknown to each other in the same organisation and hence able to supply independently corroborated information to MPSB concerning each others activities. This enabled an accurate assessment to be made concerning their veracity and afford a valuable check on whether the activities they reported to their handler corresponded to truth.

Coulon moved to 19 Fitzroy Square, taking up residence in a house that his anarchist colleagues, who were by now having their doubts about him on other matters, considered was much too respectable for a man who had just been dismissed from his teaching post at the anarchist school (Quail, 1978). The Chief Constable’s Register lends credence to this. Immediately following the second reference to his employment at the International Anarchist School comes an entry stating; “Coulon – suspected of being a police spy”.

Who was Auguste Coulon? According to Quail (1978), he was in regular correspondence with the Socialist League and possibly lived in Dublin before moving to France. Numerous entries in the Chief Constable’s Register confirm his presence in Ireland, his establishment of an Anarchist group in Dublin and the consequent interest in him by the Dublin Metropolitan Police.

Maurice Moser, an Inspector in the Metropolitan Police Irish Bureau, reveals in his memoirs how he carried out surveillance in Paris on Irish suspects. This was with the full knowledge and co-operation of the French police, which assisted in drugging the drink of a suspect, relieving him of his recently collected post, steamed a letter open, copied, and returned it to his pocket before he regained consciousness. (Moser, 1890).

Mary Kelly was Irish, travelled to Paris and her identity remains hidden. She claimed she was frightened of someone – according to Barnett. She preferred poverty in the East End to remaining in relative comfort in the West End. An inexplicable decision, but perhaps Mary Kelly is even more intriguing than we thought. Women were also on the payroll of the MPSB. So is there a connection between Mary Kelly, Fitzroy Square and the MPSB?

Kelly moved to Cardiff and lived with a cousin and worked as a prostitute. The Cardiff police have no record of her. She says she was ill and spent the best part of the time in an infirmary. None of her story, as told to Barnett, is completely verifiable.

Mary Kelly in brief:

Mary Kelly arrived in London in 1884. She may have stayed with the nuns at the Providence Row Night Refuge on Crispin Street. According to one tradition she scrubbed floors and charred there and was eventually placed into domestic service in a shop in Cleveland Street.

According to Joseph Barnett, on arriving in London, Kelly went to work in a high class brothel in the West End. She says that during this time she frequently rode in a carriage and accompanied one gentleman to Paris, which she disliked and returned to London.

Fitzroy Square is directly off Cleveland Street.

What could be in those JTR files that Scotland Yard needs to protect witnesses after one hundred and thirty years? Perhaps there is a valid reason Scotland Yards’s JTR dossiers remain sealed after all. The IRA and English are newly at peace. An open sore is healing. Is it worth jeopardising the peace for mere Ripperologist curiosity?

Mary Kelly often visited a friend in Lambeth at the Elephant and Castle. Abberline and PC Long lived in Lambeth. One the paymaster and one the assassin?

Curiously, PC Long of A division arrived in London the same year (1884) as Mary Kelly.

The common theme is London, Ireland, Paris, informants, Pinkertons, Lambeth and Fenians. This is yet another series of coincidences amid the puzzle that is JTR. But as Metropolitan Police Special Branch honed their skills, how much had they learnt of utilising smoke and mirrors?

Twelve hours later ...
Continuing this line of research, it seems it's not such an eccentric concept. A few others have postulated a Fenian involvement. Therefore, the big question therefore is why? What would the Fenians gain from JTR's slaughter? Quick answer: it's doing what terrorism does. Frightens people.

Who are you?

One of the ‘books’ in my job lot, actually an excised section from a larger volume, references two murders, which occurred in 1887. The author mentions Emma Smith, refers to Martha Tabram and sites two murders of women by ‘similar means’ – and discovered in the gutter in the early hours of the morning (one as recently as the 6th of August last).
I’ve haven’t heard of these victims. It would help if I knew the title of the book and the name of the author, all I know is the book has some age, and is a hard-copy judging by the spine. As I have a date (6th Aug) it shouldn’t be too difficult to discover the details of this crime!
Okay, the only reports I can find are on the Lipski case. But this book states: found in the gutter by similar means that's definitely not murder by poisoning and a body found under the bed.
So I could start searching for the book ... find the date of publication ...

Well, the section is taken from Chronicles of Crime, Beaver publication. No idea of the identity of the victim he mentions. Couple more strings and I'll give up on this search today.

Mary Jane McCarthy Kelly

I'm sorting through my mass of research/information and filing into an easily discoverable system! Found these:

Strange confusion of names in this article:

THE MISERY AND VICE OF LONDON. 22 December 1888, Supplement

About a year ago he rented it to a woman who looked about 30. She was popular among the females of the neighbourhood, who shared her beer generously, as I have been tearfully informed, and went under the title of Mary Jane McCarthy. Her landlord knew that she had another name, Kelly, but her friends had not heard of it. It seems that there had been a Mr. Kelly, whom Mary Jane had married in the manner which is considered satisfactory in Whitechapel. They had not gone to the expense of a license, but published the fact of matrimony by living in one small room, and sharing joy and sorrow and drunkenness there together.
Mary Jane took up her residence in the little room in Miller Court when Kelly went away. Since then her life has been that of all the women around her, her drunkenness and the number of strange men she brought to her little room being the gauges by which her sisters in wretchedness measured her prosperity.

So excepting the newspaper at its journalistic researched best, I found this McCarthy/Kelly link. Mary Jane Kelly's father's first name was John -- apparently.
Mary Kelly

Ireland Births and Baptisms, 1620-1881
birth: 19 April 1864
0240, CASTLETOWN DISTRICT, LIMERICK, IRELAND
father: John Kelly
mother: Anne Mccarthy .....

Creeping about in dark places

I'm half way through a Jack the Ripper book trailer. I intended it to be scary. It's not. Carry on Screaming comes to mind -- or in this case, not. I'll persevere.
Stupid of me really. I hate horror films featuring blood and gore and creeping about in dark places. Tends to rule out JTR. But I like a challenge.
Bought a box of JTR related items at auction. No, there isn't a diary, or a bloody knife that I'm about to thrust into a suspecting public. Just books, a couple of old newspapers and press cuttings. Looks like a house-clearance lot and listed as general household. I collect old prints and books and love a  rummage. 1888 stood out as if lit by limelight. I neatly returned said cutting to it's position as a bookmark. The box is mine for twenty-five quid.

Ratcliff Highway

A good photograph of Ratcliff.

A simple matter of deduction.

It's a long time since I've written non-fiction and in book form, never. Each chapter I treat as a treatise. It's a novel approach – well, it's literally, not. Cough.

I’m writing just an aside on Abberline, or so I thought. Most of the biographical accounts are the same but differ in writing style.

I’m stalled on Abberline’s wife, Emma. Blah, blah, merchant’s daughter ... I know, but which? She vanishes and re-emerges as if she were a ghost. I have to be looking at the wrong Beamont because if I’m not there’s something peculiar in her history. I’ve allowed today to research her and then I’ll return to Hutchinson. Or maybe just ignore these two, finish the book and then follow up.

Research is a distraction.

I think I know what happened that night of the double event, which explains Blenkinsop’s 1.30 am sighting, witness statement. Clock chimes vary on the quarter strike; a man sitting alone at night (St James Place) would recognise those bell strikes. I don’t believe he was mistaken. It was 1.30 am and not 1.45 as Sugden explains.

Any colour as long as it's red or green.

I have spent the last couple of weeks reading contemporary accounts, not just of the Whitechapel murders, but the culture of the East End. My overriding impression is stink -- bloaters, liver and onions, unwashed bodies, combined with bed bugs' peculiar sweet musty smell
The warm and sunny days would introduce the season for taking the kitchen chairs outside the street doors and leaving them there until late at night to obtain a respite from the 'red army', as the bed bugs were called.
It mattered not how clean or careful we were, these horrors would invade the home, bringing misery and discomfort to all. For this reason the majority of
flats were 'decorated' by distempering. Our landlord's contribution to solving the problem was to allow us to choose any colour we liked so long as it was red or green...

For a couple of coppers.

The Torso killer used the steamboats to dispose of his neatly and portable apportioned body parts and all for a couple of coppers.

Steam-boat Piers.—If you wish to go eastward of London Bridge, on the north side of the river, you will find steam-boats at London Bridge to take you to Thames Tunnel Pier, Limehouse, Blackwall, and North Woolwich. On the south side, at the Surrey end of London Bridge, you can take boat for Rotherhithe, Commercial Docks, Greenwich, Charlton, and Woolwich. If you wish to go westward from London Bridge, on the north side, you can take boat thence for the following piers:—Bridge, Paul’s Wharf, Temple Stairs, Waterloo Bridge, Hungerford Bridge, Westminster Bridge, Millbank, Pimlico, Thames Bank, Chelsea, and Battersea; and on the south side, at Westminster Bridge, Lambeth Stairs, Vauxhall, Battersea Park, Wandsworth, Putney, Hammersmith Bridge, and Kew.

The steamers make an amazing number of trips each way daily, between these several piers, at intervals varying with the season, and at fares ranging from one penny to fourpence. For example, the fare by the Citizen boats from London Bridge to Westminster is 1d.; to Pimlico, 2d.; Chelsea and Battersea, 3d. If you wish to go quickly from Westminster Bridge to London Bridge, you will avoid delays at piers by getting one of the penny boats which run every ten minutes from Westminster to London Bridge, only calling at Hungerford. 

Steamers for Kew, in the summer, run about every half-hour from London Bridge, calling at intermediate up-river piers—return ticket, 1s. From Cadogan Pier, Chelsea, you can go to Kew for 4d. And on Sundays and Mondays you can go up as far as Richmond, if the tide allow, at half-past 10 a.m. from Hungerford—return ticket, about 1s. 6d. For more distant journeys, such as to Erith, Gravesend, Sheerness, Southend, &c., by excursion steam-boats. To Gravesend and back, the fare is 1s. 6d.; Sheerness and Southend and back, 2s. 6d. Boats generally leave Hungerford Bridge for Gravesend and Erith every half-hour up to 12, and leave London Bridge at 2 and half-past 4 p.m.; they leave Hungerford Bridge for Southend and Sheerness at various times from half-past 8, calling at London Bridge, returning in the afternoon or early evening.

On June 4, 1889 part of a female torso was fished out of the Thames at Horselydown, while at about the same time; a left leg to the body was plucked from under the Albert-bridge, Chelsea. Within the next week, numerous other parts of the same body were recovered in or near the Thames.
The London Times of June 5, reported that "in the opinion of the doctors the women had been dead only 48 hours, and the body had been dissected somewhat roughly by a person who must have had some knowledge of the joints of the human body."
The London Times on June 11, reported that the remains found so far "are as follows:

1)               Tuesday, left leg and thigh off Battersea,

2)               lower part of the abdomen at Horselydown;

3)               Thursday, the liver near Nine Elms,

4)               upper part of the body in Battersea-Park,

5)               neck and shoulders off Battersea;

6)               Friday, right foot and part of leg at Wandsworth,

7)               left leg and foot at Limehouse;

8)               Saturday, left arm and hand at Bankside,

9)               buttocks and pelvis off Battersea,

10)           right thigh at Chelsea Embankment, yesterday,

11)           right arm and hand at Bankside."

We read what we suppose exists

Interesting the information a graphologist can glean from handwriting!
Reminder to self. Do not leave notebooks lying around.
Anyway, peering at a copy of the infamous Goulston Street script. It doesn't say men. It reads : may.

That is a, Y.
Which proves we read what we suppose exists.

The From Hell letter and an archetypal serial killer's handwriting. At least this is how I would imagine a murderer would write. The length of the lower zone's Y on the word bloody is extraordinary and the loop is formed in reverse.

Searching for an image of the 14th October 1896 letter

I'm searching for an image of the 14th October 1896 letter. If anyone knows whereabouts to find  this missive on the web, point me in the right direction, please.


The 14 Oct 1896 Hoax Letter
This letter was written in red ink and said:

Dear Boss,
    You will be surprised to
find that this comes from yours
as of old Jack-the Ripper. Ha Ha
If my old friend Mr. Warren is dead
you can read it. you might
remember me if you try and
think a little Ha Ha. The last job
was a bad one and no mistake nearly
buckled, and meant it to
be best of the lot & what curse it,
Ha Ha Im alive yet and you'll
soon find it out. I mean to go
on again when I get the chance
wont it be nice dear old Boss to
have the good old times once
again. you never caught me
and you never will. Ha Ha
    You police are a smart lot, the lot
of you could nt catch one man
Where have I been Dear Boss
you d like to know. abroad, if
you would like to know, and
just come back, ready to go on
with my work and stop when
you catch me. Well good bye
Boss wish me luck. Winters coming
"The Jewes are people that are
blamed for nothing" Ha Ha
have you heard this before

                      Yours truly
                                 Jack the Ripper
According to my graphologist chum, three of the published Ripper letters are by the same hand ...

Erm.

At last.

At last. I have found 'Hutchinson's' birth registration. I've searched for him for so long I'd forgotten why I found this person interesting -- now thankfully, recalled with a a rummage through my files. Rather a strange coincidence on the BMD. I now need to find my man in the 1881 registrations. I've one person who resided in Wandsworth Prison but his place of birth isn't the same as the three earlier entries.

Polly Nichols

Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols (nee Walker; 26th August 1845 – 31 August 1888). Whitechapel murder victims

Clarity and question.

An ex policeman was seen in the vicinity of Castle Alley (Alice McKenzie murder). Did that mean he was an ex policeman when he was seen standing on the corner when Alice McKenzie was killed? Or was he an ex policeman by the time a reporter spoke to the witness? 

20 July 1889

"An ex member of the Metropolitan police, who was standing talking with a friend at the corner of Castle alley, not more than forty yards distant, about the time of the murder, neither saw nor heard anything."

John Davies had a wife and child

John Davies
Event Type     Marriage Banns
Event Date     16 Mar 1879
Event Place     Brymbo, Denbighshire, Wales
Spouse's Name     Mary Edwards

The newspaper reported John Davies had a wife and child - that's all, no names. The entry above is interesting because Mary and her husband don't appear in the 1881 census.

The Ten Bells pub

Tom Cullen, author of The Autumn of Terror: A retired market porter, Dennis Barrett, stated he knew Mary Jane Kelly. "She had her pitch outside the Ten Bells Pub on Commercial Street, and woe to any woman who tried to poach her territory. Such a woman was likely to have her hair pulled out in fistfuls."

13 Miller's court

George Hutchinson is lying.

George Hutchinson is lying. The question is not why – at the moment, but his reasoning. He didn’t see the gold-watch chain man, with Mary Kelly at two in the morning, as he stated. It is impossible for the human eye to detect colour in the dark –earlier blog.

So, Hutchinson walked to and from Romford in the hours preceding Mary Kelly’s slaughter? It wasn’t market day in Romford. If he did walk the twelve miles to Romford then whatever caused him to slog those miles was a call of duty. A family bereavement, which means George Hutchinson lives, lived, or has family in Essex?

I believe George Hutchinson did witness Mary Kelly with a man as described, but during the day. After all, if a lie is to convince best ensure it doesn’t vary from one statement to another. Tie the lie to a truth – hang it on fact. Otherwise, it's too easy to forget those little incriminating details. George Hutchinson recalled and recounted an event that occurred earlier but moved the occurrence to the night in question. There’s no reason a man wouldn’t wear a gold watch chain, in a main thoroughfare, in the middle of the day.

So what’s left is George’s interest in Mary Kelly. He states he stood outside her living space for three-quarters of an hour and even ventured into the small court. He also says he gave her money on occasion. He stated he had known her for three years, which means he met her after her arrival in London and when she worked as a prostitute in the Ratcliff area. It's not too difficult to work out why he gave her money.

A witness, Sarah Lewis, testified she saw a stout man standing looking up the alley as if he waited for someone. George Hutchinson came forward after the inquest had closed and made his bizarre, and obviously untrue, statement.

The question is what part of it is a lie?

Mary Kelly escorting a man with a gold chain and a red handkerchief, according to George Hutchinson’s description, is a lie.

Joe Barnett told Mary not to take other men while she was with him. So some time after the date of 30th October when Joe Barnett left Miller’s Court.

Romford is twelve hours from Whitechapel. He saw Mary Kelly at two in the morning in Commercial Street.

 So walking at four miles an hour, he left Romford at eleven o’clock at night. As I’ve already said, it wasn't market day. And even if it were, it was an early morning market. It begs the question what was he doing from the market’s closure to his arrival in Whitechapel? It’s a three-hour walk to Essex and another three hours return journey but he lurks on a dismal drizzly night in Dorset Street watching an alley? It doesn’t make sense.

I don’t think his visit to Romford was that day. So perhaps he did visit the market, just on a different day and the man he saw with Kelly was a different time from his stated date. The market in Romford opens at six in the morning. So George would have left Whitechapel at three in the morning. The market closes at two. He would have returned to Whitechapel at four in the afternoon at the earliest. Enough time to witness Mary Kelly meet a punter in Commercial Street. If he’d been to Romford market, surely it was to find work? If that is the case, why didn’t he have any money? He says, when Mary Kelly asked if he would lend her a sixpence, he replied that he’d spent all his money going to Romford. Not to work then? Or perhaps he didn’t find someone willing to hire him when he arrived there? Okay, so he’s not going to Romford to make money but he’s spent money. Which leads me back to where has a link to Essex other than the market.

So if he is lying what other lies is he telling and why? He places himself in the frame. No one knew it was he until he confesses. He made his statement given only after the inquest’s closure. But he doesn’t know what that witness said. But then something prompted his arrival at Commercial Street police station after he heard that a stout man was seen in Dorset Street. Perhaps she knows him? Or perhaps he recognised her? She was intent in finding sanctuary from an abusive husband in the early hours of the morning on a dismally damp night. I expect she tucked herself in her shawl and ignored him – signalling she wasn’t for hire. She wouldn’t have made eye content with him. But he saw and stared at her. But if he recognised her, he didn’t know if she recognised him. Word was out about the killing and the inquest. But he didn’t arrive until its closure. So something unnerved him . . .  Just thinking aloud.

So he didn’t go to Romford to visit the market.

What we have is man who was roaming the streets at two in the morning. Why? He had a doss but he had no money to give Mary Kelly the sixpence she requested. Or so he says.

A man wandering the streets in the early hours of the morning? He sees Mary Kelly. She’s broke and desperate. They have known each other for three years but they refer, according to George Hutchinson’s statement, with their titles – Mary Kelly calls him Mr Hutchinson. No friendly chat here. It is formal. Perhaps that was the Victorian, ‘cover up the piano legs’ style of prim etiquette? But not on these mean streets. This isn’t the bourgeoisie.

Perhaps Mary Kelly did meet George Hutchinson that night. Perhaps he did say he didn’t have any money. But perhaps his mate did? Perhaps that’s who George Hutchinson waited for that night as he peered down that alley? George Hutchinson waited for someone. His mate who was with Kelly. He had the sixpence she wanted.  Do serial killers work in pairs? Yes, apparently they do. But that presupposes George Hutchinson knew his mate was a killer.

I think George Hutchinson isn’t called Hutchinson – previous blog. He has family in Essex and he knew Jack the Ripper.

Jack the Ripper graphology

A useful tip from a graphologist mate - although obviously scale isn't taken into account, is to use a transparent, gridded, layer over handwriting samples. In this image, it is clearly seen that Dear Boss and Saucy Jack are by the same hand.

This is the letter G

Graphologists work with the minutiae. This is the G from one of George Hutchinson's witness statements signatures - all three share the same characteristics. The G uses more space on the horizontal axis eg: seven horizontal squares to six vertical. Match this G to another (George) and that man will be worth investigating. I have seen somewhere a George signature on an Australian document (Ripperologist magazine?) No doubt it'll turn up amongst the numerous files and folders. The signatures I've seen so far don't compare.

1880's Metroplitan police

A good example of the lamps in this image.

I’m looking for a man called George.

My graphologist chum said:
He’s a bloke.
Really! That’s amazing.
My graphologist rolled his eyes. Not many girls are called . . .  so you just want to know what sense I get from this man? He’s dead.
Now it’s my turn to roll my eyes.
Okay. There’s not much here. And letters, words, in isolation don’t mean so much. We’re looking for repetition of a pattern – at least three  . . .  that’s unlikely with this small sample.
So it’s pretty much worthless?
No. I can give you an impression . . . but . . .  He likes attention . . .  see the way the end stroke rises up above the end line. He craves attention. This end stroke is even higher than the upper stroke.
He’s sexually active and adventurous. Promiscuous. See the incredibly extended lower zone. But he’s a bit of a bigot . . .  his narrow middle E loop is non existent.
He has a sense of humour . . . see the long initial upper wavy line. Bit of a joker . . . but it’s barbed . . .  he tends to sarcasm . . . He’s also. . . impatient . . .  he’ll act without delay as seen by the dots ahead of the I’s and crossed T’s. But he’s quite at home in his skin.
Alright, anything in there that looks odd?
Odd how?
Out of the ordinary.
It’s handwriting. It’s all unique . . .
Now it’s my turn to sigh.
The X’s. They are aggressive. Nothing soft about the way he shapes that X. He presses so hard the contours of the nib are denoted. Crossed swords. Skull and crossbones . . .  that’s what it reminds me of. Out of place . . . it’s darker and he’s pressing heavier for that letter. Then there’s the capital K in the middle of a lowercase word . . . figurehead . . .  wants to be considered a leader. But the upperzone stroke is detached from the buckle, which looks like a golf club?! It’s all angular . . . and  big. . . like the X. Something about the X especially bothers him.
Is he capable of killing?
My graphologist’s Jaw drops. Finally he responds . . . I can’t say. There is aggression here but it’s disciplined . . . the sample is too small.
What about the signatures of George Hutchinson? Are they written by the same man?
No.
You’re sure?
As certain as I can be. Look at the formation of the G. It’s big and with wide loops . . . fluid . . . then look at this narrow little thing . . . and this is the signature that’s most superficially like these other six signatures. The man who wrote those (handwriting samples of men called G Hutchinson) didn’t write these. The same author wrote these three signatures (witness statement taken at Commercial Street Police Station and signed on three separate sheets of paper) although there appears a difference, but not if the surname is ignored. The first name, George, is written by the same hand and with confidence.
You’re sure?
Yes.

Right. So what does it mean? It means I’m looking for a man called George. I don’t know where he lives but he has a connection to Romford? – allegedly. He has military bearing and is stout. He could be around twenty-eight years of age. Job done!
Well I found Alfred Long’s alias (James Short) and I found Mary Kelly’s 'husband' (John Davies) how difficult can this be? I need another lateral thought and my mind is revolving about his military bearing, but that still leaves a gamut of army personnel. He states he has known Mary Kelly for three years . . . rules out Wales . . .  excludes Mary Kelly’s life in the West End and her sojourn in France. There is mention that Joe Flemming is George Hutchinson . . .  A George Hutchinson’s father was a stonemason – as was Joe Flemming . . .  So is there a George Flemming, with a connection to Essex, and who worked as a groom? Three lemons in a row . . . is that the Jackpot? Worth a look. I'll recognise that G anywhere . . .

I’m writing another book about Jack the Ripper. In this novel, I kill the bastard.

Facsimile of Jack the Ripper letter

Facsimile of Jack the Ripper letter sent to Central News Agency

Martyrs of Civilisation

Tall and fair.

David Wilson Professor of Criminology at Birmingham City University:
It is screaming out connection, ­connection, connection. 'There is no such thing as coincidence when you are ­dealing with serial killers.'
I know I've previously quoted that statement. I don't necessarily think that Jack the Ripper killed five women. Contemporary reports claim any number of victims. Three women stand out. They shared similarities and differed from the other Whitechapel murder victims by dint of their age and stature (average male height was 5ft. 5in. in 1888). :

The Whitehall Mystery victim. 2nd October 1888 over 24 or 25 and under 30. It appeared that she was full fleshed, well nourished. Stout. Dark hair, fair skin. 5ft. 8in.

Mary Kelly. 9th November approximately 25 years of age. Stout. Golden hair, fair skin. 5ft. 7in.

Elizabeth Jackson. 4th June 1889 under the age range of 25 Stout. Sandy coloured hair, fair skin. 5ft. 5 in.

Mary Kelly often visited The Elephant and Castle (south side of the river). Elizabeth's Jackson's torso was found just two miles distant in Battersea Park (south side of the river.) The Whitehall Mystery's torso was discovered about two miles from The Elephant and Castle and curiously approximately two miles from Battersea Park.

Alas an alias.

Date of Joining: 8 December 1879.
Date:     1879 Dec 8
Held by:     The National Archives, Kew
Legal status:     Public Record
Language:     English
Closure status:     Open Document, Open Description
Lavey     Frederick     —     —     1878     British Army Service Records 1760-1915

George Sullivan alias Frederick Levy alias Frederick Lavey, born Waterford, Ireland.
Attestation papers to serve in the Royal Marines at Chatham 1878 (when aged 24).
Discharged 1879 as Worthless and Incorrigible.
Failed to report he had been previously invalided out of 9th Lancers.

Howell or Cook or Levy or Stock     Thomas or Frederick     —     —     1887     England & Wales, Crime, Prisons & Punishment, 1770-1935.

I'd like to view this bloke's signature. I'm pursuing long shots!

Plain for all to see.

These are comparison George Hutchinson signatures and now the differences have been pointed out I can see them quite clearly.

The upper loop on G remains within the cup on all of George Hutchinson's witness signatures. End stoke finishes down not up. Small case case h is looped on George Hutchinson's statement in all three cases. The E following the capital G is looped.
Mm, I wonder whether there's an uppercase G in any of the ripper letters ...?

Who is George Hutchinson?

I handed a graphologist photocopies of George Hutchinson’s signatures from his statement given at Commercial Street station on the 12th Nov. He knew nothing of the person and isn’t someone who follows or has more than rudimentary knowledge of Jack the Ripper. Hutchinson’s name meant nothing to him and I separated the signatures from the statement.

This is what he said:

This person is old. The style of the writing . . . and it’s shaky . . . tentative. It’s funny . . . the George is confident but the surname is . . . lacks . . . confidence . . . or rhythm. He’s not used to writing this name. Is this his signature? I can believe the George is his name. He’s accustomed to writing it. It is the same, give or take the natural and expected variants form one signature to another. Look at the H. He can’t decide how to form it or how to connect it to the mid-zone following letter. He so lacks assurance that the letter H is blotted in this signature where his nib has dithered over the paper . . . and see here . . . it’s almost as if . . .  the letters are reducing in size . . .  he doesn’t want to write this. Doesn’t want to be . . . I don’t know . . .  I’d say he’s embarrassed about it. Shy? Perhaps he’s writing this name and it isn’t . . .  his . . .  and he doesn’t like the lie . . . subconsciously . . . Is that right?

Are you saying that Hutchinson isn’t his surname?

I don’t know . . .  but he’s written the name George with authority. If I were to guess I’d say this isn’t his surname and whatever his surname . . . it probably doesn’t begin with the letter H.

Mary Jane Kelly

Mary Jane Kelly's portrait from facial mapping.
 Detective Inspector Walter Dew:
"All this was horrifying enough, but the mental picture of that sight which remains most vividly with me is the poor woman's eyes. They were wide open, and seemed to be staring straight at me with a look of terror".

Police detectives crime fighting

George Hutchinson's other 'arf.

George Hutchinson is irksome. I have read he worked as a groom, presumably working with horses. He was stout and had military bearing and that is about the sum of George Hutchinson.

Sarah Lewis, a laundress of 24 Great Pearl Street gave this statement and description to the police:

He was not tall – but stout – had on a wideawake black hat – I did not notice his clothes – another young man with a woman passed along – The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.

George Hutchison stated that he was outside Miller’s court at the time commensurate with Lewis’s statement. So her description is confirmed by George Hutchinson.

Israel Swcharz’s description of the attacker – Elizabeth Stride:

At around 12.45am he turned into Berner Street and noticed a man walking ahead of him. The man stopped to talk to a woman who was standing in the gateway of Dutfield’s Yard. The man was about 5 feet, 5 inches tall, aged around 30 with dark hair, a fair complexion, a small brown moustache. He had a full face, broad shoulders and appeared to be slightly intoxicated.

William Marshall's description:

William Marshall lived at 64 Berner Street. He saw a couple kissing on the pavement outside number 63. He heard the man tell the woman that she would say 'anything but your prayers'.

According to Marshall the man was middle aged with the appearance of a clerk He was about 5 foot 6 inches tall, somewhat stout, respectably dresses and clean shaven. He wore a small, black, cutaway coat, dark trousers, and a round cap with a small sailor-like peak cap.

 The theme here is stout.

 Aliases were used, not infrequently, by army personnel – as I discovered when I found Alfred Long’s army alias and included in my book ‘Long Arm of the Law’. A terrible pun but it apes Alfred Long’s use of his alias, James Short. That sort of comedic in-joke is reminiscent of some of the ‘humorous' Ripper letters. But anyway, George Hutchinson hasn't been found (not convincingly) in the records. My guess is he used an alias. Was he known as George Hutchinson in Whitechapel? We only have his word that he was. He didn’t attend Mary Kelly’s inquest. Residents of Whitechapel couldn’t therefore accuse him of not being who he claimed he was.

I’m wondering if he too was in the 9th Lancers -- old pals with Alfred Long and working as a groom in this cavalry unit (soldiers looked after their own horses but the army employed grooms). Which takes me back to Lewis’s statement, ‘The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out’.

Perhaps he was. 

Perhaps it was a serial killing pairing? A not unknown phenomena:

Over one third of all serial murders are committed by teams. Most involve two offenders. 13 percent of all serial killers are male-female. Without exception, every group of offenders has one person who maintains control of the other members, whether through coercion, intimidation, or other persuasive techniques. Nearly all of these "leaders" are men. Although women are frequently involved with serial murder teams, they generally are not the decision-makers or main enforcers.

Most criminal teams quickly fall apart. Typically, they make a mistake, such as leaving a witness alive, quarrelling, or going further in brutality than one partner can bear.
The most dangerous teams involve male/male pairings, and of those, the most aggressive are equals who realise they now have a partner as depraved as they are. With no moral boundaries, they work together to affirm and expand their range of criminal creativity. Katherine M. Ramsland

Purely speculation on my part BUT ...


David Wilson Professor of Criminology at Birmingham City University:
It is screaming out connection, ­connection, connection. 'There is no such thing as coincidence when you are ­dealing with serial killers.'

Serial killer deja vou.

Dennis Andrew Nilsen (born 23 November 1945, Fraserburgh, Scotland) also known as the Muswell Hill Murderer and the Kindly Killer is a British serial killer who lived in London.
Nilsen killed at least fifteen men and boys in gruesome circumstances between 1978 and 1983, and was known to retain corpses for sex acts. He was eventually caught after his disposal of dismembered human entrails blocked his household drains: the drain cleaning company found that the drains were congested with human flesh and contacted the police.
In 1961, at sixteen, Nilsen enlisted in the British Army and became a cook in Aden, Cyprus and Berlin. He became a cook, serving as a butcher in the Army Catering Corps, learning the skills that served him so well during his five-year killing spree. He left the army in 1972 and served briefly as a police officer.
This biography sounds familiar. Working in a kitchen. Even to the age at which he joined the army and following with joining the police force.
Serial killers seek occupations whereby they gain control of others.

Cat directs murderer with axe

So much wrong with this image. I couldn't resist.

George Hutchinson's statement is too good to be true?

George Hutchinson's statement is too good to be true? Then it came to me and I should have spotted it earlier ...

Excerpt from George Hutchinson's statement:
'I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both came past me and the man hung his head down 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 on the corner of the court for about three minutes. He said something to her. She said: “All right, my dear. Come along. You will be comfortable”. He then placed his arm on her shoulder and she gave him a kiss. She said she had lost her handkerchief. He then pulled out his handkerchief, a red one, and gave it to her.'
There it is. Did you see his lie? No, and neither would any human because we don't perceive colour at night.

This is the physiological reason if you're interested:
There are two kinds of light-sensitive organs located in the backs of our eyes: rod-shaped and cone-shaped. Both rods and cones are sensitive to light. The difference between them is that the rods allow us to see in very dim light but don’t permit detection of colour, while the cones let us see colour but they don’t work in dim light.When it gets dark the cones lose their ability to respond to light. The rods continue to respond to available light, but since they cannot perceive colour, everything appears to be various shades of black and white and grey.

A little about coal gaslight:
Gaslights became brighter after 1885 with the invention of the gas mantle. I think it safe to assume that gaslights emitted a dull light even with the invention of the mantle, which I doubt were utilised in slum Whitechapel in 1888. Coal gaslight emits a yellow greenish tone and would degrade the colour red even if Mary Kelly and her punter were standing under a lamp post, which they weren't. The position of the lamp opposite no 13 (Mary Kelly's room) would not have cast light on the entrance to the court. So George Hutchinson couldn't have seen a red handkerchief from where, and when, they stood.

George Hutchinson may have seen a man give Kelly a red handkerchief, but earlier, under a brighter, and natural, light. 'He then pulled out his handkerchief, a red one, and gave it to her'. Hutchinson's critics are right. His observations are too detailed. He's lying, but why?

If Hutchinson's story regarding the red handkerchief is true, ignoring his stated time-frame, and he witnessed a man tie a red handkerchief about Mary Kelly's neck, then the symbolism of that action prior to her death is acute.

N.B George Hutchison spent all his money going down to Romford. It must have been for some other purpose than visiting Romford Market, which didn't/doesn't trade on Thursday.

Jack the Ripper killed himself after slaying Mary Kelly.

Jack the Ripper killed himself after the brutal slaying of Mary Kelly. He must have. There were no more murders after November 1888. Well, there were more killings but it wasn’t The Ripper because he was dead. And so begins the circular argument. As the killings didn’t stop, why is it assumed the Ripper died in 1888? We don’t know whether The Ripper killed himself because we don’t know his identity. (I have a suspect. But that’s another blog.)

Serial killers do not stop killing from their own choice. That is comforting but whilst superficially convincing, this maxim is not necessarily true. There have been instances when a series has ended for no apparent reason. It was assumed the murderers committed suicide – an easy explanation. A serial killer’s psyche is likened to drug dependence. Its addictive nature prevents the killer from relinquishing his reliance and is compelled to continue killing. Yet the flaw in this argument is that it is based on the experiences of those offenders who have been caught. Little is known about those who have not.

Yet heroin addicts can and do break the habit. Therefore, it seems reasonable to suppose that some serial killers, can halt the addictive cycle. But these killers aren’t identified, hence the incapacitation, incarceration or death scenario. As such, it is not an implausible supposition that certain offenders are freed from their murderous deeds by dint of some extreme personal trauma – a near-capture experience, for example . . .