Listed in this section are all those who are recognized as part of the Whitechapel murders history but who cannot be described as witnesses, investigating officers, or others involved in the cases at the time.
This section also includes comments on letters, diaries, and other documents that are important to the case (other than those purportedly written by the killer, which appear in the "Letters and Correspondence" section).
Three volumes supposedly written by Inspector Abberline and belonging now to Joseph Sickert. They form part of the foundation of the Royal/Masonic Conspiracy theory but are almost certainly forgeries because, among other errors, the author reverses the detective’s initials and hence claims to be G. F Abberline.
Christabel Mary MacLaren, second Baroness Aberconway and the youngest daughter of Sir Melville Leslie Mac-naghten, transcribed the Lady Abercon-way version of the Macnaghten Memoranda from her father’s notes and showed the document to Daniel Farson in 1959 when he was researching the murders for his book.
As stated in the next entry, Robert Anderson referred to the Ripper as a low-class Jew who could not be charged because the only possible witness refused to give evidence against him. This suspect was never named, but writers have suggested two possibilities: Aaron Kosminski and Aaron Davis Cohen.
Dr. Robert Anderson wrote, in magazine articles and in his memoirs, The Lighter Side of My Official Life, that the killer’s identity was known as an established fact. Anderson referred to this suspect, whom he never named, as a low-class Jew who was identified by a witness who refused to give evidence against him because the witness too was a Jew.
The only possible Jewish witnesses are Joseph Lawende or Israel Schwartz, and when other factors are taken into account, as discussed elsewhere in this topic, the likelihood is that the witness was almost certainly Lawende.
Belloselski, Prince Serge
A Russian exile who showed writer Donald McCormick an issue of the Ochrana Gazette from 1909 that discussed the files held on Vassily Konovalov and supposedly stated that Konovalov used the alias Alexei or Alexander Pedachenko.
Two dogs, Burgho and Barnaby, were supplied by Edwin Brough, a professional breeder from Scarborough, for trials. The idea was that the hounds would be taken to the scene of the next atrocity and track the killer to his lair. In a well-publicized trial, Sir Charles Warren allowed himself to be tracked through Regent’s Park, much to the amusement of the press.
Further tests showed that there would be much difficulty involved in having the dogs track a man through the crowded East End streets, and the idea of using them was abandoned. This fact had not been made known to the police at the time of Mary Jane Kelly’s murder; hence the delay in breaking into her room because the officers at the scene believed the bloodhounds were on their way.
A prostitute in New York, also known as Old Shakespeare from her habit of quoting the bard whenever she was drunk.
On 23 April 1891 Carrie and a male friend arrived at the East River Hotel, Manhattan, where she lived. The assistant housekeeper, Mary Miniter, noted that the man appeared cagey and hid his features as if he wished to avoid being seen. The two went up to Carrie’s room.
The next morning the night clerk found Carrie’s strangled, stabbed, and mutilated body in her room. There were wounds all over her body, reminiscent of the Ripper’s method of attack. On the floor lay a black-handled table knife that had been used to inflict the injuries. A description of the man seen with Carrie was drawn up, but all Mary Miniter could say was that he was aged about 32, 5 feet 8 inches tall, of slim build, and had a sharp nose and a heavy moustache, which was light in color. However, this suspect was soon forgotten when it was noticed that bloodstains led from Carrie’s room to the one across the hallway.
This room was occupied by an Algerian, Ameer Ben Ali, and the police came to believe that he had waited until Carrie’s mysterious customer had left before going across to her room and murdering her. He was duly charged, found guilty, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
For 11 years that was the way things remained until a new investigation showed that the blood trail from Carrie’s room to Ameer’s had been tracked there by clumsy police boots. Ameer was pardoned and returned to Algeria. The real killer was never found.
This crime has been suggested as an indication that Jack the Ripper left London some time after he had killed Mary Jane Kelly and that he murdered Carrie Brown in America. There is nothing to really link the crimes, and this sequence suggests that Jack remained dormant for some time between the murders of Kelly and Brown. Others claim that Jack was not dormant all that time but escaped after killing Frances Coles in London in February 1891. However, it is highly unlikely that Carrie Brown’s murder was a Ripper crime.
The wife of William Bury, who was murdered by her husband in Dundee in 1891 and who would, if her husband were the Ripper, have been the final victim to die at his hands.
Convalescent Police Seaside Home
Situated at 51 Clarendon Villas, Brighton, in East Sussex, the home was opened in March 1890. It is supposedly where Anderson’s witness made his identification of the Ripper after the alleged killer was incarcerated there.
Cook had nothing to do with the Ripper case, but she lived at 6 Cleveland Street and was confused by writer Stephen Knight with Annie Elizabeth Crook. Thus, she has become part of the so-called Masonic Conspiracy theory.
A resident of Bradford who gained her degree of notoriety by being the only person charged, on 21 October 1888, with sending a false communication, purporting to be from Jack the Ripper, to the police. As such she is the only writer of such a letter who can be identified with certainty. Her letters stated that the Ripper would commit a murder in Bradford.
Criminals and Crime: Some Facts and Suggestions
A book by Sir Robert Anderson published in 1907. There is a section on the Ripper murders within the book in which Anderson claimed that the killer was finally incarcerated in an asylum. Two names have been suggested for this suspect—Aaron Kosminski and Aaron Davis Cohen.
Crook, Alice Margaret
The supposed daughter of Annie Crook and Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, and the only child of their secret marriage, she forms an important part of the Masonic Conspiracy theory and, according to that story, was brought up by the painter Walter Sickert.
Crook, Annie Elizabeth
According to the Masonic Conspiracy theory, Annie Crook secretly married Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. It is true that she gave birth to a daughter, Alice, in 1885. On Alice’s birth certificate are no details of her father, leading conspiracy theorists to the conclusion that he was in fact the prince.
The subsequent story is full of errors. For example, Annie was not living at 6 Cleveland Street in 1888, as believed by conspiracy theorists, though she had lived there earlier. She was not a Roman Catholic and was not arrested and incarcerated for the rest of her life. She died in 1920 in the Lunacy Ward of the Fulham Road Workhouse.
Cutbush, Superintendent Charles Henry
Uncle of suspect Thomas Cutbush. In 1896 he committed suicide by shooting himself, leading some authors to suspect that he knew his nephew was in fact the killer. However, Charles Cutbush had suffered from depression for many years after sustaining a blow to the head.
Dearden, Dr. Harold
Told a story about the Great War (World War I, 1914-1918) that involved Jack the Ripper. Apparently Dearden was in the trenches on 9 November 1918 when a fellow officer mentioned that this was the second time he had had a birthday ruined. The previous occasion had been on 9 November 1888, when his party had been disrupted by the arrival of a dangerous lunatic at his father’s private mental asylum. Since this was the same day as the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, the suggestion is that this lunatic was none other than Jack the Ripper, which would explain why the murders stopped.
Montague John Druitt’s mother was mentioned in Druitt’s suicide note, in which he stated that he felt he was going to "be like mother."
After an attempted suicide Ann Druitt was taken to the Brooke Mental Asylum in Clapton in July 1888. Certified as insane, she was later transferred to another asylum in Brighton. She died in a third asylum in Chiswick, in 1890.
Druitt, Dr. Lionel
Montague John Druitt’s cousin and the supposed author of a pamphlet titled "The East End Murderer—I Knew Him," which has never been traced. Lionel Druitt emigrated to Australia in 1886.
Druitt, William Harvey
Elder brother of Montague John Druitt and a resident of Bournemouth. Upon hearing that Montague had not been seen in his chambers for some time, William visited London and found the farewell note that was produced and read at Montague’s inquest in January 1889.
Dutton, Dr. Thomas
Ran a surgery at 130 Aldgate at the time of the murders and later wrote a book titled The Chronicle of Crime, which consisted of three volumes covering all the important crimes committed during his tenure at Aldgate and of course included the Ripper murders. Dutton believed that the killer was a doctor (unnamed in Dut-ton’s book) who blamed the whores of the East End for his son’s death.
Dutton showed the book to writer Donald McCormick in 1932, and Dut-ton’s theory is the foundation of the idea that the killer was Dr. Pedachenko. All copies of the three volumes have apparently been lost, and the book has not been seen since 1935.
A document or pamphlet supposedly written by Lionel Druitt and published by him in Australia. A witness described having seen and read the pamphlet in Australia, where it was said to have been published, but no trace of the pamphlet’s existence could be found.
Goulston Street Graffito
Writing on the wall of a stairwell supposedly left by Jack the Ripper on the morning of the so-called double event, the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes.
The writing was discovered, along with a piece of Catherine Eddowes’s apron, stained with blood and fecal matter, in the doorway of 108-119 Wentworth Model Dwellings, Goulston Street, by Constable Alfred Long. The only reason for linking the writing with the apron is that neither had been noticed by Long when he had last patrolled the area.
The writing was rubbed out before it could be photographed, at the express order of Sir Charles Warren, an act which many previous writers have viewed as evidence of a cover-up of some kind. However, Warren’s comment that he was afraid of anti-Jewish demonstrations if the writing were seen and linked with the murders was entirely reasonable, and there need have been nothing sinister in his actions.
There is no firm agreement on what the graffito actually said. Warren himself said that the message was "The Juwes are The men That Will not be Blamed for nothing." This wording was confirmed by Constable Long, but Long claimed that the second word was actually spelled "Juews." Superintendent Arnold, who also saw the message, gave the second word as "Juews" as well. Another variant was that of Dr. Hermann Adler, acting chief rabbi of Great Britain, who in letters to Warren referred to the spelling as "Juewes."
A slightly different wording was noted by Chief Inspector Swanson, who had the graffito as "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing." Yet another version was quoted by Dr. Anderson, who had it that the message was "The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing," whereas Sir Melville Macnaghten had it as "The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing."
Further versions came from the City police officers on the scene. Halse had "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"; Inspector McWil-liam had "The Jewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"; and Major Henry Smith recorded "The Jews are the men that won’t be blamed for nothing."
We can discount the versions of Smith, Macnaghten, and Anderson, none of whom actually saw the writing. Of the rest we can arrive only at an assumption of the truth by agreeing that the consensus was that the message most likely read, "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."
After all this, there is of course no proof that the writing was the handiwork of the killer. Some observers noted that the letters appeared to be blurred as if they had been there for some time. Others claimed that the graffito was new and crisp.
It may be that the writing had nothing to do with Jack and that he accidentally deposited the apron close to it. An alternative is that he noticed the writing and left the apron there to lead the authorities to believe he had written the message.
One factor the reader should be wary of: Several authors have sought to decipher their particular versions of the graffito to create anagrams or other cryptic messages. Such far-fetched efforts should be treated with the utmost skepticism.
The brother of Aaron Kosminski and a resident of Sion Square. The records show that on 15 July 1890 Aaron Kosminski was discharged from the Mile End Old Town Infirmary into the care of his brother, presumably Wolf because Aaron had been admitted from Sion Square on 12 July.
A convicted killer who murdered a woman in Batty Street, which runs parallel to Berner Street.
Lipski was a Polish Jew who lived in the attic room of 16 Batty Street. The room below his was home to a young married couple, Isaac and Miriam Angel, and on 28 June 1887 Miriam Angel and Israel Lipski were found in the house, both having been poisoned with nitric acid. Lipski was apparently infatuated with Miriam Angel, though there is no evidence that she encouraged him or returned his feelings. She died, but Lipski recovered and was subsequently charged with murder. He was tried at the Old Bailey, convicted, and hanged at Newgate Prison on 22 August 1887.
After his conviction the word Lipski came to be used as an insult toward Jewish people in the East End of London. Inspector Abberline gave this explanation for the mysterious stranger seen by Israel Schwartz on the night of Elizabeth Stride’s murder using the word; Abberline believed it was directed not at the man’s supposed accomplice but at Schwartz himself as a derogatory epithet.
Memoirs of Sir Robert Anderson, first published in 1910 in Blackwood’s Magazine and also in book form. In this topic Anderson claimed that the identity of the Ripper was known and that the murderer had been identified by the only witness who ever got a good look at him.
A letter from Chief Inspector John Littlechild to George Robert Sims, a journalist, dated 23 September 1913. Sims had apparently questioned Littlechild about the possibility that "Dr D." (probably Montague John Druitt) was the Ripper. However, the germane portion of the letter referred instead to Dr. Tumblety; it was the first document to suggest that this quack American "doctor" might have been the Ripper.
In some respects the letter was self-contradictory, describing Tumblety as a very likely suspect but then discounting the notion that he was a sadist. It was also in error when it claimed that the suspect had committed suicide. Tumblety died of natural causes in 1903.
On the evening of Tuesday, 16 October 1888, George Lusk, the chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, received a small parcel at his home. Upon opening it he found half of a kidney and a note that came to be known as the "From Hell" letter. Though he was greatly disturbed, he took no further action that night.
The following morning Lusk attended a meeting of the committee at the Crown public house on Mile End Road and mentioned the parcel to Joseph Aarons, the treasurer. Aarons; B. Harris, the committee secretary; and two other members, Mr. Reeves and Mr. Lawton, arranged to visit Lusk at his home the next day so they could see the item. On the morning of 18 October the kidney was accordingly viewed by the assembly. The consensus was that the letter was either an appalling hoax from some sick individual or the genuine article, a note from Jack the Ripper. Joseph Aarons suggested taking the package to Dr. Frederick Wiles at his surgery at 56 Mile End Road to obtain a medical opinion.
Dr. Wiles was not in when the party called, but his assistant, F. S. Reed, was, and Reed gave the opinion that the kidney was human and had been preserved in spirits of wine. However, a more detailed examination was necessary, and Reed offered to take the kidney to Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw, the curator of the Pathological Museum at the London Hospital. The committee members stayed behind and awaited Reed’s return.
In due course Reed returned to number 56 and said Dr. Openshaw had expressed the opinion that the kidney belonged to a female who had been in the habit of drinking, that it was part of a left kidney, and that the woman had died at about the same time as the Mitre Square victim, Catherine Eddowes.
This news soon became public, and the next day, 19 October, a Press Association report appeared that expanded on Dr. Openshaw’s comments. Now it was plain that the kidney was a "ginny" kidney, or one that had belonged to a person who had been a heavy drinker. Furthermore, the report said the woman from whom it had been taken was aged about 45, and the kidney had been removed sometime in the past three weeks. The obvious conclusion was that the kidney was the one taken from Catherine Eddowes and that the letter had been sent by the killer.
The London Hospital, as it is today. This is where the parcel containing the Lusk kidney and the accompanying "From Hell" letter were taken for examination. It is also where the later letter to Dr. Openshaw was sent. See the "Letters and Correspondence" section for a full discussion of these items and illustrations of both.
Things, however, were not that simple. On the same day that the report appeared, Dr. Openshaw was interviewed by the Star newspaper and denied almost all of the details given in the earlier article. He said it was impossible to say that the kidney was female or how long ago it had been removed. About all that could be said was that the item was half of a left human kidney that had been divided longitudinally.
Further investigation was needed, so the kidney was taken to Leman Street Police Station. The police there passed it on to their City colleagues because Eddowes had been murdered in the City. The City police handed the kidney on to Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, who examined it and wrote a report. Unfortunately, that report has been lost, and we have to base our knowledge of Brown’s opinion on the writings of Chief Inspector Swanson and Major Smith.
Swanson gave some details on 6 November in a report for the Home Office in which he said, "The result of the combined medical opinion they have taken upon it, is that it is the kidney of a human adult, not charged with a fluid, as it would have been in the case of a body handed over for purposes of dissection to an hospital, but rather as it would be in a case where it was taken from the body not so destined."
In short, Swanson was saying that the kidney had not been obtained from a corpse belonging to a medical school because such bodies were immediately preserved in formalin. This kidney bore no traces of formalin but instead had been preserved in spirits. Much would be made later of the suggestion that the delivery of the kidney was a rather sick prank perpetrated by medical students, but this statement from Swanson largely negates that notion. If a medical student had sent the kidney, it should have borne signs that it had been preserved in formalin.
Major Smith’s comments on the kidney appeared in his book, From Constable to Commissioner, in 1910. Though we cannot be sure of Smith’s reliability, he confirmed that the idea of a medical prank was untenable. He also made two other interesting points. First, he referred to the renal artery. This artery is some 3 inches long, and, according to Smith, 2 inches of the left renal artery remained in Catherine Eddowes’s body and 1 inch was attached to the kidney sent to Lusk. Second, Smith stated that the kidney remaining in Catherine’s body was in an advanced state of Bright’s disease and that the kidney sent to Lusk was in precisely the same state. If both of these comments could be proved, they would go a long way toward showing that the kidney did indeed come from Catherine Eddowes. However, there are arguments both for and against Major Smith’s two important points.
To begin with, an article by Dr. Brown claimed that there was no renal artery remaining on the Lusk kidney because it had been trimmed by whoever sent it. Another article, by Dr. Sedgwick Saunders in the Evening News, claimed that Catherine Eddowes’s right kidney was perfectly healthy. However, we may turn to Dr. Brown for vindication of at least one of Smith’s points. Brown’s inquest deposition clearly stated that the kidney remaining in Catherine Eddowes’s body was "pale, bloodless with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids." Those symptoms are indications of Bright’s disease.
What can be stated as fact after all this time? It appears that the medical opinion confirmed that the kidney was a left human kidney that bore signs of Bright’s disease and had been preserved in spirits, not formalin. It had therefore not been taken from a dissecting room and hence is unlikely to have been a medical prank. It is also a fact, according to Dr. Brown, that Catherine Eddowes’s remaining kidney bore signs of Bright’s disease. I do not think we can rely on Major Smith’s comments on the renal artery because Dr. Brown clearly stated that the organ had been trimmed.
In order for this package to have been a hoax, the prankster would have had to obtain a human kidney without recourse to a dissecting room. Furthermore, he would have to have found one with Bright’s disease. These factors, though unlikely, are of course possible, and a hoax cannot be discounted, but the balance of probabilities lead us to the conclusion that the kidney was in fact the one taken from Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square, which meant that the person who sent it was her killer and the "From Hell" letter was genuine.