 
BOOK TITLE

Squaring The Circle

Will the real Jack the Ripper

Please Stand Up!

By

Alan Razen.

Text copyright © 2017 Alan Razen

All Rights Reserved.

Smashwords Edition
CONTENTS

Introduction

An Overview of the Crimes:

The Victims, the Evidence and the Investigation

The Truth Will Out

References & Bibliography

Appendix

Postscript
INTRODUCTION

Jack the Ripper must be the most infamous serial killer in the history of the world. With the possible exception of a few remote indigenous tribes hidden deep within the unexplored regions of the Earth, there cannot be many people who have not heard this chilling moniker. Over the 130 years since the crimes were committed the mystery has grown exponentially into a vast and lucrative industry; through every form and avenue of popular media, entertainment and tourism – and despite far worse atrocities known to have been perpetrated, both before and since – it remains the most compulsive criminal outrage of all time. A truly horrific crime, its legend has been promoted, exploited and practically romantically glorified in modern times. It is strange how time softens our view of history: pirates would be another example. Perhaps in another 130 years we will be teaching our young children about the cheeky exploits of naughty Jack... Actually, I think Johnny Depp has already done that; well, not quite.

So, what is the big attraction? Well, of course, there is always the human failing of fascination with the morbid and macabre. But, ultimately, it is the greatest whodunnit ever created. From sweet old ladies to clergymen, philanthropists to royalty, even the great and the good have taken an unhealthy interest in it. I am, of course, no exception. It is a peculiar preoccupation of us humans to revel in the misfortune of others; it is a kind of suspension of our sense of morality, ethics and repugnance of all things otherwise offensive, which allows us to derive enjoyment from such an abomination. In many ways, this is perhaps the same accommodation of the socially unacceptable – albeit, twisted and perverted – that a psychopathic mind utilises in order to justify the actions of its owner. What seems inexplicable to a normal person is quite natural and perfectly reasonable behaviour to them.

Even as a lifelong writer of both fiction and non-fiction titles (under various pseudonyms), I honestly never imagined I would one day write a book about Jack the Ripper. And what I most certainly did not remotely consider was that I would actually solve this enigmatic case, which has confounded so many others, many much more capable than I – for 130 years. Yes, I did say I have solved it! Of course, you are (no doubt) highly sceptical at this stage; probably having "fits" like the Ripper. After all, we have all heard it before: 'The Final Solution', 'The Simple Truth', 'They All Love Jack', 'Naming Jack the Ripper', 'Chasing the Ripper', even 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper'; and a plethora of other books, together with television documentaries and dramatisations, film and theatre productions. So many claim to have solved this perplexing case, and yet, none have managed to completely convince. Not even modern police investigators or the FBI have been able to shed much in the way of a meaningful gleam of light upon the case. Not that I am claiming to present a fait accompli. I can only present what I have discovered and draw the obvious conclusions. But be assured, this is will come as a monumental realisation – it certainly did for me. And if you want to know who Jack the Ripper was, then you need to read this entire book: I promise the answer is here.

So, what is special about this researcher you ask yourself? Actually, nothing really, I just got lucky. I suppose someone had to do it, sooner or later, and if I am nothing else, I am thorough. I do have well-honed proof-reading skills as a result of my previous profession. I also have considerable experience in genealogical research, which, as anyone who has ever tried it, takes an enormous amount of perseverance and, though anyone can do it, like anything, the more you practice, the better you become; the more little "tricks" one learns to enable "stubborn" listings to be found, while ensuring that identifications made are fully cross-referenced with other records, where necessary – it is an art in leaving no stone unturned. Admittedly, I have relied on other authors in regards to the pre-known case details, but have used multiple sources, collating them all together and then summarizing it all.

I suspect that the new material that I have gathered has at least in part been overlooked because the original police, court and newspaper records are riddled with typographic errors, which have contributed to keeping Ripperologists off the scent. As for the Victorian police, that's harder to excuse. Unless, of course, they did know, but couldn't or didn't act for reasons we shall probably never know; with so much missing from the official records, it's impossible to now know – convenient, perhaps? [See 'Postscript'.]

Strangely enough, until 2008, I hadn't even read a book on the subject, though I had seen some theatrical productions, (e.g. 'From Hell') and – a little more worthwhile – some excellent documentaries. I read Philip Sugden's 'The Complete History...' in 2008 and concluded that the case was unsolvable: the killer was probably a completely unknown non-descript at the time; consequently, it would now be impossible to identify the man (or men) involved. The likes of John Pizer, James Kelly and Walter Sickert to James Maybrick, William Gull and the Duke of Clarence – and many many more – have been forwarded as suspects, with highly convincing reasoning provided to rationalize the particular pet theory. The biggest problem with all of these is an inability to associate any of the suspects to any of the crime scenes, or produce any substantial circumstantial evidence. There are some quite brilliant hypotheses. Ultimately, though, it is all largely rather tenuous: not quite convincing. There have been some inspired suggestions, such as Charles Lechmere, William Bury, Joseph Barnett and Robert Mann. But they are all wrong.

I now have a small library of Jack the Ripper books and have studied the subject in depth [see the Reference section at the end of this book, which is by no means exhaustive]. I have used these resources to aid my research; some of these books are essential reading: anything by Donald Rumbelow, Paul Begg, Philip Sugden and Trevor Marriott (to name but a few) are highly recommended to the would-be Ripperologist. Although, I will posit that they will not thank me for the endorsement. The book that really got my attention was by Bruce Robinson: 'They All Love Jack' – incidentally, I am not going to be suggesting anyone with the Maybrick surname. Previously, the Freemasonry angle had not seemed all that convincing, but Robinson's thesis is genius and required an immense amount of tedious research over a long period. I bow to him and his like. In fact, without all the aforementioned authors, as well as many others, no one – least of all I – would know "diddley-squat" about the Ripper case. Even some of the material and photographs we all now pore over, might not exist today were it not for their efforts.

Robinson's book re-awakened my interest in the Ripper case after about 8 years of slumber. Initially, I was convinced and found the book impossible to put down. Robinson has come in for a lot of stick, but a great deal of what he brings to the attention is, if nothing else, extremely intriguing. Yet, no I am not suggesting that Freemasonry had anything whatsoever to do with it. Some weeks after finishing his book, I started having doubts about Robinson's theory. Rather ironically, one of the issues that made me rethink the theory was one I ultimately rejected. Nonetheless, it had got me thinking.

I have never considered myself a lucky person, but just this once I think I may just have hit the jackpot. For some time I had been looking at the case from the same perspective everyone else has. I decided that the only place – if it existed at all – that I could find a solution, was from the letters: the Ripper may have written some of them and there might be a clue in there, which thousands of other people have missed. I quickly realised that this was the pursuit of a fool, having found something that seemed too good not to be true, only to discover that it was utter rubbish. Bang went my avenue of research; but I kept thinking. Then, one night, lying in bed, I suddenly had an epiphany: what if all this time, everyone has been looking at certain aspects of this case from completely the wrong direction? What if a steaming pile of red herrings were distracting everyone from the truth? There were little snippets of information that I had stumbled over in other people's research and theories, which suddenly started to coalesce into something quite startling. The solution to this puzzle has been staring us all in the face since 1888 and throughout the last 130 years. There is no shame in this, for like any good mystery, when it is resolved it suddenly all seems so obvious, so simple. The evidence has been sitting there in the public records all that time, available for anyone to find; if only you knew who and what to look for. That said, the fact that the crucial damning piece of evidence, as well as a number of other nuggets, has survived, is incredible; moreover, the chances that any of it existed at all was (in itself) somewhat fortuitous. Once you open your mind to the possibility, the records just spill their guts right into the metaphorical lap. Remarkably, the name that I was "expecting to find" wasn't the one I found – although, if I am truly honest, I never genuinely thought I would find anything – but it was just as good. When I saw it, I nearly fell off my chair. And that was how a lot of the research results struck me: I could not believe what I was finding. Amazingly, I was even able to find a link to the 1891 Carrie Brown murder in New York. Everything just seems to fit together with a kind of beautiful – albeit, unpalatable – synchronicity. Be sure, though, I have rigorously checked all possibilities, only to arrive at the same destination. I have explained the process in some depth in the 'Appendix'.

Hopefully, I have now got the reader on the edge of their chair, like me, ready to fall off. Of course, I'm not going to just blurt it all out, though I have wanted to for some considerable time – I haven't been sleeping well. I want to feed this proposition to you just like a whodunnit novel, albeit rather more concisely. I know you are thinking this is all hype and it's going to be an almighty anticlimax, but don't lose faith. There is caveat, of course: it is impossible for anyone to definitely prove the identity of Jack the Ripper.

However, there is a surprising amount of material that has survived from the time, without which it wouldn't be so prominently in the public awareness, though most people would not realise. We cannot make a case that will stand up in a modern court. Some leap of imagination is required to fill-in the gaps. The anchor-points need to be there, but there is a limit to what can be extracted from the surviving records. I can honestly say, though, that I at no time ran across anything that caused me to have more than a momentary doubt.

Had it been realised who was responsible at the time, then other evidence could perhaps have been acquired. It is far too late for that now: no amount of dubious DNA testing is going to settle the argument. If there is any undiscovered material relating to the case still to reveal itself, frankly, I doubt that it will make much difference. They would have had an uphill struggle proving the case in 1888 without modern detection techniques and forensics. They didn't even use finger-printing at that time.

All that anyone can offer this mystery is a plausible suspect [or suspects – there may have been an accomplice –] and some meaningful connection to the crimes. There is pretty nearly as much circumstantial evidence as anyone could reasonably hope to have survived in the public records. What will undoubtedly infuriate all of those dedicated Ripperologists of the past is how easily I found the answer: I never had to leave the confines of my home. But I could not have done it without the internet; the online resources available today [some only relatively recently] make the task so much easier. Anyone could have done it. Some of the material is available free of charge; however, a short (inexpensive) membership of certain websites is a must. Given that, and ample determination to trawl through tens of thousands of document images, anyone can check my findings. It didn't even take that long – days, in fact! Plus: lots of coffee, pain-killers and patience. It is quite staggering actually. [I did need to purchase a few documents to enable me to round-off the story.]

Moreover, there are no half-baked plot-lines, no bizarre rationales, no suspect selected with a pin and a blindfold; in short, nothing outrageous, beyond the crimes themselves. The culprits are, in a way, terribly mundane – pun intended. Meanwhile, the question of 'why?' cannot be adequately answered. I will advance some views in respect of the motive and underlying cause, but that can only ever be speculation.

The Ripper was not some complete unknown; he was not someone famous. He was someone who has always had a connection to the case. Many of the views relating to the killer's identity – all the way back to 1888 – were surprisingly well-informed, yet overlooked at the time. The main clues have been in the public domain all along, glaring menacingly at the downtrodden Ripperologist. It was all just down to the smoke and mirrors, the London fog, the darkness of the Victorian streets, the inabilities of the police, the incompetence and propriety of the many officials involved in the investigation process; the ignorance and lack of compassion amongst the ruling class, and basically, the "I'm alright Jack" attitude of those not affected – which sadly still prevails in our modern age – all of which have conspired to allow the Ripper to fade into the shadows like some frightful faceless phantom. But most of all it was the unbelievable audacity and associated unconscionable luck that often seems to facilitate the serial killer in their objective. Their inextricable motives are beyond the comprehension of any normal person and are, therefore, inaccessible. This is why so many have not been caught, and when they are it is (more often than not) by chance. Hoaxers perpetually hinder the investigations. Even in modern times, killers have slipped through the police net on numerous occasions: the Yorkshire Ripper – who managed to murder at least 13 women over a 5 year period – would be a prime example of that. The victims are effectively chosen at random because they are deemed vulnerable; the killer may have some axe to grind with a particular type of woman: prostitutes are favourites. Ultimately, their crimes are driven by an overwhelming need to kill the object of their misguided hatred. They may have a voice in their head compelling them to do it.

This case has also been hampered by a range of baffling, though utterly meaningless, coincidences: some of them real, some of them created. I very nearly contributed to this catalogue – I will explain this later as it serves to show how easily completely unconnected or non-existent "clues" can take hold of someone, and if they run with it, it may lead to some totally misleading conclusions. To be fair, that could be said of many a theory until it is proven. This new theory of mine, however, has such a litany of potential coincidence that one must ask oneself the question: how many straightforward [not convoluted] coincidences do you need before concluding that they must equate with hard circumstantial evidence; meaningful pointers to the guilty?

I know that there will be dissenters. I expect those with a vested interest to attempt to unpick what I have done, but I also know that they will have their work cut out because there is just too much stitching – and not the usual stitch-up. There will always be those who wish to remain in denial or prefer to concoct a theory of their own – and why not? Despite being of the belief that I have solved this mystery (as far as anyone ever could), I think there is still plenty of room for further research; this case can never be closed. I may have caught the culprit(s), but I haven't managed to put their head(s) in the noose: after all, they carried on with their lives, got away with it and are now long dead.

Finally and incidentally, in the course of writing this book, a suspect proposed by someone relatively recently in their book, was breathtakingly close – although I have not been able to find this particular individual in the public records. They so nearly beat me to the prize. I had been unaware of this until I started writing. Perhaps, inevitably, the Ripper mystery had always been coming ever closer to being solved.

Now it is!
AN OVERVIEW OF THE CRIMES:

THE VICTIMS, THE EVIDENCE & THE INVESTIGATION

Before launching into my analysis of the newly identified evidence and my associated theories, it is naturally appropriate to appraise the reader of all the pertinent details: 'pertinent' being the operative word. Incidentally, I would recommend using Booth's 1889 Poverty Map, which is a free online resource: it will aid understanding of the geography of the Whitechapel area and put the crime-scene locations into correlative perspective. Don't use a modern map, as many locations no longer exist or have changed their names.

Anyone who has had a more than a passing interest in this subject will most assuredly already have a reasonable familiarity with much of the case, at the very least. I do not wish to bore or insult the intelligence of the experienced Ripperologist, so I have tried to compile all of the important information into a format which I have not previously encountered, and that is to

correlate all of the details together into a summarised form that is both accessible and useful to anyone, irrespective of their fore-knowledge of the case. What I have done is to omit all superfluous information – e.g. the personal history of the victims – and avoid wandering off at tangents. Such material can be very interesting, providing an insight into the lives of the desperately unfortunate people involved, but it adds nothing to the understanding of the case. I also wanted to provide a continuity of information about each potential victim – whose backgrounds are mostly irrelevant – and only include the witnesses that have some credibility or potential significance; although that could be viewed as rather subjective, I can honestly say that I have not cherry-picked them for the purposes of proving my theory, not least of all because I do not require any of them.

Some of the women may have known eachother to some extent or another, but that is just a consequence of their living in the same community, visiting the same public facilities (e.g. pubs, dosshouses) and being in the same business for essentially the same reasons – it is to be expected.

There was no high level conspiracy and certainly no Masonic overtones. All of this type of detail has always been a distraction from the truth hiding in plain sight. If there was any "conspiracy" to protect the perpetrator(s) it was certainly an unconscious one driven by a desire to protect innocent people. Basically, while everyone was watching the right-hand, the magician that was the Ripper was wielding his knife in the left [not literally, though – I don't actually know which was his dominant hand]. I hope that whatever anyone thinks about what this book is saying, it will still be a useful resource to the amateur Ripperologist who just wants to work it out for their self. The expert among you could skip the first section, detailing all the victims, etc. If you want the case served up in infinite detail, with an exhaustive examination of the minutiae, then there is an abundance of existing books which already do that perfectly well – see my references, et al.

Emma Elizabeth Smith

(3rd April 1888 – Easter Monday)

Emma Smith was a forty-five year old widow (and prostitute), who appears to have abandoned her children. She was pretty down on her luck and living in a common lodging house at 18 George Street (which ran between Flower & Dean Street and Wentworth Street).

At about 1.30 a.m. she had been wandering down Whitechapel High Street, when she spotted ahead of her two or three men [one apparently looked about nineteen] standing near to Saint Mary's church [which no longer exists; now (somewhat ironically) the site of Altab Ali Park]. She may have been intoxicated. Crossing the road to avoid them – it was a rough area; we don't know whether she had any particular reason – she turned into Osborn Street, when they began following her.

Osborn Street leads into Brick Lane, where, opposite no. 10 (not far from her lodgings [close to a Taylor Brothers' cocoa factory]) she was attacked and robbed; in the course of this attack an "object" [blunt instrument] was rammed into her vagina; she was also beaten about the head.

Despite surviving the immediate attack, she was seriously injured and peritonitis quickly took hold. She died in hospital the next morning. Emma was reticent to provide details of her attackers, but was reported as claiming she had been attacked by a group or gang of men. She was also reported to have been seen with a man at 12.15 a.m. by an associate, Margaret Hayes, in the Bow Common area. Hayes claimed to have been fleeing an attack by two men herself.

This murder did not provoke any particular concern from the police or within the local community; it was treated as normal gang related violence, which was so prevalent at the time.

Martha Tabram

(7th August 1888 – Tuesday, following a Bank holiday)

Martha Tabram was a thirty-nine year old rather itinerant individual. Probably a regular heavy drinker, she squandered what little money came her way, consequently having to rely on willing men to supplement her financially, basically through prostitution.

On the Monday evening (of the 6th April), she

apparently went out drinking at around 7 to 8 p.m. At 10 p.m. she entered a pub at 154 Brick Lane with a drinking partner friend (Mary Ann Connolly) and two recently acquired consorts: soldiers – a corporal and a private. They subsequently frequented various pubs in Whitechapel. At 11.45 p.m. the two women separated with their respective clients, Connolly proceeding to take the corporal up the rather euphemistically [under the circumstances] named Angel Alley [which ran parallel with Osborn Street, connecting it to Wentworth Street and Whitechapel High Street – it was the next turning down from Osborn Street, off either Wentworth Street or the High Street]. Connolly quickly concluded her business, leaving the corporal at the corner of George Yard (which was the next turning down from Angel Alley) at 12.15 a.m. He was observed to be heading towards Aldgate, but may have been the Grenadier who was spotted lingering in Wentworth Street by PC Barrett at about 2 a.m. and who claimed he was waiting for his mate.

George Yard Buildings were situated in the north-east corner of George Yard, a narrow alley running between Wentworth Street and the High

Street, which was the next turning down from Angel Alley and backed onto Toynbee Hall [Bruce Robinson had this establishment as the centre of operations for his suspect]. This was a tenement block in a very poor area. At about 3.30 a.m. a witness entered the entrance of the stairwell accessing 35 George Yard Buildings, went up the same stairs the previous witness had at 1.30 a.m. – when she saw nothing untoward – and discovered the body of a woman laying on the 1st-floor landing, but assumed she was drunk/asleep, as this was a common occurrence. At 4.50 a.m. a tenant with a room at no. 37, was leaving on his way to go to work when he found Tabram's body lying in a pool of blood. He immediately ran for a PC.

A Dr Killeen performed the post-mortem at the mortuary at Old Montague Street. Tabram had been stabbed 39 times, including once in the heart, seven times to the lungs, six in the stomach and two in the spleen. The breasts, abdomen and

vagina had also been targeted. It was concluded that she was wounded by a penknife, although a larger blade may have been used to make a wound at the chest-bone. She was adjudged not

to have had sexual intercourse recently to her death, despite the legs being parted – where a good deal of blood was present. The time of death was estimated to be between 2.30 and 2.45 a.m. Tabram, [as with the later Annie Chapman,] may have been strangled or suffocated prior to the knife attack: she also had a protruding tongue. However, judging the time of death from the witness observation times would put it nearer 3.30 a.m.

Although this murder was committed under cover, it was still in a public place: anyone could have been coming or going while the attack was in progress. What is more, there was only one route of escape, which could easily have been cut off.

Mary Ann Nichols

(31st August 1888 – Friday)

Mary Nichols was a forty-three year old prostitute. On the night of her murder, she had

been out drinking and having spent all of her money, she could not afford a bed at a lodging house in Thrawl Street, where she had stayed

previously. [She may also have been using a place in Flower & Dean Street.] It would appear that she subsequently went in search of a client in order to earn the four pence she needed. She had last been seen alive at 2.30 a.m. and was found laying dead in the street, by stable gates, at 3.45 a.m. in Buck's Row [which ran at a right angle between Brady Street and what was Baker's Row – later Vallance Road – and is now known as Durward Street] by Charles Cross [aka Lechmere]; shortly after, Robert Paul was walking down Buck's Row in the same direction as Cross. Cross (who was crouching over the body,) on hearing him approaching, waited until Paul was passing him – Paul thought Cross might be about to attack him – before calling him over to have a look. Because it was so dark in that spot, they could not see that she had been brutally attacked, despite being on her back with her clothes raised above her waist. Cross was of the opinion that she was dead; Paul believed he detected faint signs of life and wanted to move her. Cross refused to touch her, so they decided to continue on their way to work, while looking for a policeman. It has been suggested that Cross was the murderer because he was acting suspiciously next to the body; I would suggest that he's behaviour may have been shamefully voyeuristic – but he should have been suspect number one, anyhow. It should be noted that Charles Cross lied to the police. His real name was Charles Allen Lechmere; although he had used the name 'Cross' in the past, this was not the name he was using at the time.

It was probably very soon after that PC Neil discovered Nichols' body. He shone his lamp on her: it was apparent to him that she was dead. Blood was oozing from a wound to her throat. Neil touched her skin to find that she was still quite warm. She must have been killed just minutes before Cross found her and it is reasonable to assume that she was killed on that spot.

By the time Inspector Spratling arrived at the scene, the body had already been taken to the mortuary at Old Montague Street. There he found the body still on the "ambulance" [basically, a cart] because the mortuary was locked; shortly

after, Robert Mann [mortuary attendant] arrived with the keys and Nichols' was placed on a slab

inside. At 6.46 a.m. Inspector Helson was

informed of the event: he went straight to the mortuary. On arrival, he found Mann and his co-worker (James Hatfield) already stripping the body, contrary to the instruction given by a DS Enright (at about 6.30 a.m.) that the body should not be touched.

Dr Llewellyn and an assistant conducted a full post-mortem at 10 a.m. Her face was bruised on both sides, probably due to being punched or violently held by the face – or both; also, she had a bruise on the left side of the neck and an abrasion on the right. These were recent injuries. There were two cuts to the throat of four and eight inches in length, both penetrating to the vertebrae. There was some bruising about the trunk. On the abdomen – two to three inches in from the left – a very deep, jagged wound had been inflicted; there were several shallower cuts across the abdomen and three or four cuts running downward on the right. The doctor concluded that a sharp knife had been used, possibly by someone who was left-handed, who may have had some basic anatomical knowledge,

(as all of the vital parts had been attacked). No organs or other body parts were reported as

missing. The killer may have removed a ring from a finger.

Llewellyn estimated death as being about 3.50 a.m. and that the attack would have taken only four to five minutes. He was of the opinion that the killer had held his right hand across her mouth and slashed the throat with the left. He did not think the blade of the weapon was particularly long, but pointed, with a stout back.

This attack was less risky than it first appears. Although it was a very open area, it was also so dark that Cross and Paul could not see anything until they were practically on top of it. The killer would have had ample warning from the sound of footsteps, which is likely what spooked him when Cross entered the narrow lane leading to the open area by the stable doors. The Ripper would need only to have nipped around the corner into Court Street [which no longer exists] and rapidly disappeared into the night. That said, had someone come from any other direction, the Ripper would have had to make a run for it. And,

although Cross did not hear anyone, the killer could have worn "silent shoes". This is not an

invention of mine, because the police were issued with such footwear – albeit rather late in the day – because it was realised that plodding policemen, uniform or plain-clothes, could be heard a country-mile away.

Annie Chapman

(8th September 1888 – Saturday)

For the first time, there is a witness to the possible perpetrator. Forty-seven year old Annie was (probably) last seen alive at about 5.30 a.m. in the company of a man, close to 29 Hanbury Street (which ran from Commercial Street, eventually joining up with Whitechapel High Street, via Great Garden Street); it was a three-storied house not far from her lodgings, which was situated about mid-way between the Wood Street [now Wilkes Street] turning and the Brick Lane turning.

Annie was an alcoholic prostitute who, (like Nichols,) had gone in search of a client in order to acquire the price of a bed for the night at her

lodgings in 35 Dorset Street (which was off Commercial Street, opposite Christ Church, Spitalfields). The man was described by

Mrs Long as slightly taller than Annie (who was about five foot), of a dark complexion (possibly foreign); he was over forty and of "shabby genteel" appearance, wearing a brown deerstalker hat [shame it wasn't Sherlock Holmes]. She did not think she would be able to recognise him if she saw him again.

After this, timings become a little confused: Albert Cadoch, who lived at 27 Hanbury Street, went into his backyard at about 5.25 a.m., passing the five-foot six-inch wooden fence separating his yard from the yard at 29 Hanbury Street, whereupon he heard voices close by. He believed he heard the word "No!" He then returned to the house briefly before leaving for work about three to four minutes later at about 5.29 a.m. At this time he heard a noise which sounded like something falling against the fence. Unfortunately, he did not look over to see what was happening. He passed Christ Church at about 5.32 a.m.

The witness for the 5.30 a.m. sighting was a Mrs Elizabeth Long. She had been walking down Hanbury Street towards Spitalfields' Market. According to her she heard the brewery clock

strike 5.30 a.m. as she passed 29 Hanbury Street (on the same side) where a man and woman were talking loudly. She overheard the man say "Will you?" and the woman reply "Yes." She never looked back. Subsequently, Annie must have gone into 29 Hanbury Street, via the unlocked front door – a communal entrance regularly left open – down the hallway and out through the rear door into the yard; the yard gate was locked. Apparently, this was a known site for the partaking of immoral behaviour.

Clearly there is a discrepancy between the two witness timings. A possible resolution for this is to presume that Mrs Long heard the clock strike 5.15, not 5.30. Another witness had sat on the steps at the rear door of 29 Hanbury Street, which opened onto the yard, at about 4.45 a.m. He saw and heard nothing. Chapman's body was found at about 6 a.m. by John Davis; she was laying on her back in line with the space between the back door steps of 29 Hanbury Street and the yard separating-fence [a narrow space about the width of a body], with her head towards the house about six inches from the bottom step. Her clothing was pulled up to her knees; her face was covered in blood.

At approximately 6.30 a.m. Dr George Bagster Phillips arrived, estimating death as having occurred at around two to three hours earlier. Obviously, this cannot be correct. It was a cold morning, which would have affected the body's temperature, especially as it was essentially exsanguinated. Phillips seems to have made a lot of poor judgements during his involvement in the Ripper case – for a full inventory, please refer to Bruce Robinson's book 'They All Love Jack'.

Phillips examination of the body at the scene revealed that the throat had a deep, jagged cut right the way around the neck; the tongue was swollen and protruded between the front lips, although not beyond [exactly as with Tabram]. Some bruising of the face was noted, but later found to have been pre-existing. Her legs were drawn up, with the knees turned outwards, both feet on the ground. Her head was facing away from the fence. A flap of skin covering her belly had been removed. The whole of the small intestines, along with other tissue, had been pulled out of the body and placed over the right shoulder, but were still attached. Two other pieces of the belly skin and the pubes had been placed above the left shoulder, sitting in a large

pool of blood.

Phillips concluded that one very sharp knife had been used, with a thin narrow blade at least six to eight inches long. A knife utilised for post-mortem purposes or by a slaughter-man was inferred to have been used. He cited that there were signs of anatomical knowledge.

When the body had been removed, Inspector Chandler made a search of the yard. The following is a list of what he found: a piece of coarse muslin; a piece of paper used to contain two pills – this was part of some medicine she had obtained from the hospital; she had wrapped the pills in the paper (an envelope), when the box they had been held in disintegrated; it had no connection to the crime – and a small comb in a paper case. These items seem to have been carefully placed by the body. Her rings were missing and never found – they had no value: the Ripper may have taken these as a trophy. Robbery could not be a motive for the attack, nor would it make sense to attempt to fake it as robbery. Some newspaper reports stated that a polished farthing was found under the body, but this does not appear in the police records and is

just another red herring gleefully donated by the press. The media had a lot to answer for; but so did everyone.

The post-mortem was conducted by Phillips at about 2 p.m. at the mortuary in Old Montague Street, as with Nichols and Tabram. A nurse had removed the clothes from the corpse, except for the handkerchief around her neck. Robert Mann was present, but seems to have had little to do with it. The nurse and an assistant washed the blood off the body. The clothes had been placed in the corner of the shed [mortuary].

Phillips deduced that the incisions in the neck had been made from the left side; she had been almost decapitated. This was deemed to be the cause of death, although she may have been partially suffocated, just prior. The abdomen had been completely opened up. The intestines were separated from the mesentery and had been lifted from the body to be placed on the shoulder. From the pelvic area, the uterus with appendages, along with the upper part of the vagina and about two-thirds of the bladder had been completely removed. This appeared to have been done with precision, avoiding the rectum, while dividing

the vagina so as to avoid damage to the cervix uteri. It was determined that this was the work of either an expert or at least someone with anatomical knowledge, (or someone with experience of pathological examinations). Phillips reasoned that a knife with a narrow blade of at least five to six inches in length was used and that the organs were removed with a single sweep: he did not think it was something a pathologist would use; a well-ground slaughter man's knife might fit the bill. He estimated that the whole procedure would have taken at least fifteen minutes and the material removed could have fitted into a vessel the size of a cup: quite an achievement.

This was the most audacious of the murders committed in the open, in that it was much later in the morning, when it was starting to get light. Perhaps the Ripper was delayed that morning before beginning his hunt or had struggled to find a suitable victim. It was an extremely risky location: the only route of escape was either through the house or over the wall, gate or fencing. Had someone come out into the back yard during the attack, the Ripper would have had a serious problem. Anyone could have

looked out of a window either side of the yard and raised the alarm.

Elizabeth Stride

(30th September 1888 – Sunday)

Lizzie Stride (age forty-four) was probably observed at 11 p.m. on the Saturday leaving a pub with a man in Settles Street (off Commercial Road East – now the A13), at which time it was raining hard. There were a number of witnesses to Stride being in Berner Street [now Henriques Street], some genuine, some probably lying or mistaken. At the time she had been lodging at 32 Flower & Dean Street. She may have worked as a cleaner for Jews. She had led a colourful life and was likely an occasional prostitute.

Matthew Packer sold fruit and vegetables through a bottom window of his home at 44 Berner Street and claimed to have sold some grapes [another red herring] to a man who was with a woman he later identified as Stride. There are a number of issues with Packer's story, not least of all that when originally interviewed by Sergeant White at 9 a.m. on the day of the murder he claimed to have shut up shop at 12.30

a.m. on account of the heavy rain, as consequentially, unlike the rain, business had dried-up and he had seen nobody [or words to that effect]. However, later, probably as a result of inducement by two private detectives (hired by the 'Mile End Vigilance Committee' of Mr Lusk fame,) and known as Messrs Grand and Batchelor, Packer changed his story. [Grand had numerous aliases and was in fact a wanted criminal.]

So, subsequently he claimed to have sold some grapes to a couple at 11.45 p.m. who proceeded to loiter in the vicinity of Berner Street in the pouring rain until 12.15 a.m. when Packer closed up shop and lost sight of them. They would have been soaked to their skins. There were newspaper reports of other witnesses supposedly corroborating Packer's story, but the police were never able to satisfactorily assure themselves that Packer was speaking the truth; for one, when Stride's body was examined at the scene at 1.15 a.m. her clothes were dry. There are various conflicting reports surrounding the scene of Stride's murder relating to grape seeds and skins, among other inconsistencies. Bruce Robinson made a lot of this in his book and preferred

Packer over another witness, Israel Schwartz. Frankly, the whole grapes thing is only relevant if you believe Packer. So, for the record, this was his description of the man: middle-aged (perhaps thirty-five) of about five-feet seven-inches, square build and stout; he wore a "wide-awake" hat and dark clothes with an appearance of a clerk, with a harsh voice.

There were a number of other apparent sightings, but it is very unclear as to whether it was even Stride they saw. The only other meaningful sighting of the potential Ripper was by Israel Schwartz, who for reasons unknown did not attend the inquest – or at least it was not reported – so we only have newspaper reports and some rather obscure comments written in retirement by the then Chief Inspector, Donald Swanson.

Schwartz had been returning home via Berner Street having turned into it from Commercial Road. Some distance ahead of him a man was walking as though half-cut. Schwartz walked on behind him, subsequently noticing a woman standing at the entrance to an alley (Dutfield's Yard); it had a gated entrance which was open at the time (12.45 a.m.) It gave access (among other

things) to a Jewish working man's club. Schwartz stated that the man put his hand on the woman's shoulder and pushed the woman (assumed to be Stride) into the passage (or threw her down); she screamed, but not loudly. Schwartz had looked back on hearing a quarrel, at which point he saw a second man emerge from a pub on the corner, lighting a pipe. Someone then shouted "Lipski": the name of a Jewish murderer from the previous year, the name being briefly used as a term of abuse against Jews. Schwartz looked distinctly Jewish, so reasonably presumed the remark was directed at him. Schwartz responded by speeding up his pace; he then thought that the man who had emerged from the pub began following him, so he started running; the man apparently took chase, but gave up after a short time.

Schwartz probably did see Stride's killer, although there was a witness who claimed to have come to her door in Berner Street, close to the yard entrance, at 12.50 a.m. and saw nothing other than Leon Goldstein hurrying past carrying his black bag. But Stride could have already have been dead. Schwartz described the man as about thirty, stoutly built with a brown moustache. He

was respectably dressed in dark clothes and wore a felt hat. There is reason to believe that the police regarded Schwarz to have observed an "Englishman", which probably didn't sit well with them and did contradict the description given by Mrs Long of Chapman's probable killer. They may have preferred to believe he was a foreigner.

It was a Louis Diemshutz who discovered the body of Stride. He entered the yard no later than 1.05 a.m. riding his pony-drawn cart; the pony shied away from the right and he observed what he thought was a pile of dirt, which on lighting a match turned out to be the body of a woman... Dr Blackwell was first to examine the body at the scene and estimated death to have occurred between 12.45 to 1 a.m. I think it prudent to presume this to be correct. I believe Paul Begg's contention is correct that Stride was grabbed by the scarf, pulling her back and exposing the throat, while simultaneously cutting it cleanly in a single swipe. A six inch wound started on the left side of the neck, terminating on the right side an inch below the jaw. She was found laying on her back with her legs drawn up and leant against the wall. It was a swift death.

This was yet another audacious murder, but was it the Ripper? There were no mutilations, but the killer may have been disturbed by Diemshutz approach or spooked by Schwartz. We cannot know. What is known is that he disappeared like a puff of smoke.

Catherine Eddowes

(30th September 1888 – Sunday)

On the same night as the Stride murder, another woman was attacked in a completely different area, just outside the Whitechapel district. This time the Ripper was definitely at work, executing the worst horror, so far. This time the Ripper finally makes a bad mistake, but still gets away with it.

Catherine (Kate) was a forty-six year old drunkard, who lived from day to day, often resorting to prostitution to finance her drinking habit. She had been detained earlier in the evening at Bishopsgate Police Station for essentially being drunken and disorderly. She was left to sober up and released at 1 a.m. On being discharged she bizarrely had given her

name as Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street, although she was known to be residing at the common lodging house at 55 Flower & Dean Street. Incidentally, Eddowes may have done cleaning work for Jews.

Nothing is known about what Kate was doing between leaving the police station at 1 a.m. and the most important witness sighting of them all: Joseph Lawende (aka Lavender), who was a commercial traveller in the cigarette trade and lived at 45 Norfolk Road, Dalston, Hackney; he reputedly had business premises at Saint Mary Axe, on the corner of Bury Street. His employer's premises are believed to have been at 99 Fenchurch Street [which has been erroneously reported as 79 Fenchurch Street]. That night, he and two friends (Joseph Levy and Harry Harris,) had been enjoying an evening at the Imperial Club at 16-17 Duke Street. It had been raining heavily that evening, so the three friends had delayed leaving the club; Lawende had glanced at the clock in the club and checked it against his own watch on leaving the club: it was 1.35 a.m.

Outside in Duke Street, about thirty feet away [one source has this as sixteen to seventeen feet],

were a man and a woman standing by the entrance to Church Passage – this provided access to Mitre Square – which ran at a right angle to Duke Street. Lawende was walking a little ahead of his companions. Apparently, Levy had said sometime previously that Mitre Square should be watched, so he gave more of his attention to the couple than he might otherwise have done. The woman stood facing the man, so he could not see her face, but noted that she was wearing a black jacket and bonnet. Later, he believed that he had been observing Kate Eddowes. The man appeared taller than Kate and wore a peaked cloth cap [inquest description]; he looked rough and shabby [was added by the press]. He stated that he did not think he would recognise the man again. The couple had seemed to be acting in a friendly manner. Once passed them, he did not look back. Joseph Levy said that he was on the other side of the road to the couple, didn't think them suspicious and paid them no attention.

At 1.30 a.m. PC Watkins passed through Mitre Square as part of his beat; he told a journalist he had entered the square via Mitre Street, turning his lamp in all directions – as it was very dark –

checking all the corners. He was adamant that he had seen nothing; if anyone had been there, he would have seen them. At about 1.35 a.m. PC James Harvey turned into Duke Street from the direction of Aldgate High Street; he walked to the entrance of Church Passage and then down to the end of it, where it joined Mitre Square, before returning to Duke Street and walking back toward Aldgate: he saw and heard nothing untoward. Meanwhile, PC Watkins returned to Mitre Square on completion of his round, it was now 1.45 a.m. He stopped at the entrance to scan Mitre Street in both directions before turning into the square, passing a picture frame shop. At the rear of the shop, he aimed his lamp light into the corner of the square: by the gates to a factory yard he spotted Eddowes prostrate body. He immediately knew that the Ripper had been at work; he was reported as saying: "she was ripped up like a pig in the market..." At no time had Watkins seen or heard anything other than his own footsteps.

Dr Frederick Brown, a London police surgeon, arrived at the Mitre Square murder scene at about 2 a.m. Eddowes was on her back with her head turned to the left. Her arms lay at the sides of her

body, splayed to about thirty degrees from the body, her palms upwards. The left leg was extended; the right leg bent at the thigh and knee. What was immediately obvious was that the throat was slit through and she had been laid open from the breastbone to the pubes. The cut to the throat ran from six to seven inches from the left ear to three to four inches below the right earlobe. Death would have been instantaneous. The Ripper had then proceeded to mutilate the face and abdomen. The intestines had been pulled out and deposited over her right shoulder. A piece of intestine about 2 feet long had been detached and laid between the body and the left arm – this appeared to be a deliberate act. Bleeding had been minimal, due to exsanguination from the neck wound; she was adduced to have died at about 1.40 a.m.

By the right hand was a thimble. Several buttons were found in the clotted blood by her neck and shoulder. There was a piece of red silk gauze on her neck with various cuts to it. She had upon her person (now scattered about her) a veritable "vagrancy kit": a bloodstained handkerchief and another white cotton handkerchief with a patterned border; a red and blue striped ticking

pocket; a piece of red flannel holding pins and needles; twelve pieces of white rag – some bloodstained; a triangular piece of coarse linen and blue/white shirting; two bed-ticking bags; two calico pockets with tape strings; a pair of stockings; two short clay pipes; a tin box containing tea, another, sugar; a piece of flannel; six pieces of soap; a small comb; a table knife; a metal teaspoon; a leather cigarette case; a tin matchbox – empty; a ball of hemp and a piece of old white apron.

Dr Brown performed his autopsy at 2.30 p.m. on the day of the murder at the mortuary in Golden Lane, City of London (Clerkenwell). When the body was carefully undressed, a piece of ear fell from the clothing. The face had been extensively mutilated: there was a quarter inch cut through the lower left eyelid, with a scratch to the upper eyelid; the right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch. From the bridge of the nose, running down the cheek (roughly diagonally) and ending in line with and just to the side of the lips, a deep cut had been inflicted. The tip of the nose had been detached. There was a cut running at forty-five degrees from the nasal septum, dividing the upper lip. There was a cut on each

cheek creating an inch and a half triangular flap of skin with an upward apex [this has been cited by some as having a freemasonry connotation]. There were also other minor cuts and abrasions to the face and ears – the piece that was cut off was probably an incidental injury. The throat was severed to about six to seven inches. The front walls of the abdomen were laid open from the breastbone to the pubes. The incision was jagged and upward. It began at the crease of the top of the right leg, extending down the crease of the thigh and diagonally, separating the labia and then running up the groin (creating a flap of skin,) through the abdomen, turning obliquely towards and under the belly button (which was left hanging on a flap of skin,) before roughly following the line of the sternum to the centre point of the clavicles.

To the greater extent the intestines had been detached from the mesentery; approximately two feet of colon was cut away. The S-shaped part of the large intestine leading back to the rectum was folded back on itself very tightly into the rectum. The liver had two incisions approximately two inches long. The pancreas had been cut; a piece of the spleen was cut through with only part

attached to the peritoneum. The peritoneal lining was cut on the left side and the left kidney removed – the left renal artery was severed. The uterus membrane was cut through and the womb divided, leaving a stump of less than an inch. The rest of the womb, along with some ligaments had been removed. The vagina and cervix were unaffected, with no sign of recent intercourse. The bladder was also uninjured.

Brown surmised that the throat was cut first, while Eddowes was on the ground – this was also thought to be the case with Nichols and Chapman. A sharp pointed knife of at least six inches had been used for the attack which would have taken about five minutes in all. He also noted that a piece of the woman's apron, (which was a part of her outer apparel,) had been cut or torn away. He considered it likely that the killer had some anatomical knowledge and would not have got much blood on his clothes.

The Goulston Street graffito

Goulston Street joined the Whitechapel High Street (where it met Aldgate High Street) and Wentworth Street, running parallel between

Commercial Street and Middlesex Street. In 1888 it contained mainly tenement dwellings; there were also a board-school and public baths on one side. On that side, at the Wentworth Road end, Wentworth (Model) Buildings were constructed in 1887. The other side of Goulston Street was mainly tenements known as Brunswick Buildings. Inside the entrance to the stairwell for 108 – 119 Wentworth Buildings was the location where the graffito was found on the night of Eddowes murder, along with a bloody piece of apron – definitively identified as coming from her apron. This has generated many theories, the best known relating to freemasonry [please refer to the books of Stephen Knight and Bruce Robinson].

The whole area around the murder scene in Mitre Square was searched soon after the discovery of Eddowes body – nothing was found. Goulston Street had been searched by DC Halse at 2.20 a.m. and he claimed to have not seen the graffito, or indeed, anything else.

PC Long was patrolling Goulston Street at about 2.55 a.m. when he discovered the portion of bloody apron in the entrance to 108 – 119

Wentworth Buildings. Above it, on the black painted brickwork "dado" of the white wall, was written "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" or similar wording: there are several versions, recorded by different people and a lot of controversy surrounds it; it supposedly has a freemasonry connotation. PC long summoned the PC on the adjoining beat, then searched the stairwells, but found nothing. I believe they did subsequently do a house-to-house at 108 – 119 Wentworth Buildings and everywhere between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, though there is no surviving documentation relating to these inquiries, so we do not know what was asked or who was interviewed. What they did not do was search the dwellings in the tenement block, only the communal passages – this criticism was levelled at the police by the jury at the inquest.

At 5.30 a.m. the graffito was wiped off (before it could be photographed) on the orders of Police Commissioner Charles Warren, who attended the scene. This decision created a huge controversy that rumbles on to this day.

Mary Jane Kelly (9th November 1888 – Friday)

Mary Kelly was the youngest known victim (presuming the Ripper was responsible), at the age of twenty-five. She was also the most mutilated. In fact, I don't think there has ever been another freshly mutilated body (on such a horrific scale) discovered in the annals of criminal history. This murder was probably what really made the Ripper 'legend'. But was it him?

Mary may have been a lot younger than the other victims, but she was already fixed on the same path to degradation and self-destruction. On the fateful night, Mary Cox, who lived at 5 Miller's Court, at the opposite end of the small court to Kelly, at 13 Miller's Court [26 Dorset Street, Spitalfields] said she saw Kelly and a man walking ahead of her – it was 11.45 p.m. She observed the couple enter Kelly's room; she noted that Kelly was very drunk and could barely speak coherently. Shortly after, the door of 13 Miller's court was slammed shut by Kelly's companion; Cox heard her singing 'A violet from mother's grave'. There is no reason to disbelieve Cox, but the singing does seem inconsistent with the state she was supposedly in. Cox

subsequently went back out, returning at 1 a.m. She could still hear Kelly singing and the room was illuminated. Cox went out again, returning at 3 a.m. at which time Kelly's room was in darkness and all was quiet. It was raining hard that night, which kept Cox awake, but she heard nothing untoward, just some men going in and out; she was sure she heard someone go out at 5.45 a.m., although she could not say from which dwelling. Cox's description of the man was as follows: age about 36, five-foot five-inches; fresh complexion, possibly blotchy, with a thick "carroty" moustache, but otherwise clean shaven.

Elizabeth Prater lived in the apartment above Kelly's room. She claimed that Kelly had broken-up with sometime partner Joseph Barnett [age thirty; a Bishopsgate porter] about ten days previous, after eighteen months together. She had been about Miller's Court at around 1 to 1.30 a.m. and chatted with the landlord [John McCarthy, who resided at 27 Dorset Street, which adjoined to 26] outside his Chandler's shop, which fronted his property. She claimed that no one entered or left Miller's Court during that time. Prater's room was accessed via a staircase close to the thin wooden partition that

separated Kelly's room from the rest of the building. The construction was minimal and she could see any light from Kelly's room through her floorboards; she would hear Kelly walking about her room. At about 1.30 a.m. Prater went to bed – she slept soundly, until around 3.30 to 4 a.m. when she was awoken by a kitten walking over her neck; she believed she then heard a woman scream two or three times, followed by a faint cry of "Oh, murder!" which sounded as though it came from the court; but, such things were a common occurrence due to the lodging house that overlooked the court. She next awoke at 5 a.m., going down the stairs at 5.30 a.m., seeing nothing suspicious. She then proceeded to a pub in Commercial Street to have some rum. When she returned to her room she slept until 11 a.m. claiming to have seen Kelly's body through the window of 13 Miller's court after she got up – this is inconsistent with we know occurred soon after. Another witness, Sarah Lewis, who was staying at 2 Miller's Court that night claimed to hear a cry of "murder" just before 4 a.m.

George Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly for about three years. At 2 a.m. on the night of the murder she approached him in Flower &

Dean Street looking to loan sixpence; Hutchinson had no money, so she continued on her way toward Thrawl Street; she walked past a man that Hutchinson had passed earlier and as she did, he placed a hand on her shoulder and said something to her that was inaudible to Hutchinson. Kelly and the man laughed; Kelly then said "Alright" to which the man said "You will be alright for what I have told you", then put his right arm over Kelly's shoulder. Hutchinson observed that the man had in one hand a small parcel about eight inches long. Kelly and the man proceeded walking toward Dorset Street, while Hutchinson stopped and leant against a lamppost outside the Queen's Head pub at 74 Commercial Street. As the man passed Hutchinson, he noted that he appeared furtive, wanting to hide his face, but Hutchinson deliberately stooped to look at him full in the face, for which he received a stern look in return. Hutchinson followed them into Dorset Street where they stood at the entrance of Miller's Court for about three minutes. The man was seen to say something to Kelly, to which she said "Alright my dear, come along. You will be comfortable." The man then kissed her and she said (somewhat discordantly) that she had lost her handkerchief, to which the man responded by pulling out a red one and giving it to her, whereupon they continued into the court. Hutchinson followed, but did not see where they went. Hutchinson's description of the man was as follows: surly, age about thirty-five, five-feet six-inches, pale complexion, dark eyes/eyelashes, slight moustache – curled up at the ends – and dark hair. He wore a long dark coat – the collar and cuffs trimmed with astrakhan – under which he was wearing dark jacket, with light waistcoat, across which a very thick gold chain hung, with a large seal and red stone. His shirt had a white linen collar, with black tie and horseshoe pin. He wore dark trousers, button boots, and gaiters with white buttons. He was holding some gloves and was of Jewish appearance.

Hutchinson's evidence has often been treated with caution because the extent of detail suggests possible fabrication. But, he was genuinely stuck out that night, as his usual lodgings had closed until morning, so he had nothing better to do and may well have been hoping to doss with Kelly after her client left. Eventually, he gave up waiting – it was about 3 a.m. During his vigil, he had not seen anyone enter or leave Miller's Court. Hutchinson may well have been observing

Kelly's killer.

Catherine Picket, who also lived in Miller's Court, went out at about 8 a.m.; wanting to borrow Kelly's shawl, she knocked on her door, but got no response – she assumed she was asleep. A tailor who lived in Dorset Street [Maurice Lewis] who said that he had seen Kelly in the Britannia pub [corner of Dorset Street] earlier that night, claimed to have seen her leave her room at about 8 a.m., only to return a few moments later: this doesn't seem very credible. At 8.30 a.m. Caroline Maxwell left the lodging house opposite Miller's Court. She claims to have seen Kelly standing at the entrance to Miller's Court. As she knew Kelly vaguely, she said to her "What brings you up so early?" Kelly replied "I have the horrors of the drink upon me, as I have been drinking for some days past." Maxwell suggested she go to the Britannia to have a pint of beer, but Kelly said she had already done this, only to bring it all back up. Maxwell then went on her way, returning to Dorset Street at around 9 a.m., when she noticed Kelly outside the Britannia talking with a man of about thirty, of five-foot five-inches, stout and dressed as a porter. At 10 a.m. Maurice Lewis

alleged to seeing Kelly drinking with other people at the Britannia.

At or before 10.30 a.m. John McCarthy instructed his assistant Thomas Bowyer to visit 13 Miller's Court to collect some rent. Having got no response from knocking on the door, he looked through the keyhole, but could not see Kelly. So, he went into the court where there was a window to no.13 with a broken pane: Bowyer reached through to pull back the muslin curtain. When he looked through the gap he saw "a lot of blood" and immediately summoned McCarthy to the scene. What McCarthy saw he later described as "...more like the work of a devil than a man"; they both hurried to Commercial Street Police Station, where they spoke to an Inspector Beck.

Beck and DC Walter Dew rushed to the scene, gathering constables as they went. The door to 13 Miller's Court was locked, so Beck peeked through the hole in the window. Staggering back, white as a ghost, he warned Dew not to look, but Dew ignored him: what he saw would never leave his mind. Dr George Bagster Phillips attended the scene at 11.15 a.m. He also viewed

the carnage through the window. Phillips advised against forcing the door until the bloodhounds arrived [which Beck had informed him had been sent for]. At 1.30 p.m. Inspector Arnold arrived with news that the bloodhounds had been recalled and they were to force the door.

McCarthy used a pick-axe to lever the door open. The door was the kind that locked on closing and then required a key to open it from the outside; it would be unlocked from the inside by pulling a catch.

Eventually, a photographer was drafted to the scene. The two surviving photo's are infamous and can be found in many JTR books and also in the public domain, online. Nothing can convey the sheer horror better than those photo's, despite being grainy black and white images. A further three doctors were also called to the scene during the afternoon. A report by Dr Bond described the horrendous sight in gruesome detail. Nothing is really served by reiterating all of this, so the following is a pertinent summarisation: Kelly lay in the middle of the bed, inclined to one side; it was believed the killer had moved the body to that position. Her head was resting on her left

cheek. The bedding at the right corner was soaked in blood; on the floor beneath was a pool of blood about two feet square. The doctors were of the opinion that Kelly had been laying on the right side of the bed – nearer to the wooden partition. The wall that side was marked by a number of blood splashes. Her face was hacked beyond recognition: the nose, cheeks, eyebrows and ears partly removed. The neck was severed to the bone, the vertebrae notched – she had been almost decapitated. The cuts to the front of the neck displayed bruising. The arms had been mutilated with several jagged incisions. The breasts were cut off with roughly circular incisions down to the ribs: one placed under the head, the other by the right foot. The intercostals of the forth to sixth rib were cut through, the thorax visible through the opening. Upon opening the thorax, the lower part of the right lung was found to be broken and torn away; the left lung was intact.

The pericardium was open and the heart had been removed – this was the only organ not recovered from the scene, but it is unclear as to whether it was missing. The abdominal cavity contained some partially digested food, as did the remains

of the stomach. The skin and underlying tissue of the abdomen, from below the rib cage to the pubes, had been removed in three large flaps. The legs were wide apart.

The whole surface of the abdomen, thighs and the viscera of the abdominal cavity had been removed. These tissues and organs were distributed around the body. The uterus and kidneys were under the head (with one of the breasts); the liver was between the feet, with the intestines on the right side and the spleen by the left side. The abdominal flaps and thigh tissues were piled on the bedside table. The right thigh was stripped of skin; the left thigh had been stripped to the bone up to the knee. The left calf was slashed down to the deep muscles.

Calculating the precise time of death was never going to be easy. Bond estimated it to be between 2 a.m. and 8 a.m. He determined that she had died two to four hours after the last meal, which was believed to have been between 10 and 11 p.m. I think – all evidence considered – that she was probably killed close to 4 a.m. It was apparent that Kelly had undressed and laid her clothes down in the usual manner, as if preparing

for sleep. She may have been sharing the bed. He surmised that she had been asleep when she was killed, although a small cut on a thumb might have been a defensive wound. He was of the opinion that the killer exhibited no anatomical knowledge or surgical skill, not even that of a butcher. Bond also opined that what are now known as the five canonical murders – Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly – were the work of one man, using a knife about six inches long, an inch in width, pointed and very sharp, possibly a clasp knife, butcher's or surgeon's knife. The killer was probably in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat to hide the bloodstains that would be inevitable from such attacks.

Bond went on to provide a profile of the killer: 'a man of some physical strength...likely to be quiet, inoffensive looking, probably middle-aged, neat and respectable in dress.' He also thought that the man suffered from some sort of revenge or religious mania, which he called 'homicidal or erotic mania.' He continued further with his personal insights of the killer, but I don't think too much store should be given to that, as he was not a psychologist, nor a criminal profiler.

And so the Ripper's reign of terror supposedly ended. But did it?

Alice McKensie

(17th July 1889 – Wednesday)

McKensie, aged thirty-nine, had worked as a washerwoman and charwoman for some Jews and was an occasional prostitute. At the time of the murder she was lodging in Gun Street (off Brushfield Street, just around the corner from Dorset Street) with John McCormack, a porter for Jewish tailors in Hanbury Street.

At 11.40 p.m. on the night of her death, she was spotted in Flower & Dean Street by a friend, who shouted 'Hello', to which McKensie replied 'Alright? I can't stop now.' At 12.50 a.m. PC Andrews entered Castle Alley [which is the next turning off Whitechapel High Street after Goulston Street, the next being New Castle Street and then Commercial Street] and discovered McKensie laying dead on the pavement with blood flowing from two stabs to the left side of her neck. She had superficial mutilation to her abdomen. There was some disagreement between Dr Phillips and Dr Bond as to whether the Ripper

was responsible. Police Commissioner Monro agreed with Bond that it was the Ripper, but it would seem he subsequently changed his mind.

Frances Coles

(13th February 1891 – Friday)

Coles was a twenty-five year old prostitute. On the 11th February she had been drinking heavily with an old client, James Thomas Sadler (a fifty-three year old ship's fireman) and they subsequently booked into a common lodging house at 8 White's Row, Spitalfields (which ran opposite Fashion Street, off Commercial Street).

At some point on the Thursday night, Coles and Sadler had a disagreement and separated. She returned to the lodgings in White's Row, where she was observed to be in a drunken stupor. Later, Sadler turned up, having been beaten and robbed in Thrawl Street. Sadler cleaned himself up and left (at about 12.30 a.m.), as he had no money to pay for his bed. Coles eventually sobered up a bit, leaving the lodging house, as she also had no money. This was sometime between 12.30 and 1.45 a.m. if witnesses are to be believed.

At 1.30 a.m. on the night of her murder, she bought some bread and mutton from a shop in Wentworth Street [she presumably had obtained some money by this time]; she then headed towards Commercial Street, where she met Ellen Callagher, a friend and fellow prostitute, who warned her about a nearby man, who she said was violent. Coles ignored her friend's advice, propositioning the man, and they went off together.

PC Thompson was on his first unsupervised night beat. At 2.15 a.m. he was in Chamber Street – which ran off the docks-end of Leman Street – heading for Swallow Gardens. There he found Coles, her throat cut and bleeding profusely. Because she was still alive, the PC was duty bound to stay with her, despite having heard footsteps in the distance. He was subsequently branded the 'man who let the Ripper escape'.

Sadler was charged with Cole's murder, but with witnesses to the fact that he was in no fit state – being incapably drunk, not to mention somewhat bruised – and having only a very blunt knife, his

legal representation from the Seamen's Union eventually managed to get the charges dropped: he walked free to public acclaim.

Carrie Brown

(24th April 1891 in New York - Friday)

Carrie was a prostitute. She was strangled with her own clothes and her body mutilated with a knife. She had a large tear in the groin area, with superficial cuts on her legs and back. No body parts were removed from the scene, but an ovary was found on the bed.

\------------------------------------------------------

Coles' was the last murder that was ever associated with Jack the Ripper in the UK. For some reason, he stopped. Did he die? Was he imprisoned or locked up in an asylum? Did he become infirm? Or did he move to pastures new? These are, of course, the questions that everyone has been asking for the last 130 years. But, in order to ever be able answer them, we first need to know who he was.

The investigation into the crimes attributed to Jack the Ripper: what can be said about that? This may seem harsh, but "what investigation?" comes to my mind. What has to be realised about the Victorian police force is that for the most part, they were a peace-keeping operation and they had enough on their plate with everyday crime, plus the Fenian problem [forerunners of the IRA], anarchists and assorted revolutionaries. Even in the latter part of the nineteenth century, investigative detection was very much in its infancy and the detective arm of the police was still relatively new. It was the humble police constable who was the mainstay of crime prevention; where the euphemism of 'plod' derives, because that's essentially what they did: walking the beat, keeping the criminals in check as far as was possible and just maintaining order, if not actually the law. Many of the early policemen, including the very first one, were sacked for drunkenness. They were poorly paid, given little support from the authorities and little educated. Consequently, they were susceptible to corruption and some were not much better than the criminals they were supposed to be controlling. Until the twentieth century, they hadn't progressed much from the original night watchmen. Add to that the crass attitudes of many of the police hierarchy – not to mention the principle of one law for the poor and another for the rich – coupled with the reprehensible behaviour of the Home Office officials, and the result was a recipe for flagrant incompetence.

The detective division of the force was the critical advancement in crime detection, though often hampered by the ego of the top brass from the different divisions coming into conflict. In 1888, finger-printing was a new concept and had not come in to official use. For the most part the Victorian detective had to rely on his own instinct, intelligence and luck. Most crimes were solved as a result of witness testimony and grasses, if the culprit wasn't actually caught in the act. It was a far cry from modern police techniques. It is easy to forget that modern forensics and pathology – let alone DNA analysis – only really began to be used routinely in the 1960's and have developed substantially since. So, the poor old downtrodden copper in 1888 really had their work cut-out trying to chase down a serial killer. Such crimes are still relatively unusual; back then, they were barely heard of. The biggest stumbling block to any

such investigation is the random choice of victim. Most individual murders are perpetrated by someone known to the victim. Without any connection to the victim and little in the way of linkable evidence, even when they had a suspect in their sights, they practically had to catch them in the act in order to make a case against them that would stand up in court. I would imagine a lot of crimes were solved by effectively fitting people up. Consequently, many innocent people were convicted and even executed, for the sake of being seen to have acceptable case clear-up rates. And that has been going on ever since... Of course, they could not do that in this instance because there was always the chance of another murder by the real killer.

The Ripper Letters

Whether any of the Ripper correspondence represented evidence is conundrum that continues to this day. Most experts consider the vast majority of the letters (and there were hundreds) to be hoaxes. In many ways, they were an unwanted distraction from the investigation. Even today they divert the Ripperologist from

focusing on the facts, instead searching for convoluted clues potentially lurking within, what almost certainly is, a complete load of garbage. I suppose it does give some insight into the Victorian psychology, but not much else.

There are, however, a few letters which some still believe to have been genuine: the 'Dear Boss' letter, which spawned the sobriquet of 'Jack the Ripper'; the follow-up 'saucy Jacky' postcard, and the 'From Hell' letter sent to Mr George Akin Lusk, president and chairman of the 'Whitechapel Vigilance Committee'. The first two were almost certainly the work of an enterprising journalist, not least of all, because they were sent to the Central News Agency in Ludgate Circus, which only a journalist would be likely to think of, or know about.

The 'From Hell' letter is universally considered to be the most likely to be genuine, sent to George Lusk. Firstly, it wasn't sent to the press or police, but an upstanding citizen. If I were the Ripper, I would probably be rather irritated by such a person. The letter, or note, accompanied a small package containing half a kidney that was probably posted from the Eastern district

addressed to the Lusk home – but without a street number – on the 15th of October 1888. Some seemed to think that the writing was the same as the earlier postcard: personally, I cannot see that; the handwriting of the Lusk letter seems unlike any other.

Initially, Lusk did not treat it seriously, but was later convinced to have it examined by the curator of London Hospital Museum, Dr Openshaw, whereupon it was immediately handed over to the City Police. It was concluded that the kidney was from an adult human. Beyond that there is much controversy and many conflicting reports; one doctor claimed it was from a dog. What is fact is that it was preserved in 'spirits of wine' within hours of removal and not charged with fluid, which negated the source being a dissecting post-mortem sample, although it could still have originated from a post-mortem. None of which brings us any closer to the question of whether it came from Eddowes body, as claimed in the accompanying note, and therefore, could have been sent by the Ripper. The vernacular used in the note seemed to convey an Irish accent; however, that could have been a deliberate ploy to detract from the writer's

true ethnicity. There are elements to this letter that suggest possible authenticity, e.g. it is signed "Catch me when you can, Mishter [sic] Lusk" rather than 'Jack the Ripper'. I remain open-minded in regard to this particular correspondence, but I don't believe there is anything in this that can help us today. However, there is a further associated and potentially important story linked to the Lusk parcel. A Miss Emily Marsh was minding her father's shop [in his temporary absence] located at 218 Jubilee Street, Mile End Road, when a strange man, apparently dressed in clerical costume, entered the shop and enquiring about the reward bill (issued by the 'Vigilance Committee') that was in the shop window, asked for Mr Lusk's address. Emily directed the man to Mr J Aarons (treasurer of the committee), who resided at the corner of Jubilee Street only thirty yards away. The man did not wish to go there, so Emily produced a newspaper which stated Lusk's address as Alderney Road, Globe Road [but no number]. He insisted that Emily read it out to him, rather than read it himself. He wrote something in a notebook, whilst keeping his head down; he then left the shop.

Being alarmed by the man's demeanour, Emily sent the shop-boy after him to make sure all was well. Mr Marsh also encountered the man in the street when returning to the shop. He was described thus: about forty-five years old, six foot tall and slim build, wearing soft felt black hat, drawn over his forehead; he had a stand-up collar and a very long black single-breasted overcoat, with a Prussian or clerical collar, partly turned up. His face was sallow, with a dark beard and moustache; he seemed to have an Irish accent. This enquiry was made at 1 p.m. and the parcel was received at 8 p.m. the following day.

There is a good probability that the man that spoke to Emily Marsh was the sender of the Lusk letter. Whether he was the Ripper is another matter. If he was, he was pretending to be Irish.

Murder Analysis

I am not attempting in this book to solve all of the murders that have been associated with the Ripper. Some certainly can be regarded as part of a series: Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. Beyond those three there is much disagreement.

Personally, I think that at least some of the other murders listed in this book were due to the Ripper, so I shall merely associate him with the primary three and consider the possibilities for the others.

Before I begin revealing what I have discovered, I think it's worth evaluating all of the murders potentially committed by the Ripper, whilst keeping in mind what I know and you soon will.

Emma Smith is a tricky one: until I started this project, I regarded it as unrelated, but I have since revised that to a possible starting-point. The Tabram murder has the hallmarks of the Ripper still developing his modus operandi. Nichols could have been a natural progression for the killer(s); I also think that it may have been somewhat opportunistic, rather than the more premeditated type, that the Chapman and Kelly murders seemed to have been. In fact, many of the murders may have been the result of spontaneous rage welling-up in the Ripper – Eddowes I believe to be a case in point, and which lead to what should have been the Ripper's undoing. With regards to Stride, although this could have been the Ripper – but

disturbed before he could get fully to work – I now know that it could not have been, though I don't doubt that Israel Schwartz did see her killer. Mary Kelly has been considered to be the work of someone mimicking the Ripper to cover their tracks – someone close to her. That is certainly possible, but I believe George Hutchinson was the only witness to have definitely seen the Ripper: if he were known to Kelly, Hutchinson would probably have recognised him. Mrs Long may have seen Chapman's killer: the description seems a bit off to me, unless he was disguising himself. Lawende's initial description to the police and later to the press (but not at the inquest) has echoes of Mrs Long's description. Lawende was not describing the Ripper, but probably knew (or at least suspected) who the Ripper was. Joseph Levy and Henry (Harry) Harris didn't care. McKensie and Coles may have been opportunistic, unplanned attacks. Carrie Brown's murder was probably pre-conceived and there is a very good chance this was the work of Jack the Ripper.

It should be noted that all but two of the victims were aged thirty-nine to forty-seven; this may

have significance, although it may just have been simply that it tended to be the older prostitutes who were wandering around in the small hours in need of clients and therefore in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Although I will make some suggestions as to the Ripper's motives, I don't think it is possible to ever know for sure; even when serial killers are caught and confess, it still remains an incomprehensible act that is beyond any normal person's understanding. Some murderers are just pure evil, with psychotic tendencies apparent right from childhood; others have a latent psychopathy, which requires a trigger mechanism; a personal event that pushes them over the edge, inducing a loss of control: in such cases – assuming they are not caught – a subsequent change in circumstance can quell their rage and they are able to stop. As you will discover, the Ripper did not die or become incarcerated in some way: he eventually stopped and continued with his life, as though nothing had ever happened. Interestingly, Charles Allen Lechmere (aka Cross) was proposed as just such a type. Of course, just because a killer appears to have stopped, doesn't mean they necessarily have; they may continue in some other way or just suddenly recommence where they left off at some later date. To my knowledge, this was not the case with the Ripper, but we will probably never know for certain – I imagine this will open a whole new chapter in Ripperology.
THE TRUTH WILL OUT

A Ripping Yarn

In many ways, the tale of Jack the Ripper has almost become folklore, like Guy Fawkes and the 'gunpowder plot'; pirates of the Caribbean; cowboys and Indians; Robin Hood, or King Arthur, et al. It is easy to lose sight of the reality that lies behind many of these historical stories: among other things, they have become romanticised and sprinkled with Hollywood glitter. A lot of what people take for granted as fact is pure invention. The reality of murder is usually sordid and despicable. What happened to the victims of the so-called 'Ripper' was vicious, devoid of empathy or consideration; a desecration of humanity, the victims' bodies subjected to the ultimate indignity, left utterly degraded for the poor unsuspecting citizen to have to find. Anyone touched by these crimes probably never really got over it.

One thing that might be noteworthy about the Ripper is that his victims did not suffer (at his hand) in life, as they were more or less killed instantaneously. This may of course simply have been a necessity to not being detected. Clearly, though, causing pain and distress wasn't high on the agenda. It was the total destruction of what makes a woman a sexual entity – and one might say, gives them power over men – that was the primary objective; and probably a hatred of a certain type of woman played a major role, too.

So, who was he? I hear you shout. Firstly, I have been slightly disingenuous in respect to the Eddowes murder. You may be wandering what was so important about the witnesses Lawende, Levy and Harris. In truth, the biggest mistake that night was the dropping of the piece of Eddowes' apron; otherwise, the connections to the Ripper would have been slightly less concrete. Unfortunately its significance was (and always has been) completely overlooked. Consequently, instead of bringing the Ripper to justice, it just served to confuse everyone. The Ripper was extraordinarily fortunate, akin to winning the lottery jackpot several times in succession. Had he been stopped, it might have

avoided a number of further atrocities.

I would like to examine each case a little more closely – with the knowledge that I am holding back – providing some insight into what may have been going on:-

Emma Smith may well have been the victim of gang violence, but it is also possible that she was the first to feel the rage of the Ripper. This was an attack that took place in a fairly spontaneous way, although the intent was probably already present. Everyone has to start somewhere.

Martha Tabram's murder may seem on passing consideration to have been quite a safe one, having been conducted inside a building. But, as I stated earlier, it was just as audacious as any of them. There was an enormous risk of being caught in the act. This leads me to believe that this murder was partly planned and partly opportunistic. The killer went out that night with a homicidal intent at the back of their mind, but there wasn't much thought given to the specific attack until it was in progress. I believe this was the Ripper's first or second victim, demonstrating the start or a progression of the "funny little game" that was to play out. I think there is a good chance that there were two people involved, one of whom kept watch, while the other got to work. The interpretation of the injuries by the rather unfortunately named Dr Killeen that two knives had been used, could be correct: perhaps an accomplice wanted one stab with their knife before fleeing the scene. The time of death given by Dr Killeen is probably a bit off. I would suggest that the witness that observed Tabram's body at 3.30 a.m. had just missed the killers; by the time the next witness turned-up at 4.50 a.m. she had already bled out. I sincerely doubt that this murder was anything to do with the soldiers which she and her friend had earlier been acquainted. The killers had probably shadowed her, waiting for the right moment, while their rage slowly simmered.

Polly Nichols' murder was in a very open area and where anyone could suddenly appear from the darkness all around. This was also a little off the "Ripper's patch" and probably a momentary opportunistic decision by one assailant. However, though it was quite risky, there was one quick route of escape via Court Street, which led into Whitechapel Road – Court Street no longer exists, having completely disappeared. In fact, there were several escape routes, depending upon which direction a potential witness was approaching: the alley of Buck's Row that joined with Brady Street and the parallel alley of Winthrop Street, also leading into Brady Street. There was also, Thomas Street, White's Row or even, Ann Street: so perhaps not as risky as it might at first appear, especially for anyone familiar with the area. Clearly, Lechmere's approach was almost certainly what interrupted what the Ripper may have had in store for Nichols' body.

Annie Chapman's murder strikes me as a more organised attack and quite probably involved the accomplice. Whether the man seen with Chapman by Mrs Long was the Ripper or not is difficult to say, but it certainly could have been. Annie was deliberately lured to the spot in the yard of 29 Hanbury Street where an accomplice may have been waiting having likely shadowed them until it was clear the kill was on. This one was probably as risky as any of the murders, but if there were an accomplice keeping watch, making sure no one came into the yard and possibly aiding the victim, then it seems a lot more cunning. It is unclear if the killers finished the job as intended or were interrupted. The time lines, as with all the murders, are very tight. It remains almost miraculous that the Ripper could commit such heinous crimes, just to disappear into the mist completely unseen. There might be an explanation for this, at least with some of the homicides – this will become evident in due course.

Elizabeth Stride has always been in doubt as to whether she was a Ripper victim or her murder just a coincidence. Knowing what I know, I can state that it was not a Ripper murder; it couldn't have been, as will make perfect sense as we continue. Israel Schwartz is the key witness: he undoubtedly saw Stride's killer. The way in which this murder played out is not consistent with the others. Stride was standing at the entrance to Dutfield's Yard (40 Berner Street, off Commercial Road East), either waiting for someone or just whiling away the time. She may or may not have been eating grapes, although this is irrelevant. Whoever the man that attacked her was, he had been drinking to the extent that he was not in full control of his comportment – Eddowes' killer most certainly was in full control, otherwise he could never have achieved so much in so little time. He blusters down the road, paying no attention to anything and homes-in on Stride, where an argument breaks out – this is not the Ripper's style. The killer probably didn't have murder on his mind when he approached Stride; he was unconcerned that Schwartz had passed-by, having got a good look at him. He has the audacity to shout "Lipski" at the obviously Jewish man. The man who appeared from the pub was completely coincidental, but may have chased Schwartz because he didn't dare do otherwise – it was a good excuse to make himself scarce. I would suggest that Stride's antagonist was either a pimp – hers or otherwise, who had been told she was around the area and had taken it upon himself to sort her out – or a disgruntled ex-client/boyfriend. We are dealing with extremely violent people, with no sense of morality: she probably got into a physical altercation – she was a tall women – and the man, perhaps not operating at his optimum, was struggling with her; so, to save face, he pulls a knife and cuts her throat.

Until quite recently, I always believed the Stride murder to be the work of the Ripper. Not least of all because I had a theory about the Goulston Street graffito, which went like this: the Ripper was interrupted and therefore prevented from completing his work, thus unable to satisfy whatever urge was driving him. Consequently, he had to acquire a second victim. So, "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" referred to either Schwartz or Diemshutz, or both. In other words, because of "those Jews", he had to kill two women instead of one. I thought that was a pretty good little theory, but it turns out to be wrong.

Mary Kelly was much younger than all the other victims up to that point, but this probably wasn't important. There are some who believe Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim, a theory which has its merits, as there are some obvious differences. However, the reason for these differences is purely to do with opportunity. The Ripper probably couldn't believe his luck, having so much time and privacy to really get stuck in.

The doctors who examined Kelly's dismantled body inferred that, in this case at least, there was no evidence of any surgical finesse, even that of a butcher. However, is this of any significance? The Ripper found himself in the position of being able to take some time over his attack. There was no necessity for any expedient care to be taken – if there ever was any before. He was not in the business of demonstrating any anatomical knowledge or surgical skill he might have had. With Kelly, he could go to work with reckless abandon.

I am inclined to believe George Hutchinson's testimony, even if he may have embellished it a little. Everything about the Kelly murder points to the killer – on discovering [or knowing] that she had a private place for them to go – asking to stay the night and so sleep next to her. He may not have even requested sex, in which case, Kelly may have felt less threatened than she might otherwise: it takes all sorts. He no doubt promised her ample reward.

Before continuing with my analysis of the murders, I would like to take the reader on the little journey of discovery that led me to my monumental conclusions:-

As I mentioned in the 'Introduction', I read Bruce Robinson's book 'They All Love Jack' and found it pretty convincing – for a couple of weeks. It is a brilliant thesis and I was initially convinced that it was 'case solved'. Perversely, the issue that lead me to a rethink was one that I have since rejected: it seemed to me that only a surgeon, doctor or medical student could have removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes in the time allowed and the poor light. Then I read Trevor Marriot's book. His book was a breath of fresh air, despite the fact that I ultimately chose not to agree with most of his conclusions. He at least was trying to look at the case from a slightly different angle. His theory regarding the organs taken from Chapman and Eddowes' bodies, along with his idea relating to the origin of the piece of apron found in Goulston Street, are quite inspired. Marriott observed that apart from the removal of the organs, there was nothing particularly knowledgeable about the dissection of these women. He surmised that the organs were taken at the mortuary; the post-mortems were not conducted until some hours after the bodies were removed to the mortuary. There was a story circulating that an American doctor had been asking for uterus specimens; whether this was true or not, somebody might have wanted the 'missing organs' and paid good money for them. Either a mortuary attendant, who could have had some surgical proficiency, removed the organs, or the medical person wanting the items, removed them himself. Considering the bloody mess the bodies were in, the poor light and the cursory examination made by the doctors at the scenes, it is quite possible that the organs were still present at the murder scene. As for Kelly's heart, this remains a mystery, but is of no significance, as no surgical ability was evident in its removal. The killer could have taken it, or it was lost along the way; or, again, it was taken at the mortuary. Whatever its fate, there is nothing useful to be derived in relation to the killer's identity, although it might have had some psychological meaning.

Marriott had an interesting theory about the piece of apron found in Goulston Street. He suggested that Eddowes had deposited it there herself, having used it for sanitary purposes. However, when we examine the array of items that Eddowes was carrying around with her, it is evident that she wouldn't have been likely to have been in such desperate need as to tear a piece of her outer garment for this purpose. Another suggestion – made in a documentary, I think – was that a dog had picked it up at the scene of the murder and carried it to Goulston Street. We cannot entirely discount this possibility, but it is some distance between Mitre Square and Goulston Street. No one noticed a dog with a bloody rag in its jaws walking up Whitechapel High Street; the alternative route is fairly convoluted, so it seems to me unlikely that a dog would have taken it all that way just to discard it. Also, the apron piece was said to be smeared with feculent matter, which being human would probably not be in any way attractive to a dog.

At this point, I was looking for a pretty creative means to solve the case. There did not seem to be anything apparent in the material that had survived from the time that would suddenly reveal the killer's identity. So, influenced by Bruce Robinson's book, I began thinking about the "Ripper letters". At the same time, I was reading Marriott's book. Marriott claimed to have made a rather curious discovery relating to a statement taken by Charles Warren himself – a probably unique occurrence. It related to a man calling himself Charles de la Re'e Bott. This is probably one of the most bizarre names ever associated with the Ripper murders. There was something quite suspicious about this whole event and I wondered whether Mr Bott could have been the Ripper. Charles de la Re'e Bott sounds like the most made-up name I have ever come across. So, I set about trying to decipher its meaning: I thought it could be an anagram; Bruce Robinson appeared to have found one in a letter. [Incidentally, his theory about the Florence Maybrick affair could very well be right, despite the Ripper angle being wrong.] Anyway, after some days of playing with all the letters in that curious name, I found something incredible: the letters could be rearranged to give 'Battlecreased hero". Anyone familiar with James Maybrick's life will know that the name of his home in Liverpool was 'Battlecrease House'! Then I found another amazing anagram in one of the letters which signed-out with 'alias H.J.C Battersea'. If this was in fact 'H.L.C Battersea' then this could be rearranged to give 'Battlecrease H.'

This is an example of finding coincidences that seem too good to be true. The link is really too tenuous to be real. This was confirmed when I subsequently researched Mr Bott. Unbelievably, it transpired – much to my chagrin – he really did exist! Quite how he got involved is a mystery, as he lived in the Channel Islands. After this disappointment, I realised that looking for hidden messages in letters, the bulk of which – if not all – were hoaxes, was a futile exercise. Only in Robinson's dimension did any of that really work. So, being left with nothing in the way of material to ponder, I was set to give up.

Then, one night whilst laying in bed, I got thinking about the Goulston Street "evidence" again. It occurred to me that if my theory about the meaning of the graffito was wrong, then what did it mean? "The juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing": it is a very ambiguous and somewhat obscure statement. With the piece of apron, there is some context, but if the Ripper didn't write this, who did and why? Well, 'who' isn't necessarily important and impossible to determine, anyway. The 'why' is probably rather obscure and only really meant something to the author. It was clearly anti-Semitic, but beyond that, a bit of an enigma. If not written by the Ripper, it's irrelevant. Another question of importance would be "when was it written?" Obviously, had it been there earlier in the day, it could not have been the Ripper. The police reports given at the inquest suggest that it was pretty fresh and that it probably would have been smudged by anyone coming down the stairwell. Realistically, had it been there any length of time, one of the residents would (not doubt) have taken it upon themselves to rub it off entirely.

After the apron piece was discovered the police searched the stairwells and landings of the tenement block. I believe they subsequently went door to door in that block, although we know nothing of what they asked or were told – presumably it wasn't considered important, or that record has been lost. Nonetheless, I wondered about this. The place where the apron piece was found was in the entrance to the tenement stairwell to 108 – 119 Wentworth Buildings. Wentworth model buildings were built in 1887 and so were brand new in 1888. There has been some confusion in the various books about this address, most are probably typographic errors, but this has not helped the reader to understand this location – Paul Begg has this as '118 – 119 Goulston Street Buildings' in his tome Jack The Ripper: The Facts... Photographs of this building and the specific entrance of interest can be found on the internet in the public domain: they range from the turn of the twentieth century to the present day. Interestingly, of all the locations associated with the Ripper, this is the only one that can still be seen today, essentially unchanged: the entrance way is still distinguishable, although the internal structure of the entire tenement block has been transformed; all that remains of the original building is the shell – the alcove that was the access to the stairwell, along with the stairwell itself, are now gone. Nonetheless, the external facade of the entrance is still distinguishable and clearly identifiable.

The police constable, whose beat took him down Goulston Street, where he made his grisly discovery, claimed that the writing hadn't been there on his previous pass, thirty-five minutes earlier. Whether this was true or not will ultimately prove to be of no consequence. More important is when did the apron piece find its way there? This would have been easy to miss and it could be that the appearance of the graffito is what drew the officers' attention to the spot where it sat. Therefore, it is not possible to determine exactly when this was deposited; all we can presume is that it was the Ripper who dropped it there.

So, if the graffito was not associated with the Ripper, regardless of when it was written, then what could the apron-piece tell us? There is one very obvious and simple conclusion: the Ripper lived in one of the dwellings at 108 – 119 Wentworth Buildings...! That is just twelve residences to consider. It is so blatant, that with all the distraction caused by the graffito, no one seems to have given much consideration to this possibility. Not then and not since. This was my flash of counter-intuitive inspiration. Such an obvious inference, and yet, no one appears to have pursued this particular avenue of investigation. That said, in all fairness to everyone else, until one does make that small leap of imagination, it never seriously crosses the mind, and that (obviously) includes myself. Sometimes, until someone suggests a scenario, it can seem far from obvious; but once said, suddenly it becomes manifest. There is a principle known as 'Occam's Razor' which basically promotes the concept that the simplest solution is usually the right one. Of course, this is not always the case. But, it is very easy to overlook the prosaic in favour of something clever and complex. Many have made this mistake – including myself.

Returning to the crime analysis: Kelly's murder is the last in what is known as the 'canonical' murders, usually regarded as totalling five; McKensie wasn't killed for another 8 months after Kelly. Coles wasn't killed until February 1891 and Carrie Brown a couple of months after that. Whether the Ripper stopped in 1888, 1889 or 1891, it does look as though he did stop. Unfortunately, it turns out that understanding why he may have stopped wouldn't help identify who he was. However, at the same time as all of this was going on, there was a series of dismemberment murders involving women, including the discovery of torso's in several locations, including the building site of New Scotland Yard. These murders had started some time before the Ripper murders and may have continued after the Ripper supposedly stopped. They were as audacious as anything the Ripper did. There have been a number of series of torso murders, mainly in America. No one has ever been identified as the perpetrator of any of them, the biggest obstacle being that the victims cannot be identified and no one has ever seen anyone in connection with the body parts. I believe all of this may provide ongoing areas of research for the desolate Ripperologist.

The Eddowes murder was the best opportunity the police ever had to catch the Ripper, but it seems to have either completely eluded them or slipped through their fingers. So, let us now return to this series of events. The murder was conducted with astounding speed, if the timelines are to be believed. Clearly, it happened, so there can be little to argue about there. They had some evidence in the piece of apron – the only piece of evidence they ever found – but failed to capitalise on it. The police had what they thought was a solid witness in Joseph Lawende and yet it didn't pan out that way. His companions, Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry (Henry) Harris, were of little or no use and so have been largely overlooked for the past 130 years. Let us take a closer look at these three "witnesses":-

Joseph Lawende

We know a fair amount about Joseph Lawende, although a search of the public records doesn't produce much. He was a Polish Jew, born in Warsaw in 1847. He became a naturalised UK citizen in 1889. It looks as though he came to England in the early 1870's, probably along with his younger brother Leopold – who is more prominent in the public records. Neither show-up in the records until the 1870's. According to a family tree I found on Ancestry.co.uk – and the BMD records confirmed it – he married Annie Rosenthal (who was born in London around 1856) on 22nd January 1873 under the name Lavender: a name which he had apparently adopted the use of, (with the possible exception of business dealings). There is a nice photograph of him taken in 1899 at his daughter Rose's wedding. This could be found on Ancestry.co.uk and is available in the public domain on the internet. He looks a kindly 52 year-old man; he has a strangely youthful look about him and he doesn't look particularly Jewish.

An interesting detail I came across about Lawende is that in 1876 he appeared at an Old Bailey trial as a witness. At that time he is described as a 'cigarette maker' and recorded as living at 3 Lenton Street, which doesn't exist – a typical example of the error-ridden court transcripts that dogged the Victorian era. I would assert that this was a corruption of 3 Tenter Street, although there are five Tenter Streets: Tenter Street and Tenter Street North, South, East & West. According to the 1881 Census, Lawende resided at 2 Tenter Street South – this was just off Leman Street, (via Great Prescot Street or Great Alie Street) – and again, he was described as a 'cigarette maker'. During the early 1880's he was also registered at 3 Tenter Street South, which was also his brother Leopold's address during 1876 to at least 1891. By 1889/1890 he is registered as living at 45 Norfolk Road, Dalston (Hackney), where one reference has him from 1885; this is the address that all sources indicate for him when he appeared at the Eddowes inquest. But by the 1891 Census, he had moved to 23 Upper Street, Islington; then in 1894 he was registered at 116 Mildmay Road, Islington (Highbury). In 1896 and until at least the 1901 Census, he resided at 140 Mildmay Road. During the period 1881 to 1891 he is variously described as a tobacconist and commercial traveller. The 1911 Census provides some useful information: he was then living at 17 Wallace Road, Highbury and described as a 'traveller (tobacco)'; the record states that he and his wife had twelve children, all of whom were still alive in 1911 – five of these were still living with their parents, with an age range of fourteen to twenty-seven. He died on the 9th of January 1925, a month away from his seventy-eighth birthday. All the addresses associated with him from 1888 until his death, still exist and demonstrate from their grandness that Lawende became a fairly wealthy man; essentially, middle-class.

There are a couple of other interesting details about Lawende: the business premises he apparently had were on the corner of Bury Street, where there was a synagogue school; Bury Street runs off and at a right angle to Bevis Marks, which is the thoroughfare that follows on from the bottom of Duke Street – the three friends were walking in the opposite direction towards Aldgate High Street on the night of Eddowes' murder. It should be noted that Duke Street had a dog-leg that joined to Houndsditch. This turning was opposite Saint James Place, which backed onto Mitre Square and so was further down Duke Street than Church Passage. I cannot judge whether there would have been any advantage in going that way to reach the High Street, but it may not be significant that they did not go that way. As I indicated earlier, Lawende's employer had premises in Fenchurch Street, which follows on from Aldgate High Street in the opposite direction to Whitechapel High Street. A lot of the Victorian buildings have disappeared from that end of Fenchurch Street, but if the numbering still mirrors the original layout, then both 79 and 99 would have been near the Aldgate end.

It is interesting to note that Lawende gave a detailed description of the man in Duke Street, which is in the Home Office files: age thirty, five-foot nine-inches, fair complexion and moustache, medium build, pepper & salt coloured loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak, reddish handkerchief knotted around neck, appearance of a sailor. The Times carried a much abbreviated version of this. The description he gave to Major Henry Smith [Acting Commissioner of City of London Police], who quizzed him, was as follows: young, average height, small fair moustache, dressed in navy serge with deerstalkers cap – not quite the same. At the inquest almost all of this detail disappeared: he said nothing of any value.

There is no information (that I have come across) that tells us what Lawende did when he separated from his friends (or when), but his home in Norfolk Road (Dalston) was some distance away: I don't think it is conceivable that he could have walked. Perhaps he hailed a cab; whether any public transport would have been available at that time, I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Of course, his brother still lived in Tenter Street South, so he could perhaps have gone there; but would he have done that at such a late hour? Unfortunately, there is no way to know.

Joseph Hyam Levy

Surprisingly little has been written about this character, but all sources have him as a Jewish butcher living at 1 Hutchinson Street, Aldgate – sometimes given as Whitechapel – and approx. forty-six years old in 1888. Doesn't look like a lot to go on; luckily there is only one Joseph Levy in Victorian London who is recorded as being a butcher during the relevant period – in fact, there was only one in the whole of England and Wales at that time. So, that at least narrows things down a bit, because Levy was not an uncommon surname in the East End at the time. There is a small problem, though: and it must be the result of an error in the original court, police or newspaper records [(at least) some of which have it as Hutcheson Street – which does not exist], because every source that mentions this has it wrong! Had anyone bothered to check into this, I'm certain they would have been intrigued and made some reference to it – wouldn't they? If the reader cares to search the 1871, 1881 or 1891 Censuses they will discover that the address should be 1 Hutchison Street – so, another one of those Victorian recording errors. And it is in Aldgate, not Whitechapel: the 'St Botolph Without Aldgate' district. Some authors do seem to have an awareness of its location, but it's as though they simply don't acknowledge it? [See 'Post-script'.]

You won't locate it using the search facility on the 'Booth's Poverty Map,' which unfortunately isn't completely reliable. The MOTCO 1891 London map [which is the same map as the Booth's one, but without his annotations] is fully indexed and will locate it for you – don't bother with a modern map, as it no longer exists. As it happened, I already knew where it was from studying the map previously: it is to be found close to the Whitechapel district, off Middlesex Street and, being no.1, would have been at the entrance to the street, on the junction with Middlesex Street. It is actually called Hutchison Street, (not Hutchinson or Hutcheson Street, which cannot be found in London,) and there no others in England, let alone London. Why is this significant? Well, because the next turning off the Whitechapel High Street from Middlesex Street (which is off Aldgate High Street) is Goulston Street – literally just around the corner. Now that is a bit coincidence, isn't it? And if you still have any doubts, Levy stated that it took only five minutes for him to walk home from Duke Street... Casebook.org believes this address to have been a butcher's shop: I cannot confirm that, but it's certainly possible.

Every researcher [except casebook.org] since at least the 1960's may have overlooked this, but the London City Police must have known because, according to Martin Fido's book (c1987) they conducted house-to-house enquiries in Hutchison Street and that is how they found Levy, who then put them onto Lawende – presumably, one or both putting them onto Harris. May be it's just me, but I find that a tad suspicious: here we had a witness who had been close to the scene of the crime, just before it was committed, and lived just five minutes' walk away.

Incidentally, I could not track down Paul Roland's "syphilitic butcher", Jacob Levy [given in his 2012 book; but see 'Postscript'], and there are no matching deaths in the relevant period. Roland's assertion that Joseph Levy would have known him is intriguing, given that he had Jacob living in Middlesex Street. There is no indication in his book that he had realised that Joseph Levy lived in Hutchison Street – I think he would have mentioned it if he had. I imagine he will be kicking himself over that one – won't he?

The Census records indicate that Joseph Hyam Levy was born in Aldgate in 1842. In fact, his family were living in Petticoat Lane at that time [36 Middlesex Street], which was in the Aldgate district – specifically, Spitalfields – though later included just inside the Whitechapel boundary. Strictly speaking, Petticoat Lane was renamed in 1830 as a result of Victorian propriety – apparently, as the word 'petticoat' referred to an item of women's underwear, it was considered too lewd – so, becoming part of Middlesex Street. The Petticoat Lane market had been officially illegal, right up until 1936. I believe it was diagonally opposite the entrance to Hutchison Street. Today, the street layout for the area has changed, but the Petticoat Lane market is essentially in the same location. The market spills over into Goulston Street, and judging from a photo of Goulston Street taken around 1900, that would seem to have been the case during the Victorian period.

Joseph's parents were Hyam Levy, (a butcher – obviously the family trade –) and Frances Napthale, who were both born in Aldgate in about 1810 and married on New Year's Eve 1834 at 'The Great Synagogue' in what had been Duke's Place – that is in Duke Street; one side of the building flanked Church Passage. This is where Joseph H Levy lived and grew up with his numerous siblings [at least ten] until at least1861 – probably until he got married – just a stone's throw from Goulston Street and less than ten minutes walk from Mitre Square. Middlesex Street no longer exists as it did, but used to run at a right angle from Wentworth Street to Whitechapel High Street.

He married Amelia Lewis on 31st October 1866 at 38 Mansell Street [Jewish ceremony]. Amelia was born in Aldgate in about 1842. Levy's marriage certificate states his address as 1 Hutchison Street and his wife's as 21 Smith Street (which was off Jubilee Street, on the south side of the Mile End Road – Whitechapel end: this was not her parents' address.) Amelia was born in about 1842 in London (probably Aldgate, district 'Saint James Duke's Place'); her father was Phillip Lewis, a Fruiterer. Amelia's parents and siblings lived at 24 Mitre Street until at least 1851 with her mother, Ann's [nee Lyons] parents. Ann's father was a fruit merchant. In 1851, Phillip was a 'general dealer', but by 1861 he was also a 'fruit merchant'; by 1871 he was specifically an 'orange merchant'; the family were living at 21 Mitre Street from at least 1861, except Amelia, who remained with her grandfather (Aaron Lyons) at 24 Mitre Street, according to the 1861 Census. It appears that Amelia's mother died in 1871 at the age of fifty-one. Her father, Phillip, seems to subsequently disappear from the records, but probably died in 1880. However, Henry Lyons, Amelia's uncle, was living at 24 Mitre Street in 1881 and Amelia's brother, Moses, was living at 17 Mitre Street in 1891. Mitre Street is where the western entrance to Mitre Square was located. More interesting, perhaps, until 1871, Amelia's parents were living in Mitre Street – Phillip possibly until 1880; she and Joseph Levy married in 1866 and may well have visited them there: it wouldn't be unreasonable to cut through Mitre Square from Duke Street to reach Mitre Street. [Incidentally, a Moses Levy (fruit merchant) and two siblings were living at 2 Saint James Place in 1891 – which backs onto Mitre Square...] According to Casebook.org – whom appears to be well informed on this specific matter – Amelia died in 1912, in Brighton.

Joseph Levy's father died in November 1872 at the West London Hospital, Hammersmith, having lived his entire life in Spitalfields – possibly in Petticoat Lane. Sometime between 1881 and 1891, his mother moved to Southwark, where she died in 1905. Strangely, despite the 1871 to 1891 Censuses reporting his address as 1 Hutchison Street, the only Electoral Roll which has Levy registered at this address was the 1890 one – this may indicate that he was registered at another address: something I will look at in due course.

By 1898, he and his wife had moved to 124 Mildmay Road (North) in Islington, Highbury, where he lived out the rest of his days, until his death in May 1914. Like Lawende – who had also lived in Mildmay Road until sometime after 1901 – he managed to become quite well-off for a humble butcher: he was able to retire by 1901 [before reaching sixty] and his probate notice (1914) stated that he was worth over £2410 – which doesn't sound like much today, but would have been the equivalent of about £250,000. His father died with less than £100 to his name, so Joseph didn't get it from him – although after his death, Joseph's mother was living on her own means. [Incidentally, Joseph's brothers, Isaac and Lewis were still unmarried and living with their mother on the 1891 and 1901 Censuses and given as 'tobacconists'.] As Joseph died a widow, he seems to have left his wealth to some of his brothers and sisters.

The Census records tell us something else of interest about the Levy marriage: it was childless. The 1911 Census confirms this by indicating that they had no children (whether alive or dead). That was pretty unusual for a married person in Victorian England, not least amongst the Jewish community. Of course, one or both of them may have suffered from some condition that prevented them from having children. In those days there was no IVF or in fact any way to even know why someone could not conceive; but, one thing is highly likely, and that is that the woman would almost certainly have got the blame.

Henry Harris

The avid Ripperologist will immediately note that I have identified him as 'Henry' not 'Harry' Harris. I would invite everyone to attempt to find a Harry Harris in Victorian London, let alone anywhere in the vicinity of Whitechapel, that fits his description. Granted, we don't have much to go on, but fortunately it just happens that it is enough: he was a Jewish furniture dealer. That's it, but there is only one Henry Harris [and no Harry] who is described – and consistently – as a 'furniture dealer' in all of England during the relevant period and he is certainly Jewish.

Of course, this confusion over his first name isn't helpful: some sources give it as 'Harry (Henry) Harris', some as 'Henry Harris', others just as 'Harry Harris'. This appears to be yet another of those official Victorian recording issues. At least one newspaper has him as 'Henry' and at least one as 'Harry'; I am presuming that the official records have him listed as 'Harry'...? This isn't the only problem: no where can I find any reference to his age. Lawende was about forty-one and Levy about forty-six in 1888, so I think it is a reasonable assumption [though granted, not proof] that Harris was of a similar age. Henry Harris was forty-four in 1888.

The big problem with Harris is that he was a "non-witness". He was viewed at the time, as was Levy, as having an unsympathetic attitude. Harris was completely obstinate, refusing to provide any information whatsoever, which is why he was not called to the inquest. Levy wasn't much better: he had looked upon Eddowes (and her companion) with distaste and was very evasive with the police, who considered him (along with Harris) to know more than he was telling and of having a knowing air. Lawende's evidence conversely must have been considered to be important as they paid all of his expenses; and yet, in court, he had little to say.

Another significant problem with identifying Harris is his address, consistently – where given – reported as 'Castle Street'; sometimes stated to be in Whitechapel. Clearly, not one of the many sources I have checked has ever tried to verify this. I know that because there was no 'Castle Street' in Whitechapel. There was one in Aldgate, which although incorrect, is rather interesting in that it runs between Bevis Marks and Houndsditch. Now that would be suspicious, given that the three men were supposed to be walking in the opposite direction. And why has no one else ever mentioned that?

Another thing we should keep in mind is that although Levy and Harris may not have dressed in an overtly Jewish style [I really don't know, but Lawende didn't appear so in 1899], they probably did have a distinctive Jewish appearance. I don't know how religious they were, but growing up in a Jewish community at that time, Judaism would certainly have played a major role in their lives, while Jewish tradition was an inherent part of being a Jew, regardless of their personal religious belief: and that was at least as puritanical as any Victorian Christian or indeed Victorian society as a whole.

Henry Harris was born in 1843 to a Joseph Harris and his wife Esther, who married in London in 1840. The 1841 Census states that Joseph was a 'general dealer' [not an uncommon occupation for a Jew at the time] and that he was born in about1818; his wife was born in about 1820 as Esther Levy. I cannot prove that there is a direct connection between Joseph H Levy's family and Henry Harris' mother, but I think it might be a good bet. In 1841 they were living at "the eastern end of Goulston Street" with their first child, Moses.

By the 1851 Census, Joseph Harris and his family were living at 28 New Street in Aldgate – which was off Bishopsgate Street, near Houndsditch. At this stage, Joseph was calling himself a 'furniture broker' and he had six children; he also had six lodgers at his residence. By the 1861 Census, the family had temporarily moved across the Thames to Lambeth, Southwark, living at 15 New Cut [now, 'The Cut']; both Joseph and Henry are described as 'furniture dealers' and five of Henry's siblings were living at the address. It is not possible to determine exactly when the family moved to Southwark, or how long they were there; the best that can be estimated is that they moved there sometime during 1851 – 1861 and had returned to Whitechapel by 1871.

On 5th June 1866 – a little earlier in the same year as Joseph H Levy – Henry Harris got married to Rebecca Benjamin at the Great Synagogue (in Duke Street), in accordance with the Ashkenazi Jewish marriage rites. They initially were living with Rebecca's parents at 10 Petticoat Square [aka Lane], at which time Rebecca's profession is given as 'tailoress' and Henry's as 'furniture broker'. Strangely, neither Henry nor Rebecca can be definitively located in any of the public records again until 1891 or 1901. The 1881 Census does have a possible match for 18 Catherine Wheel Alley [off Sandy's Row, top of Middlesex Street, Aldgate]; however, the ages recorded are about six years adrift, which is rather more than a genealogist would really like. This Henry is given as a 'general dealer', whereas all other identified Census entries had him as a 'furniture dealer'; plus, their places of birth were given only as 'London'. So, none of this really adds any substantiation to the identification. That said, the address is certainly plausible and I was unable to trace this couple as a separate entity. Frustratingly, the 1871 Census pages for Catherine Wheel Alley addresses are missing. This may all seem somewhat unimportant, but it could have thrown some light on the state of their marriage, in that I wondered if they separated for a time. I cannot prove or disprove it, and the 1891 Census only serves to confuse matters further. Certainly all seemed to be well in 1901 – see below. The 1911 Census indicates that they had one child that had subsequently died. It wouldn't be unusual for marriages to suffer when a child dies, despite that being common place during the Victorian period. There is no remotely easy way to identify their child's birth or death, so this all remains something of a mystery.

There may be another explanation for Harris' absence from the 1871 Census: ship passenger list records for London to Quebec for 1871 list a Henry Harris of the correct age [no occupations given on record] arriving in Canada on 15th July 1871 and 13th August 1871; although these trips would not negate his entry on the 1871 Census (2nd April 1871), it could be evidence of regular travel to Canada. Many of the records for the relevant period may no longer exist. Frustratingly, it is impossible to know which Henry Harris this was and there were a considerable number of them across the country – quite a few of a similar age; therefore, it remains only as a possibility.

Something is known of Rebecca's early life and immediate family. She was born in about 1844, possibly in Shoreditch, or Aldgate – it is unclear. The 1851 Census states that Rebecca was living with her parents, Angel and Elizabeth, both born about 1814 in Whitechapel. Angel was a Jewish 'general dealer' with five children and a live-in servant. Their address was given as 2 Cobb's Yard, Spitalfields [off Sandy's Row, which followed on from Middlesex Street]. By the 1861 Census they were living at 10 Petticoat Lane, where they remained until at least the 1871 Census; Angel died in 1875 – it is unclear what happened to his wife: she may have remarried. Rebecca had lived in Petticoat Lane for at least five years and her family almost certainly knew Joseph Levy's family, and by association (at least), they would likely have known the Harris family. I suspect that this was a tight-knit Jewish community and groups like the Levy, Harris, Benjamin, Lewis, Lyons, Moss, [possibly, Barnett, Hart, Cohen and Rosenthal,] and Lawende families, would have all been interconnected. The whole area of Whitechapel/Aldgate was saturated with these surnames, some of which, if not most, would have been related.

The 1901 Census indicates that Henry – still a 'furniture dealer', but "on his own account" – and his wife Rebecca were living at 34 New Castle Street, along with Henry's twenty-five year old niece, Sarah Harris. Joseph Harris died in 1896. By the 1911 Census, with Henry now dead (23rd July, 1904), Rebecca is still living at 34 New Castle Street, but has a boarder; she is also sharing the house with the Weinstein family. Whether this was due to lack of funds or simply because the house was too big for her needs, I have not been able to ascertain, as I could not locate any probate notice, which might indicate her financial situation at death – or, for that matter, Henry's. What the 1911 Census does inform us is that she had been married for forty-seven years and only had one child, who had since died. The Electoral Rolls indicate she remained at 34 New Castle Street until at least 1914.

The 1871 Census had Joseph & Esther Harris living at 35 Gun Street in Whitechapel, which crosses Brushfield Street and was just around the corner from Dorset Street. However, by the 1873 Electoral Roll (plus the 1876 to 1878 ER), Joseph and Esther were living at 35 New Castle Place [a few streets from Goulston Street, running parallel and behind New Castle Street]. By 1881 they were living at 15 Princes Street [just around the corner from Hanbury Street], when (again) Joseph is listed as a 'furniture broker'. At that time Henry's sisters Sarah and Jane were also living there, along with a niece, Rose Moss.

Henry's mother, Esther, died in 1883. By the 1891 Census, his father is listed at 34 New Castle Street; at this time Henry is living there – both are described as 'furniture dealer'. 'Booth's poverty map' states that occupants of the area of New Castle Street (Whitechapel) were "fairly comfortable with good ordinary earnings". Also at this address was Henry's twenty-eight year old sister, Sarah [apparently single] and a niece, Lily Moss. In addition, curiously listed is 'Hubba' who is given as Joseph's daughter-in-law, but it is unclear whether this was Henry's wife, Rebecca. What is particularly odd about these entries is that Henry is given as single, which he certainly wasn't, and there is no entry for the marital status of Hubba (forty-eight), [or Lily (ten) or a servant (fifteen)]. There would seem to have been some confusion. Annoyingly, 'Hubba Harris' cannot be found in any other records, either before or after 1891. The odd thing about the name 'Hubba' is that is Arabic (i.e. Muslim) in origin, rather than Jewish and not a proper-name. The term 'hubba-hubba' may be related, but probably wasn't in use at the time. The best I can infer is that it was a nickname, possibly implying beauty – an endearment; by the same token, it could have been used in an ironic sense as form of insult. We don't know who spoke with the invigilator that night: it could have been either Henry or his father, so unfortunately, it's impossible to derive any conclusions. Perhaps, and this is pure fantasy, Henry was the informant and was making a joke of his wife, which sparked a row; this might explain why the record wasn't completed properly. Or, there could be lots of other mundane reasons, most of which wouldn't even occur to the imagination.

I would suggest that the New Castle Street address is the one the records have corrupted to 'Castle Street'. But did Henry actually live there in 1888? What is known is that by late 1887, Joseph must have been living there [the Electoral Rolls indicate he had moved there by 1887]. What is significant about New Castle Street is that it was the next, but one, turning off Whitechapel High Street after Goulston Street... So, Henry Harris and Joseph H Levy lived in streets pretty nearly either side of Goulston Street. Now, that is a bit of a coincidence, isn't it? Why has no one else picked-up on this? Casebook.org certainly knew the address at the time of writing [see the 'Postscript']. And for those who don't know: if Henry was living at his father's address, while his father was alive, only his father would have been eligible for the Electoral Roll, so Henry would not appear at that address in the public records, except for the Census [see 'Appendix'].

What this all means is that two of the "witnesses" in Duke Street lived in the vicinity of Goulston Street. Therefore, the Ripper must have been taking the same or similar route home as the two "witnesses", albeit about ten to fifteen minutes apart – apparently. I find that extraordinary, and I'm pretty certain that had anyone realised this before, they might have mentioned it. But I can already hear the doubters shouting that I may be adding two plus two and getting five. However, that is not the end of it. If the reader recalls, I stated earlier that the Ripper probably lived at one of the residences at 108 – 119 Wentworth Buildings in Goulston Street. The obvious conclusion is to check the Electoral Roll for the relevant period. If you refer to the 'Appendix', I have explained a very important qualification relating to the ER's, which is that to find out who was living where in 1888, we need to check the 1889 ER.

When I first had the light-bulb moment about the piece of Eddowes apron, I wasn't aware that the Electoral Rolls were available; it was only when I started running searches on the Ancestry database that I noticed this, but I couldn't find any name of interest on the 1888 ER. But, I did find a name on the 1889 ER, so I did some research into how the Electoral Rolls were collated. It turns out that this process has remained essentially unchanged from 1832 until the present day. What this meant was that the name on the 1889 ER must have been resident during at least the period of 20th July to 10th October the previous year. The canonical five Ripper murders, plus Tabram, took place between 7th August and 9th November 1888. The person I found living at 111 Wentworth Buildings at that time was not found at that address on the 1887, 1888, 1890, 1891 or 1892 Electoral Rolls, or indeed the 1891 Census; which means they were only resident at that address during the period of the murders.

The name I found for 111 Wentworth Buildings was not one I was expecting – but it was one I had come across in relation to the case: it was Henry Harris. I have now added two plus two, plus one, and that does equal five! Some will note that the Electoral Rolls only give the resident's name and therefore, it cannot be certainly said that this was any specific Henry Harris: that is, of course, completely true, but ask yourself this: how many coincidences do you need before you start to believe? That one would be equally monumental, either way. Furthermore, I am not just identifying Henry Harris as the Ripper, but Joseph H Levy as well. So, in fact, Jack the Ripper was two people working together, at least in respect to Eddowes; it is possible that at least one murder was conducted independently by either one of them – in fact, they could have both killed independently, in addition to working as a team. It has been suggested in the past that there may have been more than one serial killer at work [modern police case-examination]: the Levy/Harris solution would also satisfy that argument.

The big question has to be: how exactly did the police find Harris? If they had known where he was actually living, that should have set off alarm bells, whether that was Goulston Street or New Castle Street...? May be he attended a police station, rather have them track him down; may be Levy warned him and perhaps the police were fed a false address? The only record of his address seems to give it as 'Castle Street'. Levy and Harris did subsequently speak to the newspapers with an apparent enthusiasm that was lacking in their statements to police or at the inquest; but they were still claiming to know nothing. There was a stupid-cleverness about them, only surpassed by the clever-stupidity of the police.

One side note is that 110 Wentworth Buildings was registered to an Annie Lewis in 1888 [i.e. 1889 ER; see 'Appendix']. I don't know whether there was any connection to Amelia Levy (nee Lewis,) but apparent potential connections/coincidences are galore, and do not make it any easier to make sense of the records, [not without some very long-winded and complex research, which still may not provide concrete answers].

I guess some coincidences are just that, though; or only a coincidence in our imagination and not really connected at all. It's worth mentioning at this point that the 1891 Census doesn't list the Wentworth Buildings correctly, but includes them as part of Goulston Street, rather than as buildings on Goulston Street. There is a feint marginal note indicating that these properties should have been identified as Wentworth Buildings. In fairness to the invigilators, the Wentworth tenement blocks were not present at the 1881 Census. By the 1901 Census, this anomaly had been resolved – it was always correct on the Electoral Rolls. Another possible coincidence is that on the 1901 Census at 111 Wentworth Buildings, a Louis Lewis and family are listed: could Louis be related to Amelia Levy (nee Lewis)? [In addition, at the 1901 Census for Wentworth Buildings, it lists at 108 a Henry Levy (& family), at 109 a Hyman Levy (& family) and at 117 a Benjamin Harris (& family); whether any of these were related to Henry Harris or Joseph Hyam Levy I cannot say, but if not, there we have yet more amazing coincidences.]

There are some other strange listings in the Electoral Rolls in respect of Levy for the period 1862 to 1915, and 1882 to 1905 for Harris. As I noted earlier, Levy died a wealthy man, so although this can only be speculation, I wondered if they may have been in the business of property dealing, whether that was buying and renting out or renting and sub-letting, or both. It could well be that they were not acting entirely legally, so did not mention this to the Census invigilators – or their wives didn't know about it; or both. It would help to explain how Levy amassed so much money, while being only a humble butcher.

The following are lists of addresses in the Whitechapel area which may have been registered to them. I have tried to eliminate as many false results as possible by analysing the Censuses, although this cannot guarantee that at least some of these registrations belonged to different people, especially with Joseph Levy and Henry Harris being not uncommon names in the East End at that time. Nonetheless, there are so many that it does suggest the genuine possibility that they were registered for at least some of these addresses in addition to the one they were present at on the day of a Census – that being the "official" address, where their families lived. Moreover, if these properties were being rented out, their names (Levy and Harris) could only appear if a property was unoccupied at the time the forms were sent out. Here are the lists:-

Joseph Levy, 1862 – 1915: 18 Scarborough Street [middle of Tenter Streets]; 37 Goulston Street; 3 Little Love Court [next to Goulston Street]; 7 Gower Place [off Euston Road]; Well Yard [near Royal Mint Street]; 273 Whitechapel Road; 2 Hooper Square [unable to locate]; 12 Lambeth Street [off Little Alie Street]; 1 Back Church Lane [off Cable Street]; 15 Easington Buildings [Old Montague Street]; 17,135,136,137,185,24/186 Wentworth Street; 1 White's Row [two locations: one follows-on from Buck's Row, the other across from Fashion Street] (1887 ER); 6 Rosetta Place [off Sandy's Row]; 55, 116, 118, 131, 174, 188, 190, 200 Brunswick Buildings [Goulston Street]; 11 Wentworth Buildings [either Goulston Street or Wentworth Street – see 'Appendix'] (1889 ER): so, Levy may also have had access to a property in Goulston Street (or close by) in 1888; 21 Buxton Street [follows on from Quaker Street]; 29a Fort Street [near Brushfield Street]; 10 Wentworth Court (unsure of location); 85 Plumber's Row [runs from Whitechapel High Street to Commercial Road]; 1 and 41/2 Cox Square [near Goulston Street]; 27 Pereira Street [near Brady Street]; 3 Mark Street [near Cannon Street Road]; 41 Mansel Street [near Leman Street]; 30 New Castle Street [this could be corruption of 36 New Castle Street]; 52 & 62 Brushfield Street; 1 Duncan Street [off Leman Street]; 26 Parfett Street [unable to locate]; 33 Little Alie Street. Interestingly, this abundance of listings ends abruptly in 1915, i.e. soon after Levy's death; also, some of these addresses are not listed on Censuses – perhaps they were unoccupied (or the tenants were not eligible).

Henry Harris, 1882 – 1905: 57 Mansell Street (1882 ER); 19 New Castle Place (1885 ER); 111 Wentworth Buildings (1889 ER); 62 Whitechapel High Street (1890 ER); 68 Whitechapel High Street (1892-4 ER's); 69 Whitechapel High Street & Mint Street [Southwark; no number] (1895 ER); 16 Cobb's Yard [near Goulston Street] (1897 ER); 84 New Castle Street (1897 to 1901 ER's) [could be typographic error, i.e. should be 34]; Mint Street [no number] (1899 ER); 15 Cobb's Lane [unable to locate – possibly should be 'Yard'] (1899 ER); Mint Street [no number] (1900/1 ER); 34 New Castle Street (1902-05 ER's). Also, intriguingly, these numerous listings end in 1905, i.e. after Harris's death.

What all this means is that either we have some more coincidences, or at least some of these addresses had been under the control of Levy and Harris. Certainly something seems to have been going on. But you may be wandering what is the significance of all this. Well, it's where some of these addresses are located: White's Row, which I couldn't pin down to one location, could be either the one around the corner from Dorset Street, or the one that runs on from the end of Buck's Row; and there are clearly many others in places that relate to the Ripper crimes – please check for yourself – and could have been used as places of shelter, where they could clean-up and disappear until the coast was clear.

Regardless of all this, Levy and Harris grew-up and lived in the heart of the area where the Ripper crimes were carried out; they most probably knew eachother from childhood, and the interrelations between the two families, coupled with them all being Jewish, indicates a closeness that murderous partnership would require. I recall a documentary some years ago, during which statistical analysis was applied to the locations of the murder sites, placing the likely residence of the killer in the region of Flower & Dean Street – just a few hundred yards from New Castle Street; given that these things are not exact and that they may not have analysed all of the correct murders, it is a remarkably close estimation.

At least with Levy, we know where his primary residence was throughout the relevant period; but Harris could have been anywhere – possibly some of the addresses listed above, either with or without his wife. In respect to the Censuses, the truth could be much simpler, in that the main reasons for people not appearing on Census returns would be their absence on the day, while in transit or abroad, or the pertinent records are among those that have been lost. Perhaps further mind-numbing research might turn something up, although it may not actually tell us anything useful in regards to what was going on in their lives.

I would also like to suggest the possibility that Joseph Levy, possibly with Harris, may have been responsible for some or all of the torso murders and other body parts washed up from the Thames during the 1880's and 1890's. There was a Jewish abattoir in Aldgate High Street that Levy might have had access to and numerous butchers' shops all around that area, including Butcher's Row, any one of which Levy might have worked from, if his home address wasn't a butcher's shop itself. What better place to chop people up, but in abattoir or butcher's shop, where blood was common place. For all we know, Levy minced up the meatier parts of some of the bodies and made them into sausages for the unsuspecting Whitechapel gentiles to consume! Bruce Robinson was certainly of the opinion that the Ripper was also the torso murderer, albeit for Masonic reasons.

Although the torso murders have a different modus operandi to the Ripper murders, it may be that Levy was the architect of those crimes, while Harris was the instigator of killing prostitutes in the street. Levy certainly would have had access to sharp knives. The torso murders have a more planned nature to them, whereas the Ripper murders may have been spontaneous or at least semi-spontaneous. Whatever the truth, both Levy and Harris could have had a hand in any of these crimes. It would certainly be easier for two people to place a woman's torso in the foundations of New Scotland Yard. They may not have even intended it to be found – just a little private joke. The fact that a leg was buried close-by and only found when private investigators took dogs down there, suggests whoever did that wasn't really concerned with the body parts being found. As for the Pinchin Street torso: perhaps there was a special purpose that night in regard to where it was going to be placed and being thwarted for some reason during their pursuit, the torso was just dumped in the street. I imagine a cart would have been needed, and what better than a butcher's cart?

Lastly, I want to consider what actually happened with each of the murders and some possible "motivation" for Harris and Levy committing such heinous deeds. And, where – if anywhere – did Lawende fit into the scheme of things:-

Lawende may also have been involved in property dealing, only more upmarket. Oddly, his name is associated with properties going back to 1860; given that Lawende was born in 1847, this would seem unlikely. Perhaps his father was also called Joseph and it was he that started the whole property business venture. As far as the official records go, Lawende doesn't come up much. As Lavender, there are a few more hits and some of those were not the Joseph Lavender/Lawende of interest, so this may be a far simpler explanation. In any event, the filtered list makes for an interesting read: 74 Moneyer Street [Hoxton]; 26 Bedford Row [could not locate]; Heath View [could not locate]; 6 Red Lion Passage [Holborn]; Ruislip Common [no specific address]; Canning Road [Highbury; no number given]; Headstone (Pinner) [bit of a mystery]; 120 Barkworth Road [Peckham, New Town]; 6 Clara Terrace [Wealdstone]; 14 Albion Road [Whitechapel, near Commercial Road East]; 6 Lakedale Road [not located]; 5 Wordsworth Road [Wealdstone]; various addresses in Stratford...and so on, beyond 1905.

Joseph Lawende was a witness, but witness to what? I don't believe he had anything to with any murders. If anything, Levy used him unwittingly as an alibi. I think Lawende began by telling the truth: he did see a suspicious man with Eddowes, but this was not the killer, and at no time did he imply that he knew the man. Subsequently – probably when he heard about the Goulston Street evidence – he realised, or suspected at least, that Harris and Levy may be involved. They were all Jews: Jews look out for Jews – apparently – and they were close friends. In 1882 there was an influx of Jews into the Whitechapel area, fleeing Eastern European pogroms. The Whitechapel community would have been very insular and self-protective. As was often allegedly said at the time, a Jew would not inform upon another Jew; they looked after their own – they had to: persecution was always prevalent and not discriminating in its choice of victim. There is a perfectly understandable reasoning for why Lawende kept his thoughts secret: if the Ripper had been caught and turned out to be a Jew, or even two Jews, the fallout from that could have been disastrous for the Jewish community in Whitechapel (and throughout London). Anyway, he didn't know it was Harris/Levy. So, why change his testimony, to the point where his evidence was meaningless? I imagine that he would have had to shoulder a terrible guilt if an innocent man had been identified and sent to the gallows, so he had no choice but to effectively withdraw his deposition. In addition, although I am not suggesting that Lawende was a bad man, within the context of his religious upbringing, he may have felt little empathy for the Ripper's victims; perhaps even seeing some justification in it. After all, he would seem to have maintained contact with Levy, given that they both moved to the same street in Dalston, although he appears to have moved elsewhere soon after – which could also be significant. Whatever he knew or thought he knew, he took it to his grave in 1925.

I think it is also possible that the police had some suspicion about Harris and Levy – those records may have conveniently disappeared with all the other missing material [see casebook.org, Butcher's Row suspect]. They would have been in a very difficult position: if they voiced their suspicions about the killer being Jewish, that would have probably ignited riots. We only have to consider the graffito incident: I believe there was genuine fear of serious public disorder, which would have impacted upon everyone. There is that apparent identification that possibly Lawende made at a "rest home" of Aaron Kosminski, conveniently some years after the crimes ended, when public indignation had subsided. I can imagine Lawende being torn between wanting these gentiles off his back and an end to the Ripper speculation, but couldn't stomach sending an innocent Jew to his death, even if he was nuts.

There was one thing Levy and Harris had in common, beyond the obvious: they were both in a childless marriage. Why that was we shall probably never know. In Harris' case, the loss of a child could have had a profound effect, especially as no more were subsequently produced. Therefore, like Levy, he could have been harbouring a grudge against his wife's apparent inability to have children. Both Levy and Harris could possibly have had sexual issues with their respective wives. Perhaps the marriages were essentially sexless, which would have been a considerable strain, particularly given the times and their religious beliefs. If they were compelled to use prostitutes, this could be part of the root cause of their antagonism towards them. Equally possible is that their sexual needs were abhorrent to their wives. Of course, the psychopathy must already have been there: these would just be triggers, or even an excuse – psychopathic behaviour can manifest in a variety of ways, depending on the stimulus. And it wouldn't be the only time that two evil people have teamed up to reap havoc. Whether one was a dominant force or not, is impossible to say; whether they egged eachother on, we will never know. This is all speculation and may have nothing to do with it. Some people are just sick.

A fact that has long been recognised as associated with the Ripper murders is that they were all committed during and around weekends or Bank Holiday Mondays. Victorians were very strict about Sunday working: no one would have been allowed to trade, regardless of their religion; a law that existed in the UK until 1994. Easter Monday and Whit Monday [August Bank Holiday] were made public holidays in 1871. If Levy and Harris were good Jewish boys they would have respected the Jewish Sabbath which began on a Friday evening at sunset [around 8.30 p.m. in the summer] and the commencement of darkness on the Saturday night [approximately 9 p.m. in the summer]. Strict observance of the Sabbath would have prevented them from committing the Chapman murder; however, there is no indication that Levy and Harris were practising orthodox Jews. They might justify slaughtering a prostitute on a Sabbath as acceptable to God; after all, murder is hardly permitted by Judaism – not under any circumstances, apart from war. History proves that religious belief – whatever the creed – has never posed a barrier to the murderous agenda of the homicidal maniac; usually, it is part of their rationale for perpetrating hideous crimes in the first place. What is really important here, though, is that they would not be able to work (especially Levy) on the two bank holiday Mondays, Saturdays or Sundays, which would have given them greater opportunity to execute their crimes than it would a non-Jew.

Finally, I would like to speculate about the conduct of the crimes I am associating with Jack the Ripper, in the guise of Joseph Hyam Levy and Henry Harris. Emma Smith could have been the starting point: an essentially spontaneous attack; it happened in Osborn Street on 3rd April 1888, just up the road from where Levy and Harris lived. Following this, they developed a taste for venting their latent frustrations upon vulnerable prostitutes. Martha Tabram was the first Ripper attack proper: they probably went out on the hunt; seeing Tabram with her "date" would likely have incensed them, thus "nominating" her as their victim. One may have lured her into the George Yard building, the other shadowing them. Once the victim was ensnared in a suitable location, the other one joined the game. The scenario may have been that while one carried out the attack [perhaps, Harris in this case], possibly with some initial assistance from the other, the other one kept watch.

Polly Nichols may have been a spontaneous attack, possibly by Levy, alone. Given that Levy may have had access to premises in White's Row, he could have come across Nichols by chance; unable to control his rage, he attacks her swiftly with little or no warning. Lechmere's approach cuts his attack short and he scuttles away to safety in his property in White's Row, just feet away. The reason I am inclined to think that this was a solo kill is that it is somewhat off their "patch" and less likely to have been pre-orchestrated.

The Chapman slaying strikes me as having a more planned tone. She could have been lured to the yard of 29 Hanbury Street by Levy and/or Harris (possibly in disguise). It was known haunt of prostitutes – a nice private, yet public place [as there was free access], where clients could be taken. They could have shadowed her with the man that Mrs Long saw her with, although she didn't mention seeing anyone else. However it was facilitated, Chapman was trapped in the yard, probably with one Ripper in front and one behind her. Once Chapman was immobilised, one could get to work [probably Levy] while the other watches and keeps watch. If Levy or Harris had a property in the vicinity, they could have taken refuge there, cleaning up before going home; or they could have gone directly to 111 Wentworth Buildings. It is notable that this murder was committed somewhat later in the morning than the others, but the reason may be unfathomable. (Kelly was killed latest in the morning, but that crime has a different nature to the rest.)

Elizabeth Stride could not have been a Ripper murder if Levy and Harris are accepted as the 'Jack the Ripper' perpetrators, because they were at the Imperial Club when this woman was killed, (or at least, Lawende's testimony would lead one to believe that...)

Now we come to the fateful Eddowes extermination. There are a variety of possible scenarios: Levy and Harris were, according to Lawende, walking a little behind him. I would suggest that Levy and Harris were having a secretive discussion in regards to Eddowes – no doubt incensed by her presence – which resulted in their objective to slaughter her. When Lawende reached the top of Duke Street, entering Aldgate High Street, either he went into Fenchurch Street – in which case he would have quickly disappeared from view – or he continued up Whitechapel High Street, in which case Harris may have made an excuse to return to the Imperial Club, with Levy making his excuses so that he could join him. Or they just waited for Lawende to disappear from view in a carriage, before returning to Duke Street. Alternatively, they may have cooked-up a ruse, whereby Levy runs off towards Whitechapel High Street, only to return to Duke Street via Houndsditch.

One way or another, they doubled back into Duke Street. It is unclear from the inquest reports when Levy and Harris separated from Lawende; it could have been almost immediately they left the club, in which case Levy and Harris could have gone via the Duke Street dog-leg and just waited a few minutes until Lawende had gone. At the inquest, Levy stated that he said to Harris "Look there. I don't like going home by myself when I see these sorts of characters. I'm off." [The precise wording varies according to source, but the sense is the same.] Why did he say that? He also went on to say that he wasn't frightened by them and to refute that he had seen anything terrible in their appearance; he claimed to look upon them with distaste, yet said he walked past them without paying them any attention. There is something seriously awry here: why would someone who says they are afraid to walk alone, decide to walk-off, alone? That would be completely self-defeating. This individual's account is decidedly iffy; he is decidedly iffy, and yet, no one suspects. Moreover, newspaper reports indicate inconsistency in Lawende and Levy's statements, e.g. "...we were sitting in the club chatting. As we approached the club we noticed a man and a woman..." That doesn't make sense; they saw the couple when they left the club...? Another inconsistency was that Levy is reported as complaining about the couple to Harris as they left the club (and that he was "off"); then we have Harris and Levy (together) walking some distance behind Lawende – possibly as much as nine yards. All of this indicates to me clear discrepancies in their accounts which could be because they are adjusting the details as they go along – lying, basically. Today, such anomalies would be detected and investigated; not so in 1888 – but why has no one noticed this since?

Readers will recall that the 2002 Soham Murderer, Ian Huntley, posed as a witness: it's a great way of deflecting attention, covering one's backside in case anyone saw you near the victim; although these days, no one is ever taken on face value by the police, thankfully.

The man that Lawende saw was either a client or pimp and Harris/Levy would have waited for him to go on his way before ambushing Eddowes. Even if the man had seen them, he would not be likely to come forward for fear of ending up with his head in a noose. They must have had "fits" over being police witnesses to a murder they committed. And here is an interesting section of inquest statement given by DC Halse: "....I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre Square....I myself went by way of Middlesex Street into Wentworth Street, where I stopped two men, who, however, gave a satisfactory account of themselves...." No doubt they told him they were returning from the Imperial Club or something like that. Halse and Levy did attend the inquest, but whether they crossed paths is difficult to say. [Also, noteworthy: there were many potential relations to both Harris and Levy, living in the streets around Mitre Square during the 1881 to 1891 period.]

Perhaps the comment Levy makes about not liking to go home on his own was an excuse to join Harris – who would be heading back to the Imperial Club in this scenario – or to "go home" via Houndsditch. The problem is that it lacks context, except to Lawende, who would not necessarily have mentioned this to the police. Later, when he heard about the Goulston Street matter, he clammed up, moderating his words thereafter. You might ask why Levy put the police onto Lawende in the first place and didn't just keep quiet. For one, he may have been taken by surprise when the police banged on his door; he couldn't know what anyone else may have seen or would say. Lawende effectively gave Levy and Harris an alibi, without them having to be involved too much with the police – Levy clearly didn't want to be. Lawende may have been part of the plan all along. It is not surprising though that Levy had a knowing air and was evasive. It all makes perfect sense in this new light.

What is amazing is that, even if the timelines are not as accurate as have always been believed, the killer did an awful lot in a very short space of time, before melting away. This would have been made a great deal easier if there were two people involved. Although, quite why they felt the need to go through Eddowes belongings and disperse them around about her body, some in a rather considered way, is beyond my comprehension. That is what the killers did, nonetheless. For this reason, in addition to certain details of the other murders, many have detected a ritualistic element to the killings. I think they may have a point, but not the one they think. Levy was a Jewish butcher: to him these women represented sacrificial lambs to be slaughtered by kosher ritual, thereby atoning for the sins of either the women or himself. It occurs to me that the bizarre inverted V-shaped cuts to the face could represent the menorah or the 'tree of life' that bore the fruit which corrupted Eve, and in turn, Adam... Removal of rings, specifically wedding bands, may have been because the Ripper considered a prostitute to have violated her marriage vows and her promise to God. There may also have been an element of a desire to destroy the womb – it would explain the opening up of the abdomen and removal of the intestines, which would be in the way [may be he really did remove the uterus –] as this could have been related to the cause of one or both of the killers need to take revenge for their lack of children or sex, or both. The cuts to the face could have been akin to idle [albeit, gruesome] doodles. Not all that logical to the normal person, but we are dealing with the unhinged.

I think that Levy was primarily responsible for Eddowes mutilations, though it is entirely possible that Harris contributed. Looking at the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes murders – the three that everyone agrees were the work of the Ripper – they were more likely to have been principally the work of Levy, being a butcher, as they demonstrate some anatomical knowledge and "surgical" ability – this observation was the general consensus at the time for the nature of the mutilations. Harris still assisted the murders, whatever his exact role was. Following on from this conclusion, where injuries were more superficial – Tabram, for example – then it was probably Harris who was responsible, but where the innards had been removed, that was probably Levy.

The Mary Kelly carnage was a different manifestation of the killer's mania. As I stated earlier, it's probably inappropriate to make too much of these differences, purely because of the differences in the circumstances. I believe George Hutchinson saw the Ripper – or at least one half of the partnership. It could have been either Levy or Harris from Hutchinson's description, because we do not have a description of either of these two animals. Harris would likely be the more hesitant, considering how close the authorities got to identifying him. On the other hand, the lack of skill displayed in the dissection might be more indicative of Harris, if that is at all relevant. So, it could probably have been either one – but not both.

There may also be an element of brazen arrogance in this escalation; a sense of invincibility after the Eddowes' fiasco. If Hutchinson was a genuine witness, then Kelly represents a cock-a-snook to the police – a complete contempt. Whichever one it was, perhaps that was a risk too far for the other, which led to a subsequent withdrawal from the game: in this instance, I would suspect Harris was Kelly's assassin, and this may be why Levy subsequently moved away to Dalston, in a bid to distance himself from what had become a liability; that in turn reined-in Harris, with the loss of his partner-in-crime diminishing his confidence... But this is all just pure conjecture.

It may not be of any significance, but the "other" White's Row was just around the corner from Dorset Street; that would have been a convenient stopping off point. [Of course, I can't have it both ways, so I would favour the one by Buck's Row, if only because that makes the Nichols murder easier to explain; a less significant detail for the other murder – and not essential, either way.]

Why or how that piece of Eddowes' apron ended-up where it did we will never know [or even why they took it – possibly because they were not properly prepared?] I cannot believe it was deliberate. May be the graffito distracted Harris/them and somehow that led to the dropping of the rag; by the time Harris/they realised, it was too late.

One question one could ask about the Eddowes murder – or any of the murders if they were not pre-planned – is why would they be carrying knives? I would suggest either for protection or just in case an opportunity arises – or more probably, both.

After Mary Kelly, something changed. It could have been partly down to the increase in the police presence which it instigated. They could have been warned off. At some point, Harris may have reconciled with his potentially errant wife. Or, as intimated above, one half of the partnership lost their appetite for the "funny little game".

Alice McKensie was killed in Castle Alley: that's the next turning down the Whitechapel High Street from the New Castle Street turning: another coincidence? I think not. Harris probably spotted McKensie on his way down the High Street or when passing Castle Alley and couldn't control himself. Or, equally, it could have been Levy on a visit. Either way, this could have been an indication of a decrease in ferocity, given the injuries – or lack of them.

The Coles murder didn't happen until 13th February 1891; it was well off the Ripper's "usual" patch. All the other murders happened on the north side of the Whitechapel High Street. It cannot be excluded, though. Being "off the usual patch" may have been a deliberate decision because the Ripper sensed the net was closing, despite any superficial appearance the police displayed publically. We cannot know what may have been going-on in the background, either in the Ripper's life or in the police investigation – assuming that the police ever had any inkling; just because the top brass were too wallowed in their own self-importance to be able to see beyond their bloated egos, doesn't mean that there weren't some senior police who really did have a clue, but chose not to share it.

There is one more murder that had distinct Ripper credentials: Carrie Brown in New York. This has been speculated over since 24th April 1891, when it was committed. But could Levy or Harris have really been in New York? Well, I think it is impossible to prove, but if Harris did make transatlantic trips to do business, then consider this: another fortuitous survival of an obscure record shows that a Henry Harris (age forty-eight) was aboard the Cunard Line's RMS Aurania, departing from Liverpool and arriving in New York on 20th April 1891. That's four days before Brown was killed. Records indicate that the Aurania would take about seven days to make the journey, so would have left Liverpool on or about the 13th April. The 1891 Census was performed on 5th April, giving Harris a whole week to get to Liverpool to board the Aurania. It cannot be proved, but it's another incredible coincidence! If it was Harris, this may have been the final act: there is an indication that the enthusiasm for destruction was waning; perhaps, also, he realised that his luck might be running out.

Incidentally, I also found the following records: a Henry Harris arrived in New York (from England) on 21st July 1870 aboard the RMS Cella; his age indicated a birth date of ca 1845 [no location given] and the occupation given could be 'seller of furniture', but is very difficult to make out. Another Henry Harris of approximately the right age travelled from New York to London, arriving on 5th November 1900. These records are very incomplete, so it was fortuitous to find anything.

One last loose-end is the age of the killers. It has always been believed that the Ripper was aged mid-thirties. However, if no one ever saw him/them, then the Ripper's age was not known. An amusing side-note to this is in Trevor Marriott's book, where he makes the assertion that James Maybrick – who would have been fifty – was too old to be the Ripper; he then goes on to promote his own suspect, who would have been forty-eight... In 1888, Levy was about forty-six or forty-seven, while Harris was forty-four or forty-five. They were not too old to wield a knife in a psychotic frenzy. If any of the witnesses did ever see one or both of them, they may have under-estimated their age; after all, it would have been dark and most sightings were fleeting.

A noteworthy aside: knowing what we now do about Harris and Levy's lives, it is possible that they knew some of their victims by sight. It is even possible that Eddowes had done cleaning work for them. Equally, the victims may have had a vague recognition of these Jewish characters, which may have led to them lowering their guard a little. And there is always the possibility that they knew them as previous clients.

Joseph Levy managed to live a good life, making it past his 72nd birthday, although his death wasn't the nicest: three months after being diagnosed with intestinal cancer – which is very painful and unpleasant – he finally succumbed on 16th May 1914, when his heart failed. The informant was Levy's nephew, Alfred I. Levy, of Virginia Road, Shoreditch – which could be significant, as there is reason to believe that he had lost contact with some of his immediate family; there could be many reasons for that, but one can't help contemplate certain possibilities. Why did his wife die in Brighton?

Henry Harris was less fortunate – albeit scant consolation – dying at the age of sixty (23rd July 1904). It was an unpleasant death: the cause of death was renal failure, cerebral haemorrhage, paralysis and coma. Kidney failure can have many causes, some of which are hereditary. Incidentally, it was Harris' brother-in-law who was the informant at his death, not his wife – he lived at 33 Wentworth Street, i.e. the Goulston Street end.

Long-term low dose mercury poisoning can be a cause of renal failure: mercury may have been used to treat Gonorrhoea; however, silver nitrate was the primary treatment in the nineteenth century and although that could also cause kidney damage, it's very obvious, turning the skin silvery. So, he probably died from an innocent cause, but at least it was unpleasant and painful for a prolonged period.

The only real consolation is that neither Levy nor Harris had any children [that survived] and so there can be no direct descendents of:

Jacks the Rippers.

\------------------------------------------------------

I have no doubt that the die-hard Ripperologists will not be happy with my conclusions, especially as the answer was staring them all in the face for so long. No doubt the creators of casebook.org will try to suggest that I stole their research – I did not; but I have added a considerable amount to it. What I find astounding is that no one else has made these obvious connections. Like I said, though, it is easy to say that once one knows. So, there is no shame: if something can be solved, sooner or later someone will be lucky enough to do it.

The only contentions that anyone could reasonably make about these Ripper identities would be that they were not overtly monstrous in appearance or in everyday behaviour and didn't end up in an asylum, or prison; nor did they commit suicide. They apparently lived (otherwise) normal lives. Many might prefer a Kosminski, Klosowski or Ostrog, et al, as fitting the pigeon-hole more easily. I would point out that many a heinous criminal has been, superficially, at least, quite normal, even charismatic, e.g. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Albert DeSalvo, Dennis Rader, Gary Ridgway, Harold Shipman, etc. Some of these had lengthy breaks in their sprees; albeit probably true that all would have continued unabated had they not been caught. I don't think we can know whether or not Levy and Harris committed any more murders, beyond those attributed to the Ripper; nor can we know what was happening in their private lives. There are many series of murders that have never been solved – why? Probably because the killer stopped and was never traced... It had been suggested by several authors that the Ripper also killed children: I personally doubt that, but nothing should ever be ruled out – such as witnesses, who transpire to be perpetrators.

In my opinion, no previously cited suspect has had anything close to the extent of intimate association with the area where the crimes took place. The only exception would be Buck's Row, which I may have an explanation for; Berner Street wasn't relevant. The Coles' murder is also outside their apparent territory, but it is questionable that this was the Ripper. All that said, I have no doubt that Levy and Harris would have been familiar with the entire area to some extent (at least,) right from childhood. Until now, Mitre Square seemed to be outside the Ripper's normal range; however, both Levy and Harris had a connection to this part of Aldgate because, apart from any specific family links, it was the site of the Great Synagogue (and the Imperial Club) and the Synagogue School, which they may have attended. We have a Jewish butcher with a possible axe to grind against women and a childhood friend, also with a possible similar grudge, both of whom probably had access to a variety of properties all around Whitechapel, with the Goulston Street connection being potentially damning. All things considered, the case against Levy/Harris is circumstantially very strong and beyond compare; and they can be placed in the proximity of Eddowes' murder at about the right time, by their own admission. In addition, the two-man Ripper theory helps answer some of the inconsistencies found between different victim's injuries and the varying circumstances of some of the crimes, not least of all, how they were possible under the conditions and in the known timeframes.

I can honestly say that I never felt I had to force anything, or get too imaginative, or be overly clever; the puzzle pieces just slot easily together – which to me is confirmation that it must be right. In fact, it's so unbelievably true that you could not make it up!

Final Analysis

Many readers will be naturally sceptical, so here is a reminder of all of the "connections" (or "coincidences") that link Joseph Levy and Henry Harris to the crimes:

(i) Joseph Levy was a butcher. It was often cited at the time [and since] that the Ripper could have been a butcher – in fact, it was quite likely.

(ii) Levy grew up in Petticoat Lane, just around the corner from Goulston Street.

(iii) Levy's family almost certainly knew the Harris family, and therefore, Harris and Levy knew eachother from childhood. Their families (and a number of others) were closely associated, in addition to being a part of close-knit Jewish community.

(iv) Levy had a butcher's shop sited right in the area that the Ripper operated. His was a family of butchers and he would have grown up in an environment of butchery.

(v) Levy's wife and her family lived in Mitre Street; other members of both families lived in the streets surrounding Mitre Square. Levy would have been very familiar with this area, as well as frequenting it at the time of the crimes, as

the Imperial Club and the Great Synagogue were both in Duke Street. Also, extended family members were still living in that vicinity at the time of the crimes. [Lawende's business premises – personal and employer's – were also close to Mitre Square.]

(vi) Levy's family would seem to have had a history of mental illness [see Postscript].

(vii) Henry Harris grew up in the "Ripper's playground". As a young child, he lived in Goulston Street. He and his family lived in Aldgate and Whitechapel in various locations which are very close to the sites of some of the Ripper crimes.

(viii) Harris's wife and her family also lived in the same Aldgate and Whitechapel area that Harris & Levy did; Harris's relations (including in-laws) all lived in the general vicinity of the crimes, such as Wentworth Street.

(ix) Harris may have lived or had access to 111 Wentworth Buildings in 1888, where Eddowes bloody apron piece was found. He also would have had access to 34 New Castle Street (even if he were not living there). The address recorded as given to the police at the time was 'Castle Street', which was either a subterfuge or a corruption of New Castle Street.

(x) Harris was a commercial furniture dealer and would have travelled as part of his occupation; he may have made transatlantic trips. He may be the Henry Harris (of the correct age) who travelled to New York a few days before Carrie Brown was killed.

(xi) Jospeh Levy may have obtained some of his produce from the docks on the south side of the Whitechapel High Street. Lawende had lived in Tenter Street South, where Levy and Harris may have visited him. It is probable that Levy and Harris would have had some familiarity with the area of Coles' murder.

(xii) If the Ripper was two people working together, it would help explain how the crimes were committed in the time and respective locations without being caught in the act.

(xiii) Harris and Levy were Jewish and so had more opportunity to commit the crimes over weekends than would a non-Jew.

(xiv) They both had childless marriages which may have been the cause of marital discontent, with the wife taking the blame, regardless of the reason. If there were sexual reasons for their parental circumstances, this could have been a motivation for the murders. They may have even been using prostitutes themselves.

(xv) It was suggested at the time of the crimes that the Ripper may have suffered from religious and/or erotic mania: this could well have been what drove Levy and/or Harris' latent insanity.

(xvi) Harris' residential location from at least 1881 to 1891 is uncertain. He may have had access to a number of properties in Whitechapel, many in the vicinity of the murders.

(xvii) Levy was only recorded on the Electoral Roll for his known address on one occasion [in 1890] throughout the period of 1866 to 1898. He is even more likely than Harris was to have had access to properties all around Whitechapel.

(xviii) The "evidence" given by Lawende, Levy and Harris in relation to the Eddowes' murder was very suspect. Levy and Harris behaved in a very odd manner. Their stories did not add up and Lawende's description morphed several times, becoming ultimately useless. It was considered at the time that they knew more than they were telling.

(xix) Levy and Harris lived 5 to 10 minutes from Mitre Square and were there minutes before Eddowes was murdered. They both lived either side of Goulston Street (at the very least) and both may have had access to property in Goulston Street.

(xx) Harris lived just around the corner from Castle Alley where McKensie was killed. The escape route in either direction from Castle Alley allowed return to New Castle Street in moments.

(xxi) Levy died leaving a very substantial estate; it is unclear how this money was derived – it could have been derived from property dealing, of one sort or another.

(xxii) Levy and Harris were familiar characters in and around the Ripper territory and may have been clients of the prostitutes frequenting the area. This may have made them seem less threatening to their potential victims.

All in all, there is quite a lot of circumstantial evidence against Harris and Levy. There are of course other credible suspects: Lechmere, Mann, Chapman [aka Koslowski], Tumblety, and a few others; there are such favourites as Kosminski and Ostrog. But I challenge anyone to compile a list of tangible connections or coincidences to these suspects and the crimes/crime locations that equates to the extent that I have found for Levy/Harris. Many have only come to prominence because certain senior police at the time subsequently made obscure references to them sometime after the murders ended, in most

cases, a considerable time after. We don't even know why they suspected them. Jacob Levy sounds like a good suspect [see Postscript], but there is far more reason to suspect his brother, Joseph.

So, take your choice. There will be those who will say that there is no hard evidence. There is no hard evidence against anyone! In order to obtain incontrovertible evidence, one would need a time-machine – don't hold your breath for that. Even DNA evidence could not be considered unequivocal so long after the crimes were committed, and no one has managed to convincingly come up with such evidence, nor are they likely to. The "Ripper letters" are universally dismissed, and even the few that aren't, cannot tell us anything. Only Bruce Robinson has managed to make a case from these: impressive though it is, few accept it and there are no definitively tangible connections between his candidate and the crimes.

If it were not Harris and Levy, then who was it?
REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY

Including Acknowledgements
Websites:

Ancestry.co.uk [Census, Electoral Rolls, Travel Records, Probate Notices, Public Family Trees, etc]

Freebmd.org.uk [Birth, Marriage & Death registry listings – free resource]

Gro.gov.uk [Copies of BMD certificates]

Booth.Ise.ac.uk [Booth's 1889 Poverty Map – free resource]

Thisismoney.co.uk [Inflation Calculator]

Google.co.uk/maps + Earth.google.co.uk [Modern street maps and views]

Casebook.org [Jack the Ripper dedicated website]

En.wikipedia.org/wiki/jack_the_ripper

En.wikipedia.org/wiki/jack_the_ripper_suspects

Edward Stanford's Library Map of London & its Suburbs, 1891 (MOTCO, 2007)

Books (in no particular order):

Jack the Ripper – The Simple Truth [Bruce Paley, 1995; ISBN 9 780747 252184]

The Complete Jack the Ripper [Donald Rumbelow, 1988; ISBN 9 780140 173956]

Jack the Ripper – The 21st Century Investigation [Trevor Marriott, 2007; ISBN 9 781844 543700]

The Crimes of Jack the Ripper... [Paul Roland, 2012; ISBN 9 781848 588448]

Jack the Ripper – The Facts [Paul Begg, 2004; ISBN 9 781861 058706]

The Complete History of Jack the Ripper [Philip Sugden, 2006; ISBN 9 781841 193977]

The Crimes, Detection & Death of Jack the Ripper [Martin Fido, 1987; ISBN 9 780297 791362]

They All Love Jack – Busting the Ripper [Bruce Robinson, 2015; ISBN 9 780007 548880]

The Diary of Jack the Ripper [Shirley Harrison, 1998; ISBN 9 781857 823608]

Jack the Ripper – Quest For A Killer [M.J. Trow, 2009; ISBN 9 781845631260]

The Jack the Ripper Location Photographs... [Philip Hutchinson, 2009; ISBN 9 781848 687844]

Jack the Ripper – Letters From Hell [Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner, 2001; ISBN 9 780750 925495]

The London of Jack the Ripper – Then and Now [Robert Clack & Philip Hutchinson, 2007; ISBN 9 781859 838785]

Jack the Ripper – Scotland Yard Investigates [Stewart P. Evans & Donald Rumbelow; ISBN 9 780750 942287]

The Victorian Policeman (Shire Library) [Simon Patrick Dell, 2004; ISBN 9 780747 805915]

APPENDIX

Summary of Research

As I mentioned in the 'Introduction', I have had previous experience with genealogical research: my family tree currently lists over 4500 names and I still have a considerable volume of material to add. The point is: I know what I am doing. The following is a summary of the various searches that I performed using the resources at Ancestry.co.uk and Freebmd.org.uk. I have in the past contributed to the transcription of the records on to the FreeBMD database; it is a fantastic free resource. I also obtained "bmd" certificates where necessary, via Gro.gov.uk. There is some Census records available free on Freecen.org.uk, but this is an ongoing project and is not complete. The 1881 Census is available free online from a number of sources. Although the Census records are pretty good on the whole, there are pages and whole sections missing from some; the 1891 Census has portions of the London area missing – fortunately, not Whitechapel.

1841 Census was conducted on 6th June.

1851 Census was conducted on 30th March.

1861 Census was conducted on 7th April.

1871 Census was conducted on 2nd April.

1881 Census was conducted on 3rd April.

1891 Census was conducted on 5th April.

1901 Census was conducted on 31st March.

1901 Census was conducted on 2nd April.

The Electoral Rolls started in 1832; the 1832 to 1965 records were digitised in 2012. From 1884 to 1928, only the head of every household (over 21) was eligible, not all the adults at each residence, (although lodgers could qualify). Women in the UK did not begin to be allowed to vote – except in rare circumstances – until 1918, and not fully until 1928; that said, there are a fair few women listed from the 1880's onwards. The register was published on 15th February each year (a draft reported in December), but compiled according to the qualifying date of 10th October the previous year, with notices sent out on 20th June and required for return by early July. Therefore, the 1889 ER was compiled for 10th October 1888, but would have been completed by householders between 20th June and by 20th July. Therefore, someone listed on the 1889 ER would have been registered by 20th July 1888 and must have been resident at that address by that date. The Victorians would have taken this obligation at least as seriously as we do today.

All Censuses were searched using Ancestry's search engine for all relevant names and each individually checked for inclusion or elimination purposes. The 1881 & 1891 Census: all UK Harris listings were searched, with London [and especially Whitechapel] analysed in detail (i.e. every listing). The following names were specifically searched: Henry Harris, Henry Harry Harris, Harry Henry Harris, HH Harris; H Harris and all Harris' as 'furniture dealer'; Joseph Levy, Joseph H Levy, Joseph Hyam/Hiam Levy; Joseph Lawende/Joseph Lavender. In addition, many other relatives were also searched to cross-check connections.

The only way to search specific addresses is to leaf through the online images page by page – searching doesn't work. This was done for all of the Whitechapel districts for 1881 and 1891, in entirety.

The 1888/1889 Electoral Rolls are listed in resident name order – these were analysed fully. The 1890 Electoral Roll (441 pgs) and 1891 Electoral Roll (264 pgs) are listed in address order: these were searched for all relevant addresses (scanning all names non-systematically – no in depth analysis of names). 1891 also included some lists by name order – these names and addresses were also fully analysed.

The 1832 to 1920 Electoral Rolls were name-searched in entirety.

The 1861 to 1911 Censuses were searched for all Lawende/Lavender/Levy/Harris names to eliminate any addresses found to belong to someone else with the same name.

The following Certificates were obtained:-

1866 – Marriage of Henry Harris to Rebecca Benjamin [1866, Q.Jun, London C., v.1c, p224].

1866 – Marriage of Joseph H Levy to Amelia Lewis [1866, Q.Dec, London C., v.1c, p227].

1904 – Death of Henry Harris [1904, Q.Sep, Whitechapel, v.1c, p215].

1914 – Death of Joseph Hyam Levy [1914, Q.Jun, Fulham, v.1a, p276].

Note: some other certificates were obtained as part of the elimination process, but were found not to be pertinent.

Incidentally, in a bid to circumvent a possible smart Alec, I should point out that there was a Henry Harris living at 111 Wentworth Street on the 1891 Census. Firstly, this is not the same as 111 Wentworth Buildings (Goulston Street) – which is listed separately – and that Henry Harris would have been about 21 years old in 1888, so may not have qualified. He can be found again on the 1901 Census at a different address. Trying to prove that these 111's are different locations is far from simple, partly because not all residences are listed on every Electoral Roll: this is because some may have been unoccupied or the head of household was not eligible and nor was anyone else at that address. I spent a considerable amount of time convincing myself that this premise is correct, purely to avoid any potential contradiction later down the line. I won't list everything I did, but for example, on the 1888 Electoral Roll will be found separate listings for Wentworth Street and Wentworth Buildings for numbers 75, 76, 82, 90, 116, 126 & 138. Another confirmation is the fact that in 1895, 111 Wentworth Street became the 'City of Norwich' public House [now demolished], and interestingly an Arthur Harris was the publican in 1909. Unfortunately, 111 Wentworth Buildings (specifically) does not appear on most of the Electoral Rolls from 1887 to 1892 – only 1889. The Censuses break up some blocks of addresses in the same street into different sub-districts [and not always the same ones twice,] making locating some addresses an arduous task; all that said, it should have been 666. [Some might argue that the Henry Harris living at 111 Wentworth Street in 1891 could have been the one living at 111 Wentworth Buildings in 1888. I cannot deny this is possible, but it would mean that we have yet another odd coincidence, if there were not enough already, and therefore has no more relevance than any other Henry Harris listing.] Also, an Arthur Harris was listed from 1907 – 1915 as living at 111 Wentworth Street, consistent with him being landlord in 1909 – he probably wasn't a relation to Henry 'the Ripper' Harris, but may have been the son (or other relation) of the Henry Harris resident at 111 Wentworth Street in 1891. I apologise for whittling on about this issue, but if I don't clarify this, someone will no doubt come along and claim I am in error when I am not! Part of the problem with this issue is that I believe that some of the Wentworth Buildings were on Wentworth Street – but not no.s 108 to 119. I think this is what confused the Census invigilators in 1891. The confusion also seems to have crept into the Eddowes inquest: two separate newspaper sources reported the address where the apron portion was found as '118 Goulston Street' and '15 Goulston Street'; neither of which entirely makes sense, but I am guessing that no. 15 was the location of 108 – 119 Wentworth Buildings on Goulston Street, although I am not sure how that was determined.

Note: It is something of a miracle that all of the relevant records were available. The Census data is reasonably complete, although there are some pages missing, particularly from the 1891 Census. The Electoral Rolls are far worse: a substantial proportion of these records have not survived – some that have, indicate water damage. It was a sheer stroke of luck that all of the really important ones needed for this project were available; otherwise, it would never have been possible to solve the mystery of Jack the Ripper quite so convincingly.
POSTSCRIPT

I was close to completing my first draft of this book when I looked up Joseph Levy on Casebook.org [who appear to have been in business since 1996] to discover that a fair amount of what I had discovered about Levy was already known to the administrators and contributors of that site – and anyone who has looked-up Levy on that site. Clearly, the penny hasn't dropped. I then discovered that quite a lot of what I found out about Henry Harris was also already known to them [and available for anyone to find]. It is as though no one can see the wood for the trees. May be they simply didn't look at a map because Levy/Harris have always been regarded as only witnesses and their residential location an irrelevance. However, a cursory examination of the casebook.org website indicates that Booth's map has been studied, at least in relation to other aspects of the Whitechapel-Ripper story; and yet, what seems blatantly obvious to me would appear to have been completely overlooked. There is even a section about "the Butcher's Row suspect" and refers to two of Joseph Levy's brothers – according to them: Abraham, who was of unsound mind and hung himself in 1875; Jacob [probably Paul Roland's candidate] who lived at the family home of 36 Middlesex Street [aka Petticoat Lane] who was sent to a London Lunatic Asylum in August 1890, where he died on 29 July 1891. Hello? It sounds as though the Levy family had a history of mental illness.

There can be no doubt that they are aware of the location of Joseph Levy's residence. Presumably, then, they are aware of Harris' residential location...? Still, at least casebook.org has independently confirmed my identification of Levy and Harris in the public records! Prior to writing this book, I was unaware of this website: I would certainly recommend it, despite some apparent blinkered thinking, which I am rather grateful for.

The marriage certificate for Henry Harris was a challenge to find. For some reason, on both Freebmd and Ancestry websites, Henry was listed under page 226, while Rebecca was correctly listed under page 224; therefore, searches for a Henry Harris marriage to a Rebecca would not reveal either listing. This is where my genealogy experience came into its own: I won't bother the reader with the details, but there are some tricks that one learns to deal with such errors. What I find bizarre is why Henry was listed for page 226, at all, because that particular registry image was crystal clear – and entries onto the database are supposed to be checked...?

It is almost as though there has been an ongoing conspiracy. I don't really believe in that sort of thing, but I do wonder. Fate certainly seems to have conspired to keep their secret just out of reach – this much is for certain.

And finally: Harris and Levy should not be used as an excuse for anti-Semitism. Such people are exceptions and every society has them, irrespective of creed or colour. Personally, I have the greatest respect for the Jewish people; their endurance is unsurpassed. Some of the most significant and revered humans in history were Jewish: Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Gustav Mahler, Niels Bohr, Isaac Asimov, Bob Dylan, Yehudi Menuhin, Carl Sagan, Barbara Streisand, Dustin Hoffman, Harry Houdini, Irving Berlin, Mel Brooks, George Burns, Richard Feynman, Sid James [he makes me laugh], The Marx Brothers, Harold Pinter, Oliver Sacks... and, Jesus Christ – to name but a few. All societies have bad apples and not least of all late Victorian Whitechapel, where they were in abundance, coming from every ethnic background.

Nota Bene:

Interested parties may contact me via the following email address: alanrazen@gmail.com

166

