Stewart Evans

John, I've taken a look at the Education Service Workshops which is a new site added by the National Archives. The photographs they reproduce of the various letters are pretty poor quality with bad pixellation, therefore difficult to work with. It's an interesting site, but they really should have had someone putting it together who knew the subject - watch out for the errors! Stewart

John, I don't regard any of your questions as stupid, I just think it's great to see 'a newbie' (as you describe yourself) with such a genuine curiosity and considered opinion taking an interest in the subject. Regarding the 'new' letter, i.e. the one dated 17th Sept 1888, please take it from me that it is not worth pursuing and it is not the one that you were writing about anyway. The one you are referring to is the 24 September 1888 letter that is the earliest dated letter in the police files. Ergo, it is a genuine 1888 letter but, almost certainly, it is not from the killer but from a Victorian hoaxer. I wonder where the Education Services Workshops obtained the image from? I shall take a look at their site. I have taken a look at the headboard shot, using a magnifying glass, but cannot see anything other than the grainy flaws due to the poor quality of such an old photograph. Best Wishes, Stewart

I am a bit confused here as to which letters we are talking about. The 17 September 1888 letter pictured at the start of this thread is undoubtedly a modern hoax. The first known letter in the 1888 police file is the 24 September 1888 letter which is unsigned but has a couple of coffin shapes and a knife shape drawn on it. The first letter that gave the name 'Jack the Ripper' was the 'Dear Boss' letter posted on 27 September 1888. The 'From hell' or 'Lusk letter' was received on 16 October 1888 and had no name appended, merely finishing 'signed'. The 'Maybrick diary' is a modern hoax. Forget any ideas of Fs, Ms or anything written on the wall. John, what is the source of the images you are working on? Stephen, the book is progressing slowly. Best Wishes, Stewart

I suppose the Levy referred to is not Joseph, but Jacob, a recently introduced name to the case from the directory and census records and never a known suspect.

I should be very interested to know why Joseph Levy might be of any significance as regards the 'Jack the Ripper' correspondence. The 17 September 1888 is a patent modern hoax that emerged in 1988. (Significant year perhaps?)

Yes Steve, it certainly was Francis Tumblety, an exceedingly unusual name and even more uncommon with the 'Dr.' tag added. And, of course, his identity is confirmed in the US newspaper reports of his fleeing back to New York and Inspector Andrews of Scotland Yard following him.

Subscribers to the 'Polish Jew as Jack the Ripper' theory usually fall into the category known in Ripper circles as 'Andersonites'. This is not a derogatory term as many of the theories carry their own nomenclature (another is 'Druittists') and as theories go the 'Polish Jew' is as good as any. Assistant Commissioner (Crime) Sir Robert Anderson stated, more than once, that the identity of the Ripper was known and that he was a Polish Jew. From hereon in things get complex and the arguments, pro and con, very lengthy. As a result of Anderson's claims several informed and knowledgeable authors and researchers have followed the 'Anderson line' believing that it is the only 'official police clue' that might possibly lead to the identification of the murderer. Amongst those involved in this research (and who have carried out extensive genealogical research into various named Jews involved in the case) are Mark King and Scott Nelson. The name of Levy pops up in relation to the murder of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square in the early hours of Sunday 30 September 1888. One Joseph Levy was one of three Jewish witnesses leaving the Imperial Club in Duke Street, City, around 1.35 a.m. who saw a man and a woman talking at the entrance to Church Passage (leading into Mitre Square) only 10 minutes or so before the body of Eddowes was discovered. It is generally accepted that the man and woman were the killer and his victim. Research revealed another Levy, Jacob, born in Aldgate in 1856 and who died in an asylum of softening of the brain as a result of syphilis in July 1891. From the few known facts speculation takes over, runs rife, and a new Ripper suspect emerges. In common with ALL other Ripper suspects there is nothing so vulgar as hard evidence to connect him with the murders. All the available information may be found on the Casebook: Jack the Ripper site at http://casebook.org/ and it really is a case of picking your preferred line of inquiry when deciding whether you think that the Ripper may be identified or not.

Because the issues surrounding the witnesses and the supposed sighting of victim and suspect in the case of the murder of Elizabeth Stride are so complex it really does pay to boil it down to basics. There are more sightings of a supposed suspect and victim than in any of the other murders. This is not surprising as it was a relatively very busy location with a socialist club meeting and sing-song going on adjacent to where the body was found. The pro and con arguments are really quite simple. It was another Ripper killing because - 1. It was mid-series in the so-called Ripper murders and there was another Ripper murder within an hour not very far away. 2. The throat was cut. 3. She was a typical Ripper victim, a casual prostitute soliciting on the streets in the early hours. 4. The police believed her to be another Ripper victim. It may not have been a Ripper killing because - 1. It was an atypical Ripper murder location, a much frequented yard/entrance in a busy street with much activity taking place. 2. The method of killing was different - no indication of any strangulation or attempt to strangle, the vicitim was apparently forced to the ground, held down by the shoulders and the throat cut (even the throat wound was inflicted in a different manner) and there was no mutilation. 3. If the attacker seen by Schwartz was the killer, then he was probably the worse for drink and he attacked her knowing there were witnesses in view. 4. It was stated that some of the City Police felt that her killer was not the same as the Mitre Square killer (of Catherine Eddowes). 5. The type of attack apparently suffered by Stride was more typical of a violent domestic situation or drunken client than the more, apparently, careful and insidous method of the Ripper. But, of course, all this is in the realms of speculation and opinion and the simple answer is that it remained (and will remain) an unsolved murder and it is a matter of opinion as to whether it was committed by the unknown Ripper or not. It may have been - then, again, it may not have been.

There is little doubt that the tale of Nigel Morland meeting Abberline is apocryphal. Therefore we can forget any supposed comments made by Abberline to Morland in the early 1920s about the Ripper being 'one of the highest in the land', or 'not at the bottom of London society but a long way up.'

Stephen, You have ably presented the case for those who argue for the inclusion of Tabram in the Ripper's tally. One of the early advocates for her inclusion was Jon Ogan who wrote 'Martha Tabram - The Forgotten Ripper Victim?' in the Journal of the Police History Society, Number 5, 1990. Jon's detailed article covered all the points you raise and the odd fact that two different weapons had apparently been used which would seem to argue for premeditation, unless the killer had a weapon in each hand. However, so much in this case is down to opinion and interpretation that a good case can be made for both points of view. To take your points in order. 1.. The point that they were picking up soldiers that evening, and were still with soldiers near midnight illustrates that they seemed to prefer soldier clients. There was no identification of a soldier but does that mean that both Connelly AND PC Barrett lied about seeing soldiers? Of course it doesn't. Certainly PC Barrett would have no reason to lie about that. In Connelly's case she probably thought better of it when it came to identifying a soldier who had been paying for sex with a prostitute and she showed great reluctance in assisting the police. And Macnaghten actually suggested that she may have refused to identify the soldier. For Barrett's part it would seem that he did not get a good look at the soldier and was not confident about an identification. Barrett made a wrong identification, obviously not sure of himself and a mere reading of how Barrett identified the men shows how unsure he was. He did, in fact, reject the first man he had chosen as he had medals whereas the man seen in George Yard had not. 2. She was seen going up George Yard at 11.45 pm but the estimated time of the murder was around 2.30 am, NOT 3.30 am when Crow probably saw the body. Thus it was 2 hours 45 minutes before the probable time of the murder NOT 'nearly 4 hours'. Just because they 'went up' George Yard at 12.45 does not mean that they immediately went for sex. Go out of the far end of George Yard into Wentworth Street, turn left and just up the road was another pub. And the pubs were still open at that time. But, of course, the soldier who committed the murder may not have been, and was probably not, the same one who had gone up George Yard with her at 11.45 pm. She could have picked up another soldier after that, there were many of them about. I am not claiming that the soldier she was seen with by Connelly was the same one who killed, he might have been, but I use the fact as it shows she was with a soldier when last seen before she died. 3. You say, 'This is telling for your version of events'. I say, 'It certainly is!' And, as I have stated, PC Barrett had no reason whatsoever to make it up and merely got into a muddle over his identification. I cover this in 'The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper' page 21. 4. Ditto. 5. Just because nothing was heard does not mean that the murder was silent. It means that nothing was heard! Yes, Tabram may have been strangled first, and so may some of the other victims. However, strangulation is and was a very common method of murder, as is and was the use of a knife, sometimes both methods being used. I think that I prefer the official reports and medical evidence to the sensational broadsheet The Illustrated Police News, although I guess that 'throttled' sounds much better for the reading public than 'possibly strangled.' The fact that she was found lying on her back, legs apart and her clothes up would be just the position one would expect to find her in if she had been murdered by a client paying for sex. The stab wounds were all over her body and, apparently, inflicted in a frenzied manner rather than the deliberate mutilation exhibited by the killer in the subsequent murders. If her client had been unable to have sex with her (possibly because of drink) she may have ridiculed his inability or lack of 'manhood' which caused him to go into a rage. As I say, it all comes down to personal opinion and interpretation. And either may be the right answer. However carefully weighing what is known and speaking from many years police experience I tend to think this was not a Ripper killing.

Macnaghten's report appears to have been compiled in order to have an answer ready should a debate arise in the House (this was probably anticipated as the radical MP and journalist Henry Labouchere had been drawn in by the Sun and was interviewed about Cutbush). In the event it appears that such debate did not arise and a Home Office response was not called for. Interestingly Labouchere was referred to by Queen Victoria as "that horrible lying Labouchere." Others, such as his friends the artist James Whistler and actor Henry Irving, found him to be honest and with a sense of fun. Labouchere had his own idea that the Ripper might be a Spanish sailor. I have had the series of Sun newspaper reports on Cutbush for many years and have never thought of them as casting any light on the identity of Jack the Ripper.

Chris, I think we should make it clear that Macnaghten's report of 23 February 1894 (written in response to a series of articles in the Sun Newspaper alleging that Jack the Ripper was one and the same as a Thomas Cutbush detained in an asylum) named the 'Polish Jew' suspect merely as 'Kosminski' with no first name mentioned at all. It is later researchers who have concluded that it 'must' be Aaron Kosminski as his details appear to conform with what is known of 'Kosminski' the suspect. However, as with so many aspects of this case - it is not certain beyond doubt.

This is an old chestnut with Ripper researchers and writers. I have always regarded the term 'canonical', as applied to the East End murders, as rather misplaced and misleading. It is not known exactly how many murders may be credited to the same hand and it is impossible to say with absolute certainty that the five so credited were actually victims of the so-called 'Jack the Ripper'. In the case of Tabram, the second 'Whitechapel murders' victim, there is nothing in the way of evidence to persuade us that she was a Ripper victim. In fact, what evidence there is indicates the opposite. She was, it would seem, a prostitute who favoured soldiers as her clients. And pointers to the fact that her killer was most probably a soldier client are as follows. 1. Earlier in the evening, with her friend Mary Ann Connelly, she was picking up soldiers. 2. She was last seen at 11.45 pm , by Connelly, 'going up George Yard' with a soldier. 3. At 2.00 am the beat policeman, PC 226H Barrett saw a soldier, a private in the Guards, in Wentworth Street at the junction with George Yard (within 50 yards of the murder scene). On speaking with the soldier PC Barrett was told that he was 'waiting for a chum who had gone with a girl.' 4. Tabram's time of death was estimated at 2.30 am. This means that the soldier seen by PC Barrett who stated that his 'chum had gone with a girl' was a mere 30 minutes before the estimated time of death. 5. The method of killing bore no resemblance whatever to the subsequent Ripper murders, i.e. the throat was not cut, there were 38 stab wounds apparently inflicted with an ordinary pocket knife and one (fatal) stab wound through the sternum possibly inflicted by a dagger or 1888 pattern sword bayonet. It is easy to imagine an enraged client, probably fuelled by drink, attacking Tabram when she either tried to steal from him or refused his advances. These are my thoughts on this murder and, in my opinion, the most likely scenario.

The theories on the identity of Jack the Ripper are as diverse as the theorists themselves. As the mystery of the identity of the Whitechapel murderers will never be solved the field is ripe for hypothesis, speculation and opinion. A good aspect of all this theorising is that it leads to closer examination of what records have survived and more detailed research into all the players in the drama. The theory of a sailor as Jack the Ripper is not new and is, in fact, as old as the murders themselves. A great early exponent of this idea was E. K. Larkins of H.M. Customs who wrote a detailed thesis that included the timetables of the ships he believed were involved. It is great to see sensible discussion of the Ripper case - perhaps some more minor mysteries will be solved here.

Interesting post Chris. As you note, I do not think that Anderson provides the answer to the Ripper mystery, he simply adds many minor mysteries. Unfortunately Anderson does little for his own case when he writes in such an overbearing and dogmatic manner. His words convey the hidden message 'do not disagree with me - I know what I am talking about.' But he does provide ample material for the theorists to get to work with and his importance cannot be gainsaid. An immense influence on Ripperworld. Stewart