Religion drove Jack the Ripper












NOTE: I do not agree with some of the conclusions on this page.  I include it as part of my website because of its correct assessment of the dangers of religion.  Despite its flaws, the religious motivation for the Ripper murders is shown as a real possibility.




There can be no doubt that the first known serial killer of modern times, Jack the Ripper, was driven by religion to commit his crimes.  As we will see, the Ripper was a Jew who killed his five victims as human sacrifices to his God.  It is important that religion should not be given the prestige it has so that it will never have such a dangerous influence ever again. 


What is aimed for in this study, is finding the facts about the Ripper.  None of its conclusions or assertions are intended to justify the anti-Semitic fondness for spreading rumour and slander on the Jews that they like to commit ritual murder for instance.  Though much religion is harmful that is not to say that its members are dangerous and should be hated.  Most Jews today are true humanitarians and a Jew can do wrong like an atheist or anybody else can.  One cannot stigmatise a whole section of society because of the crimes of a few.  Judaism of the three world religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, is the one that has caused the least religious wars and the least mental illnesses and its misogynistic tendencies are weak in comparison to its sister faiths.  Above all Judaism has learned more from humanitarian theological liberalism than any other faith and many of the Jews ignore the nastier commandments of God in the Old Testament.  This must be remembered and the Jewish people must be applauded for that. 


Top of the Document




In the Laws God gave the Jewish prophet Moses, it is clear that prostitutes should be cruelly murdered.  These laws start off with, “The Lord said to Moses”.  The laws claim to be the very words of God.  The method favoured for destroying prostitutes was stoning them to death.  These Laws are part of scriptures revealed by God.  It would be illogical to accept that these scriptures are true when they say there is one God, that God is jealous and that he acted visibly to take care of Israel and to reject their more unpalatable teachings.  God miraculously split the Red Sea in two to let the Israelites cross over to the other side so that the Egyptians couldn’t recapture them.  When the Egyptians went into the gap God let the water come back in on them.  He could have used a wind or something to stop them trying to enter.  Why accept that God murdered the Egyptians by drowning them in the Red Sea unnecessarily when he could have used a storm to prevent them attacking the Israelites and deny that he wanted prostitutes put to death? 


God said, “The daughter of any priest who profanes herself by playing the harlot profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9). 


Prostitutes by default are adulteresses.  “The man who commits adultery with another’s wife, even his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10). 


If a man marries a woman and finds that she wasn’t a virgin when they married the following is prescribed: “if it is true that the evidences of virginity were not found in the young woman, Then they shall bring her to the door of her father’s house and the men of the city shall stone her to death, because she has wrought [criminal] folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house.  So you shall put away the evil from among you” (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).  Clearly when she could be murdered like that in front of her father’s house the father and the family were not allowed to be upset over her death.  They must rejoice in it.  Children are to be loved conditionally on the condition that they don’t seriously break the law of God.  There can be no doubt that the Bible encourages hatred of women who commit sexual sin.  There is no doubt that scriptures like this encourage psychopaths and religious maniacs.  Just because the Church claims the right to revere such scriptures, people have to die!


Jesus himself said that the Law, these teachings, are the heart of God’s word and that no true prophet from God will contradict it.  He said he didn’t come to repeal the Law of Moses but to improve it.  He tightened it up.  It forbade adultery but he forbade even the desire for adultery.  A woman was brought by the Jews to Jesus accused of adultery.  This crime was punishable by death by stoning.  He said that whoever was without sin could cast the first stone. They all went away for they all had sins.  All this tells us is that only people who aren’t guilty of those kinds of sin themselves have the right to condemn a person to death for adultery.  To read it as an endorsement of letting her off the hook is totally wrong and he didn’t say she shouldn’t be put to death.  He did say that it was right to stone her if the stoners were any better.  Also putting people to death without consulting the judges of Israel was illegitimate.  Then it wouldn’t be killing her that would be the sin but bypassing the judges.  They had no right to execute her anyway.  When they took her to Jesus and not to the judges it shows they were lying about their certainty that she was guilty.  Nothing in the Bible indicates that holy murder is wrong. 


St Paul an apostle of Jesus and therefore an authorised explainer of the teachings of Christ stated that in no sin do you sin against your body but one.  And that is by having sex with a prostitute.  Christians are considered parts of the body of Christ so to have sex with a prostitute is to unite Christ with a harlot (1 Corinthians 56:15-20) an immense sin.  If the sin is so repulsive it will be impossible to avoid hating prostitutes.  Sex must be the worst sin possible for Paul excluded the idea that self-abuse or using your body to steal was as bad and was trying to unite Christ with evil.  He certainly had the idea that to unite Christ with a sexual sinner was so bad that uniting him with a thief or murderer was nothing in comparison.  There is real hatred for prostitutes in this theology. 


Christianity incites to hatred against prostitutes for though it has no evidence that any of its doctrines are true it still dares to accuse serious sinners of deserving everlasting torment in Hell from which there is no release.  This is slander when there is no evidence or proof.  If you love your son or your father and you imagine that he will suffer horrendous torment in Hell forever if he dies after sleeping with a prostitute then how could you possibly avoid hating that prostitute?  Many of the Jews believed in eternal torment for serious sinners after death and in the bigoted idea that adultery and prostitution were necessarily serious sins.  If the Ripper agreed it would make him hate prostitutes.  Even if he didn’t he would have still hated prostitutes for the prostitutes were baptised Christians and were uncaring if their trade led men to Hell. 


Judaism and Christianity see how their God commands the destruction of certain sinners in order to purge the sin from the midst of the people.  They command then the hatred of sin.  Jesus said that you should hate sin so much that you should cut your hand off if it makes you sin to get across how much one ought to detest sin.


Both religions then teach that you should hate the sin but many forms of them teach that that you must love the sinner.  This is absurd.  You either hate the sin and the sinner or you love the sinner and the sin.  Why?  Because the sin is something that the sinner causes and does.  It is a part of the sinner.  You can hate somebody’s sickness but not hate them for the sickness is something that happens to them and isn’t their fault.  But sin is not sickness.  It’s the deliberate creation and willing of evil.  To say that John’s work is a disgrace is to say that John is a disgrace.


It is not going too far to accuse Judaism and Christianity of self-deception and hypocrisy in their teaching.  We all know by experience that loving the sinner and hating the sin they commit is impossible.  The teaching has a lot in it even when so diluted, to incite to hatred against sinners. 


The Jewish and Christian scriptures both teach that if there is one commandment you must keep it is the one to love God with all your heart and strength for God gave this commandment to Moses (Jesus confirmed it).  It implies this by saying this is the greatest commandment.  So love starts with loving God not yourself or others.  The commandment that comes next is the next most important but significantly it is not the most important, “you shall love your neighbour as yourself”.  So you are to love God more than yourself or your neighbour.   But we know that if you are to be in anyway normal you must start with loving yourself for failure to love yourself properly is reflected and manifested in cruel and malicious actions towards others.  The commandments forbid this as sin which helps explain why those most devoted to these commandments ended up thirsting for blood.  Despite the love of neighbour requirement, it is plain from the commandments that religion is for God and not for man.  Man may benefit but that is not what religion is for.  Benefits are side-effects.  So it is a sin to seek any benefit in religion.  This advocates a pining for death and suffering and blood which we see reflected in Jesus who refused to take simple steps to avoid being crucified but embraced this terrible death.  To frustrate your natural need to love yourself is to foment anger in yourself. 


What, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and powers and the next most important commandment is to love your neighbour as yourself” really means is, “We the ministers of God ask you to believe in God and put this belief above everything else.”  It is really the belief that is being loved.  This is the pure stuff of bigotry and shows that God religion is intrinsically power hungry and authoritarian.  Rules come before people.  No wonder God religion has produced so many charming psychopaths. There are Catholic priests and bishops in Africa threatening the people with hellfire unless they leave themselves open to AIDS for condom use is a sin.


Judaism and Christianity, when correctly understood, are not humanitarian religions.  People are helped not for their own sake but for the sake of the faith and because the faith asks it.  If the faith asked one to murder them then it would have to be done.  The underlying lack of value placed on the person is there whether believers murder for the faith or not.  If faith comes before people then it is okay to kill in the name of faith and God and religion.  That is what the anti-humanitarianism of these faiths is saying.


God told Saul through Samuel that he wanted to punish the people of Amalek for blocking Israel when they were coming out of Egypt by getting Israel to put them all to death and even the children (1 Samuel 15).  When mercy was shown God got angry.  This was commanding war both for revenge and obedience to the Lord.  Christians will say that revenge was not the only reason but one reason and that the main reason was to eradicate their evil.  But God would have stated the main reason if that had been right and that is what a responsible and careful God would do.  God is condoning war for the purpose of vengeance.  Christians say that it was good of God to command things like that because there is a life after death for the dead babies who would have inherited the evil characteristics of their parents had they not been killed and that the parents should have been killed for they were irremediably evil (page 104, Christianity for the Tough-Minded).  Loads of evil parents have good children and even the Bible does not say that the Amalekites were that bad.  Besides, God had founded no religion for them for the Hebrews did not want them in theirs and there was no trace of the doctrine of a holy and nice afterlife at that period of time.  God hadn’t revealed any of it so how could the afterlife justify what the Hebrews did when they didn’t believe in it?  What right had they to kill over Samuel who was only one man claiming to speak the word of God?  And it is judgmental to accuse the people God told Israel to kill of extreme obstinacy in evil.  It is not right that many Christians try to make up excuses for the Bible’s version of God for that means they worship a kind of being they know is evil.  Today, prostitutes and homosexuals would be in the same moral category as the people of Amalek.  We are to hate the Amalekites so we are to hate them as well.


The Jews and the Christians hold that the Old Testament in the Bible is the word of God.  God spoke the word and preserved it for us.  No other work is the word of God and infallible except Christians add the New Testament in as well.  When God had to put in his violent and hate filled commandments and revelations into his word instead of more peaceable and edifying substance then God has a definite predilection for violence.  To adore his book as his word is to become as bad as he is.  Most of the violence in the Bible is encouraged against women.  God reveals himself through his word.  God commands that God be adored and liked above all.  That means his book has to be liked too for you can’t love God and hate what he has said about himself and what he wants. 


There was a lot in the Old Testament to make our suspect become Jack the Ripper. He would have known it well.  And the example of the Christians who likewise tried to follow the great commandments and ended up twisted and neurotic would have affected him too.  He would have known of Christian preachers who preached about the battle of Armageddon.  There the final earthly battle between God’s forces and his enemies will take place.  The Old Testament predicts that the people of God will be armed and turn on those who are not the people of God.  In that day God will kill those who disobey him such as prostitute and unbelievers and heretics but he will do it through protecting his people as they slaughter the hated enemies of God.  Jesus was certainly not a pacifist though he may not have lifted a sword against anybody when he was on earth.  He sanctioned the Law and the Prophets, the whole Old Testament as the Jews have it.  The Law and the Prophets promise that one day this king, the Christ, will come and lead the Church into bloody warfare against evildoers and unbelievers.  Jesus accepted such declarations as referring to himself. 


Joel 3 says that God will assemble the nations and have a judgment with them so he will engage in direct communication and he calls his people to turn their tools into weapons and Egypt shall be left in desolation as a result of the final world war in which the Jewish people will be triumphant because God used them for taking his revenge (verse 21). Other incitements to violence from God can be seen in the book of Obadiah, Ezekiel 38-39; Zechariah 12 and 14; Daniel 2:44; Revelation 17:14; Revelation 2:26-27; Revelation 19:14.  Jews believe in the Old Testament passages here and think that the Messiah when he comes will lead them into this war.  Jesus claimed to be this king and that he would return as the Old Testament foretold.  When Jesus was not a pacifist it is hardly right to assume that he did away with the Old Testament God’s murderous and bloodthirsty laws.  He never needed to fight when he was alive except when he caused a violent riot in the Temple.  He embraced his death because he said it was right for him to die – God needed the gore and suffering and blood to save the world - and not because he thought that bearing arms was wrong. 


Books such as the Bible are dangerous to the minds of disturbed people.  Because people promoted these books as correct and without error for God wrote them and God doesn’t make mistakes, five prostitutes in the East End of London had to be brutally slain in 1888.  Those who never change their opinions love themselves more than the truth.  And Jews and Christians when loyal to their faith, and not to some watered down version of it do insist that it is a virtue never to change your mind about the Bible being God’s true word.


Top of the Document




In 1888, the most infamous murders of all time took place in London’s East End.  Five prostitutes, destitute women who knew of no other way to survive, were killed and slaughtered by a supposedly unknown killer who bears the nickname Jack the Ripper.  We may not have incontrovertible proof pertaining to the identity of the Ripper. After all he was never caught in the act.  Due to press and police mishandling of the case, we may have to do without it.  And though desirable it isn’t absolutely necessary.  But who the Ripper was is a matter of enormous interest and determined speculation to this day.  And the experts disagree sharply in trying to put a name on the monster that terrorised London in those dark days.  But we do have proof that religion murdered those five women.  In sifting out the truth and the possible identity of the Ripper it is important that we try to stick with what evidence we have got.  Once we start getting sceptical without proper reason about anything witnesses say we can make the evidence mean anything.  However if a report or testimony is clearly tainted by errors there is nothing wrong with trying to weed out the errors. 


Top of the Document


The Murders


Mary Ann Nicholls was murdered on Friday 31st August between 3.15 am and 3.45 am at Buck’s Row, Whitechapel.  She was found at 3.45 am by PC Neil.  The victim had bruising to her face and her throat was cut twice.  There was a small amount of blood beside the body and her abdomen was mutilated.  At the post mortem it was found that the knife used must have been moderately sharp.  Being a bit blunt, most of the destruction it inflicted was down to the violence with which it was wielded.  No blood was found on the clothes or on the breast.  The lack of blood and the swelling of the victim’s face indicated death by asphyxiation. 


The second Ripper victim Annie Chapman was murdered on Saturday 8th September 1888 in the yard adjoining 29 Hanbury Street.  The victim was found just before 6.00 am by John Davis who lived in number 29.  Her throat had been cut and her intestines were flung over her left shoulder.  It looked as if the killer had tried to decapitate her.  The killer put the left arm across her breast.  The face and tongue were swollen due to strangulation.  The ring fingers were injured due to a ring or rings being pulled off violently.  She carried bruises on her right temple, upper eyelid, two on her chest and one on her right hand.  The uterus and part of the bladder and vagina had been skilfully extracted and taken away.  No damage was done to surrounding organs. 


The third Ripper victim Elizabeth Stride met her violent death at the hands of the Ripper on 30th September, a Sunday.  At 12.45 am, Elizabeth was seen being attacked by a man, not necessarily her killer, on Berner Street.  Fifteen minutes later she was discovered just inside Dutfield’s yard along the same street with her throat cut.  No mutilations had taken place.  She was seen talking to a man at 12.45 am by James Brown who heard her refuse the man by saying, “Not tonight, some other night”.  It looks like she had a date with the Ripper and turned this man down.  The Ripper may have needed to make dates with these women for the important thing for him was getting them to the killing sites.  As we will see later, the Ripper planned where he was to kill on a map. And he had to get women to the chosen killing ground.  


That same night the Ripper made up for his failure to mutilate Stride.  Mitre Square at 1.28-9 am was checked by PC Harvey.  There was nothing.  But when PC Watkins checked the Square a quarter of an hour later he found a body, the Ripper’s fourth victim.  Catherine Eddowes was found strangled with her throat cut twice.  This time the killer mutilated the victim’s face.  The intestines were thrown over her right shoulder.  Part of the right ear was cut and there was no bruising.  The left kidney and the womb were taken away by the killer.  There was no evidence of a struggle.  There was no spurting of blood.  At 2.55 am, PC Long discovered a piece of apron stained with blood and body matter in Goulston Street at the Wentworth Buildings where many Jews resided.  Right above it was a chalked message.  The message went, The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing.  The apron piece was found to have been cut from the dead woman’s apron.  PC Long was certain that the writing and the piece of apron were not there at 2.20 am when he last checked the area. 


The fifth victim Mary Jane Kelly was butchered on Friday 9th November.  The other victims were murdered in Whitechapel but she was murdered in Spitalfields.  She was killed in her room 13 Miller’s Court.  She was found about 10.45 am the next day.  The mutilations were so extensive that she had to be identified by her eyes and her ears.  Strangely enough the hair was not examined for identification purposes.  The heart was missing.


After this, the most notorious murder in history and the annals of gore, the Ripper stopped.  One can see that with each victim his fury increased reaching a macabre climax with the murder of Kelly. 


The police surgeons and other surgeons who were familiar with the modus operandi of the killings, had their disagreements.  But they did hold their belief that the killer had enough skill with the knife to pass for a butcher or medical student (page 190, The Crimes of Jack the Ripper).  Dr Bond thought the killer showed no knowledge at all of cutting women or animals up but we know that the killer was able to find Eddowe’s kidney and take it away and when the killer cut away the uterus and the top of the vagina and part of the bladder with one slash of the knife with Annie Chapman we must beg to differ.  As we will see, the butcher possibility will take on more and more significance as we progress through this examination.


Top of the Document


Was Stride a Ripper Victim?


Many Ripperologists contend that Elizabeth Stride was not a Ripper Victim.  But the fact remains that both her and the woman killed later that night Catherine Eddowes carried the same throat wounds (page 14, Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Map Booklet 1888).  The Ripper victims had their throats cut from left to right and Dr Bond stated that Stride’s was cut from right to left.  Dr Blackwell examined the neck and decided that the throat was indeed cut from left to right as the others had been and that Dr Bond was led astray by the fact that the killer didn’t use as much force when he cut Stride’s throat as he had done with the others.


The body was placed on its side while with the other murders the victims were laid on their backs.  It may be the killer never intended to mutilate her.  He knew the woman had been attacked minutes before just a few feet away and seen so it was too dangerous to spend time mutilating her.  There is no reason to believe the killer was disturbed though it is possible.  Catherine Eddowes however was put on her side first by the Ripper for she had mud on one side of her face off the ground.  The Ripper then put her on her back.  When the Ripper puts two women on their sides in the one night it shows they must have had the same killer.  The Ripper strangled Eddowes as she stood up.  Why did he place her on her side after?  He may have done this to have a look in case policemen were hovering about and then he put her on her back to continue with his evil task. 


Stride was strangled to death like the previous Ripper victims (page 59, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals).  This was why there wasn’t much blood.  Only the Ripper would have cut the throat of a woman already dead.  This was his only mutilation of her.


The Ripper maybe didn’t intend to kill that night.  He was always prepared to kill but he didn’t expect the opportunity to present itself.  That was why he didn’t indulge himself in mutilating Stride.  And that was why he needed a piece of Eddowes’ apron to wrap Eddowes’ organs in later on.  In the other killings he already had something with him to contain the organs.  That both killings looked like a wonderful surprise for the Ripper shows that both were the Ripper’s work.  The closeness in time and place of the two killings strongly indicates the work of the one man.


Very near Berner Street where Stride was murdered a man apparently in his early thirties boasted in a pub called the Red Lion Public House that he knew the murderer and that they would hear about the murderer in the morning and then the man disappeared.  Just a few hours later Stride was found murdered.  Stride was a Ripper victim.


That night Israel Schwartz saw a man stop and speak to a woman near the gateway where the murder later took place.  The man tried to pull her into the street but threw her down on the footpath.  She screamed – but not loudly.  Schwartz saw a second man standing lighting his pipe watching this.  The attacker shouted Lipski at the other man and the other man started to follow Schwartz but after a short time when Schwartz looked around he saw that the man was gone.  It is said that it was Schwartz that the man was calling Lipski to.  But the man was attacking a woman and was unlikely to notice that Schwartz was a Jew.  And it was dark at the time.  The man was not going to kill her and had no reason to get Schwartz scared off for he had already seen it all.


The man who threw Stride down on the footpath was not the killer.  He does not bear any resemblance to the descriptions of the Ripper (page 54, The Crimes of Jack the Ripper). (It is important to devote a thought to the following claim made by some: Aaron Kosminski killed Stride but none of the other women.  He was the one identified by a Jewish witness and that this witness was Schwartz.  Kosminski was an emaciated homeless incoherent madman.  Nobody mentions the attacker seen with Stride as fitting that description.)


The Ripper would have dragged her into the gateway not the street.  She had cachous in her hand when she was found as if she felt safe with the man who killed her.  She would not have felt safe with a man who had just been violent towards her.  The other man was trying to make sure Schwartz didn’t return for another look.  That was why he followed him to scare him away and make sure he was out of the way.  He was alone with Stride and he comforted her.  The Ripper always made friends with his victims.  Then he violently induced unconsciousness and cut her throat.  The killer was in a hurry.  It seems that only the Ripper would use the knife on a woman who had died by strangulation.  The knife was taken away as it was in all Ripper crimes.


The second man who was called Lipski then was probably her killer.  Lipski was a nickname used as a form of insult against Jews.  The second man then was a Jew.  The killer of Elizabeth Stride was a Jew.  If she was not killed by the Ripper then she must have been killed in a domestic but this can’t have been.  Her man wasn’t a Jew nor did he look 35 as the second man did. 


Schwartz told the press that the second man carried a knife.


Why wasn’t the knife mentioned to the police?  Because Schwartz was a Jew and the second man was a Jew and Jews didn’t squeal on Jews.  The press was insistent that during an interview Schwartz said the second man had a knife.  It rings true for Schwartz was in a hurry to get away from the scene.  He didn’t shout for a policeman after seeing a woman attacked so he was afraid.  He had to have been more than just afraid of the man, he had to have been afraid of the knife!  Schwartz admitted running as far as the railway arch when he realised the second man was following him.  He was afraid of this man but gave no reason for being afraid of him in his police statement.  The knife explains the fear.


The second man must have had a knife or been the killer or both when he never came forward.  He had no reason not to come forward otherwise. 


Schwartz said to the papers that the second man tried to stop the attack on Stride.  This is probably true for the attacker called Lipski to him.  And we know that Elizabeth trusted the man she went into the yard with like he had just saved her from an attack or something.  When the attacker made off which Schwartz didn’t see, the second man followed Schwartz to scare him off.  He may have taken Elizabeth’s knife to do that with.  The details are lacking so this is possible.  Then he went back and killed her in the yard with her knife.   


Why did the first man call the second man Lipski?  Had he called him Murdering Jew which he meant by Lipski we might have seen the reason.  The reason was most likely because the attacker was trying to get Elizabeth away from there and she wouldn’t go so he used violence.  Why did he try to pull her out of the shadows into the street?  He gave up and left her with the man he suspected of being a Jewish killer – perhaps his suspicion was aroused by the knife Schwartz reported as being in the suspect’s hand.  Perhaps he thought no harm would come to her when he saw the second man following Schwartz.  That could be another reason why the second man did that.  It was in the off-chance that the attacking man would think he had gone and leaving Elizabeth to his mercy when he would return.


Stride was seen in Berner Street with a man earlier that evening who said to her, “You would say anything but your prayers.”  Does this match the fact that there was a religious motivation for the killings?  She may have been speaking with the killer for we know he planned to slaughter a woman at Berner Street.  There will be more about how we know it had to be this spot in Berner Street later on. 


Top of the Document


Stride and the Knife


The main reason why some hold that Stride was not murdered by the Ripper is that she was not killed with the same knife used on Catherine Eddowes later that night.  The knife was possibly Stride’s own knife which many prostitutes had taken to carrying for protection or perhaps the Ripper had two knives and on this occasion didn’t employ his usual knife.  Because she had been attacked just minutes before her murder but not by the killer she may have retained her knife in her hand.  Did she attack the killer with it and did he disarm her?  Not likely – there are indications that she trusted her killer.  He may have just taken the knife in case she would attack him and before she had a chance to think she was rendered unconscious. 


If the killer used Stride’s knife then the killer didn’t use his usual knife for two reasons.  One was for speed.  He had no intention of spending a second longer by going to the trouble of getting his own knife out with this woman for it was dangerous.  This would indicate that she withdrew her knife when the other man attacked her and she then let the Ripper hold her knife for her because she trusted him and he was comforting her.  The second was because he knew it could be told what kind of knife was used.  He didn’t want the police to think that anybody other than the man who assaulted her earlier was the killer.  Both of these would indicate that the Ripper had been seen by Schwartz.  Who knows.  Maybe the man who attacked Stride had a knife that he dropped and which the killer used for speed.  The killer would have carried a knife for self-defence and another one for butchering any prostitutes if the opportunity arose.


The knife used on Stride had been sharpened for it made a clean cut, and it had no point on it but was rounded (page 61, 62 Jack the Ripper Black Magic Rituals).  The killer didn’t just happen to be carrying such a sharp knife and kill her on impulse.  The man carrying the knife intended to kill and was experienced enough to know that he didn’t need a pointed knife.  Perhaps the Ripper carried this knife and used it just because he got the opportunity.  And having got the bloodlust maybe he returned to his lair to get his favourite knife and then he set out with it in search of a prostitute to kill with it.  Later that night Catherine Eddowes was found murdered.


There is no reason to hold that the Ripper used only one knife when he was mutilating. The fact that the knife used on Chapman could have passed for a butcher’s knife or an amputating knife may mean more than one was used.  Perhaps he used a different knife when he knew the knife would be seen as it was by Schwartz.  He knew that the police were into trying to find out what kind of knife he used on his victims.


The Ripper may have carried two knives in case the opportunity to commit more than one murder would arise.  Maybe he was afraid of losing a knife. 


Top of the Document


Was Kelly a Ripper Victim?


It is thought that Mary Kelly was not a Ripper victim for she alone of the Ripper victims was killed indoors.  This proves nothing.  It is thought that since she wasn’t strangled, her killer was someone other than the Ripper.  It is thought that the mutilations this time seemed more amateurish and not the work of the Ripper who seemed to be skilled at slicing people up.  The Ripper had the chance in most of the other locations to take the women into empty sheds and houses and slash them there.  He didn’t because he didn’t feel the need.


Mary Kelly was so badly mutilated that she would have been better off having been run over by a train.  She was the worst mutilated victim. 


As stated before, the Ripper’s rage intensified with each victim.  The mutilations got worse each time.  For example, he savaged Catherine Eddowes’ face but went further with the next victim Kelly.  His methods altered all the time.  For example, he was careful doing some mutilations and careless doing others.  If somebody had murdered Kelly and was trying to frame the Ripper why go to extremes to mutilate the woman?  Surely cutting her throat and removing her womb and opening her abdomen would have been enough.  Why would another killer take away the heart?  Why not the uterus only as the Ripper might have done?  He inserted Kelly’s left hand into her empty abdomen reminiscent of when he carefully put Annie Chapman’s left arm over her breast.  He wished to leave signatures that it was really him.  No other killer would have thought of this signature.


If the Kelly murder didn’t show much skill it was because the Ripper was in a frenzy.


Why did the Ripper who used to leave the women openly on display for quick discovery lock Kelly’s door?  This delayed discovery.  It may have been that the Ripper got a scare with the Stride and Eddowes’ murder and thought he had been seen. 


Kelly was not strangled like the others.  She was attacked with a knife in her bed.  In this case the Ripper seems to have wanted to inflict pain or perhaps it was too dark to attempt to find her neck.  Perhaps he knew that he could be heard in the next room and decided to omit the strangulation for she would struggle.  Better just to kill her quickly with the knife.  With the other women, they were dead first and then he set about cutting them up.  Possibly he changed his modus operandi because unlike the others he couldn’t get behind Kelly with her standing up.  He probably made a mistake in putting his hand over her mouth and so she was still able to cry, “Oh Murder!”  Had this not happened she would have been making as much noise as she could to raise the alarm.  And then instead of trying to strangle her he just slashed her throat.  The sheet was found to be full of knife holes as if it had been put over her face. 


Kelly’s clothes were found folded neatly on a chair.  This is such a mystery because they were untouched by any blood though there was a mess all over the room.  The solution is that the Ripper had undressed and put his own clothes on top of hers.  The idea that Mary Kelly was not the woman killed but she returned to her room and saw the gore and left her clothes there and lit the fire is pure mad fancy.


The Ripper didn’t use the pump next Kelly’s room to wash which reminds us of how he didn’t use the water tap in the yard where he killed Annie Chapman either.


One mystery with Catherine Eddowes is why when her neck was cut the artery didn’t make a big jet of blood (page 72, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals).  There were no spurts on the pavement or on the brickwork.  Did the killer use his red neckerchief to stop the spurts in case he would dirty his clothes?  The blood wouldn’t have been seen on the cloth.  That was why he used a red one.  


The red neckerchief reminds us of the red handkerchief that Kelly’s killer gave her.  The uproar over an earlier murder, Stride’s, started soon after these men saw the man and woman. The men must have soon heard that this murder had taken place.  So why didn’t they go to the police with this description that very night?


The book, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals, page 143 proves that there is a 500 yard radius from a centre point which goes through the exact spots where Stride, Eddowes and Kelly were found.  This was not a coincidence.  The killer made sure there was some mark so show that he was the murderer.  A perfect circle can be drawn with the three killing sites along the circumference.



Kelly Murder Scene


Top of the Document




Evidence that some of the Victims Knew their Killer


The five murder victims may have known each other.  They didn’t live far apart.  These women walked the streets later than most prostitutes which makes it very likely that they were known to each other.  Women of the night tended to know each other especially prostitutes that worked after dark (page 122, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals).  Some experts believe that Mary Jane Kelly and Annie Chapman knew one another and were friends.  Their source is the People newspaper November 11th 1888.  Also Kelly and Chapman lived on the same street – Dorset Street (page 189, Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates).   Another newspaper claimed that Catherine Eddowes had used a shed at 26 Dorset Street to sleep in (page 190, Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates).


Did they know the Ripper?


Mrs Long saw Annie Chapman with a man at 5.30 am near the backyard where Annie was later found murdered.  At about that time roughly a woman’s cry of, “No!” and a bump was heard against the fence of number 29.   Annie was found at 6.00 am.  The bruises on Annie could indicate that she hit herself against the fence.  Why did she call out, “No!”?   The Ripper worked here in broad daylight. 


Despite the possibility that the thump was something else and the “No!” was not from Annie it is unlikely.  Nobody came forward to explain them in any different way and she was attacked about the time these sounds were heard. 


How could Mrs Long who saw people going to and from all the time to the extent that she would have paid no attention have been so interested in Annie and the man with her?  She even listened to what they said.  The man having said, “Will you?” and Annie answering, “Yes.”  She had a good look at the man.  That was strange.  It is hard to believe that she hadn’t seen them together before.  If she had, that would explain her interest.  She was afraid to say too much in case the man would come after her next.  If the man had been a Jew there was a danger of reprisals from the Jews if she said who he was.  She knew more than she ever said.   


Elizabeth Stride was found holding her cachous in her hand.  That she didn’t struggle or drop it indicates that she trusted her attacker and was totally taken by surprise when he put his hands round her throat.  She had turned down a client earlier that night.  Sex only takes minutes on the street so why did she do this?  It may have been because she was saving herself for a special client, the Ripper.  If not, then she must have trusted the man who was the Ripper when she went into the Yard with him.  Either way she must have known and trusted him especially since she knew of the recent murders and after she had been assaulted by another man on the street minutes before. 


Joseph Barnett, Mary’s ex-partner, testified that Mary Kelly was afraid of a man or men.  He said that she asked him to read the stories of the murders to her (page 104, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals).  Why did he say this?  Her door was easily opened through a hole in the window.  Would she have left her room so open to burglary and the risk of attack had she been afraid of someone?  Barnett was undoubtedly lying.  Barnett probably knew who the killer was and wanted to point to him but in such a way that he wouldn’t get the blame for saying who it was.   But its possible that Kelly was assured by Barnett that the Ripper would never touch her so she might have been afraid of the Ripper but not afraid enough to make sure she was safe in her room.  Kelly may have known the Ripper when Barnett her lover knew him. 


Kelly could read herself and would have and when Barnett still had to read the Ripper murder accounts to her it shows she was obsessed with them a little.  This was likely if she knew the killer. 


Why did the Ripper always take the money he paid the women for sex back?  The women usually asked for the money and got it before they went with the man.  The man was a lot less likely to pay if he got the goods first.  No matter how much he was in a hurry, he always took time to search their clothes and get the money off them again.  He always stole whatever money they made  – the tale of the farthings at Annie Chapman’s feet however was a myth.   The stealing indicates that the Ripper did indeed kill the canonical five victims.  And the Ripper wasn’t exactly extremely poor.  He looked like a shabby gentleman and sometimes dressed far finer than that.  What happened when he had got other women to the killing sites but wasn’t able to kill them for one reason or another?  Did he have sex with them and then rob them?  Hardly likely.  It looks more like the five women he murdered trusted him to pay after sex.  They knew him.  They liked him.  Our suspect had fallen into hard times or was fearful of his finances getting worse and would have needed to take the money back if he had given them any.


The bizarre and rushed behaviour of the police and investigation in relation to the Mary Kelly murder and the inquest would suggest that they knew who the murderer was and didn’t want to shout about it.  This could suggest that the killer was a Jew and identifying him would lead to backlash against the Jews.  The Goulston Street message which was thought to have been written by the Ripper by chalk on a wall to blame the Jews for the crimes had to be washed off in case a riot would happen which shows how dangerous it could be for Jews had the Ripper proven to be one of their number.  Perhaps the Ripper was carted off to an asylum so the police felt they should let the matter go. 


Top of the Document


The Man Hutchinson Saw


A witness, George Hutchinson, who said he saw Kelly take a man he could identify to her home Miller’s Court at 2.05 am on the morning she was murdered got a very good look at the killer.  He said that the man was well dressed.  The man said to Kelly, “You will be all right for what I have told you.”  Hutchinson heard Kelly say later to the man, “All right, my dear, come along, you will be comfortable.”  The man gave her a red handkerchief.  Hutchinson thought something strange of the situation and stood watching until 2.45 am but nobody came out.  He went up the Court afterwards and all was in darkness so the man and Kelly must have been asleep in bed.


The amount of detail to many seems suspicious as does the fact that Hutchinson didn’t come forward for three days.  But perhaps Hutchinson was one of Kelly’s clients and didn’t want to draw attention to himself and her being friends.  Maybe he didn’t want to come forward and it took him three days to change his mind.  Inspector Abberline accepted his testimony as valid which indicates that anything unusual was explained.  If he had been lying he would told better lies than what he told.  He could have said for example that Kelly had went out again at the time he saw her with the man and so that he didn’t know anything.  He had no need to lie that he could identify the man he saw with Kelly.  That would have got him in trouble if he was trying to cover something up. 


The view that Hutchinson was afraid of suspicion coming on himself and made up the account for he had been seen keeping watch over Kelly’s room that night is spurious.  When he went forward after three days and hadn’t been approached by the police before then there was evidently nothing for him to worry about.  He knew other people who saw him walking behind the killer and Kelly on that fateful night could come forward and contradict him if he told any lies.


Hutchinson was able to give the police such a detailed description of the man that one conclusion is unavoidable.  He had seen him before when he was able to take in all that.  When you know somebody well, and you glimpse them briefly you can describe them a lot more clearly than you can if they are strangers.  If this was not the case with Hutchinson then we have to ask why Hutchinson lied for he must have made it all up.  If he lied, then he was the Ripper himself or he was protecting the Ripper.  Hutchinson knew who the Ripper was – that we can consider proven.  It is most likely that Hutchinson saw the man with Kelly before.  Hutchinson was seen by a witness keeping vigil on Miller’s Court.  The Ripper would not have acted like that.  He was not the Ripper.  The Ripper didn’t loiter.   


Hutchinson was clearly concerned for Mary Kelly when he stood so long on the dangerous streets at night watching her take the man who killed her to her room and for long after.  He must have made sure he remembered everything clearly.  He would not have lied.  Why did Hutchinson not admit to having seen the man before?  What was he afraid of?  Did he know the killer?  What made him so sure that Kelly who had taken so many men back was in danger with this gentlemanly looking client?  He knew the killer.  Hutchinson gave Kelly money.  He gave her six pence shortly before she was murdered.  It appears that he could have been one of her clients too.  Perhaps he didn’t want to name the killer for the killer could expose his sexual liaisons with Kelly?  Why was Hutchinson giving her money when he had no regular job as the Scotland Yard letter of 12th November 1888 states?


Hutchinson saw that the man had a Jewish appearance (page 17, Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Map Booklet 1888).  We know the Ripper was a Jew so the man he seen must have been the Ripper.  Prostitutes would have been wary of Jewish customers since the Goulston Street message.  When Kelly went home with a Jew she probably knew and trusted this Jew.


Was he suspicious because the man looked so respectable and seemed prepared to sleep with a common prostitute?  This is unlikely for it wouldn’t have been that unusual.  Slumming was popular then.  The man didn’t fit the image of a killer such as the Ripper who people pictured as a dirty, dishevelled, maniacal and ugly monster. 


Hutchinson surely would have known if there was a light in Kelly’s room after she took the man back.  It was easy to see from where he was standing at Dorset Street.  He would have had a look when he was that concerned and indeed he stood for a long while watching her room and saw that it was all in darkness.  He said he went up past the room and all was quiet so the man she took back was in her bed sleeping with her.  The man would have been seen leaving had he just been with Kelly for sex.  He planned to spend the night there.  He said to her, “You will be all right for what I have told you.”  What a strange thing to say?  Evidently he didn’t want Hutchinson to hear what their sexual plans were.  He knew he was listening and was being careful.  It sounds like he and Kelly were planning to have unnatural sex.  He spoke to her as if it was something unusual he wanted from her.  Perhaps he asked her to masturbate him.  The police suspect was believed to have suffered from an addiction to masturbation that made him insane.  He was less likely to suggest sodomy and talk about it when a man was listening for she was drunk and giddy and vulgar and he didn’t want to encourage her.  He might have been less careful when it was only masturbation he was after.  No semen was found at the crime scene.  This alone suggests the man she took to her room was the Ripper.   It was the same with all the Ripper crime scenes.  


Some time between 3.30 and 4.00 am a cry of “Oh Murder!” was heard from Kelly’s room.  When prostitute Mary Ann Cox went home at 3.00 am she saw Kelly’s room all in darkness. 


What Kelly said, “All right, my dear, come along, you will be comfortable”, indicates that she intended to let the man sleep in her bed.  It was the nearest to comfortable in her room.  There is no doubt from the bloodstains that when she was attacked she had her face to the partition that the bed was alongside.  Her head was in the corner of the room. She was attacked and the blood spurted up on the wall.  She was lying as if to make room for somebody lying beside her.  The idea that the Ripper wasn’t taken to her room and he sneaked in is unlikely for he knew she was a prostitute or he wouldn’t have been planning to kill her.  He knew a prostitute could have a caller any time or have a man in bed with her.


Kelly though drunk took off her clothes in her room with her guest and folded them neatly and put them over the chair.  She then slept alongside her companion for the night.  The Ripper didn’t burn her clothes despite burning nearly everything else he could get his hands on in the room in the fire.  But it seems she was very comfortable with her guest.  Kelly having been afraid of the murderer would only have taken men she trusted back to her room.  She felt safe that night with a man beside her in bed.  It is hard to believe she had her room unlocked when she was there alone so that the Ripper could sneak in and attack her.  This takes us to the mystery of the key.



Top of the Document


The Key Mystery



Mary Kelly lost the key to her room.  Joseph Barnett her ex-lover and she had had a violent quarrel and the window next the door ended up partly smashed on the 30th October.  Without the key, she reached in through the hole in the glass to unlock the door to let herself in. This was stated in Joseph Barnett’s statement to the police which they accepted.  But the door was found locked and the police had to break it down after her mutilated body was seen through the hole by the man collecting the rent. 


It seems that the door locked automatically when it was closed and one had to reach through the window hole for the catch inside to open the door. 


If she had the Ripper with her in her bed then he didn’t need to know how to open the door.  If he crept in, he must have been familiar with her room.  He must have observed how she opened the door at some stage. 


Inspector Abberline speaking at the inquest said that the murderer did not lock the door behind him with the key.  Nevertheless it is certain that the killer or somebody had a key and locked the room (page 64, The Complete Jack the Ripper).  This must have been the situation because how else can the need to break the door down be explained?  If the lock could be easily opened by putting one’s hand through the cracked pane as Barnett said then why did the police break the door in?  The police must have looked to see if there was any way of entering the room without breaking the door in.  You don’t do unnecessary damage at the scene of a crime.  The police must have known if the door could really be opened by putting a hand through the window for working out how the murderer could have got in is an important part of the evidence.   Possibly the police were acting unprofessionally but there is no reason to think this.  The neighbours would have known how Kelly got into her room and could have told them.  So there are reasons why the police thought that it couldn’t be done and so they didn’t try it.  The suggestion that the police didn’t believe Barnett but decided later at the inquest that the door could be opened as he said is ridiculous. 


The landlord didn’t even have a key either! So without a key they just broke in.


It seems that the police knew that Barnett wasn’t the killer and let him away with his lies.  After all they had considered him a suspect in her murder.  They wanted the whole investigation rushed through as if it was unnecessary.  They acted as if they already knew who the Ripper was and there was no point.    


Why did Barnett lie?  Why did he want to protect the killer?  Why did he act as if the police guessing that the Ripper had the key could lead them to the Ripper?  The answer is that Barnett probably set up her meeting with the Ripper.  Barnett worked at the Market and may have known our suspect who may have supplied meats to the Market. 


If Joe Barnett was the Ripper or at least the killer of Mary Kelly it would have been a crime of passion for he lived a normal life after her murder. He wouldn’t lie beside her peacefully and then attack her.  He did love the woman.  He had no reason to go so far in the mutilations.  He had no reason to make it look like the work of the Ripper – after all there were plenty of prostitute killers about. 


Most likely the person who locked the door had to have been the killer.  But what did the Ripper need the key for?  He didn’t know then that Kelly was able to open the door by putting her hand through the broken glass.  Was she really able to do this at all?


The missing key story was a lie.  Kelly used the key and the Ripper locked the door with it and took it away with him  after he desecrated her corpse.  Did the killer take the key as a trophy similar to his stealing Annie Chapman’s rings?


The key was never lost.  Kelly let herself and the Ripper in with it.  The Ripper took the key with him.  If as Barnett said, the key fell out of the lock when the door was slammed shut during a row it could have gone very far.  She could have got a new key soon if it had been.  And she wouldn’t have delayed if she was afraid of somebody like he said.


Barnett lied because he knew who had the key.  In his stupidity he thought the lie was necessary to protect the killer.  As if the police were going to search all the houses in Whitechapel for a tiny key!  However, if the police had already suspected the killer his lie would have been far from stupid.  This would tell us that one of the police suspects was the killer.  The police would certainly search the houses of the suspects of the time.  It would tell us too that the killer was a local resident.  He was not the American quack doctor Francis Tumbelty.  He was not Aaron Kosminski who nobody would have been afraid of especially another man.  He was not D’Onston for Barnett wouldn’t have been that afraid of him.  The killer had to have been a Jew and Barnett was afraid of the Jews who were protecting the killer.  He had to live among them.  The killer was not George Chapman for he was only 23 at the time of the killings while the witnesses saw an older man.  And Chapman’s English wasn’t as good as the English of the Ripper.  A police suspect Michael Ostrog was free to commit more murders after the Whitechapel murders stopped and didn’t while a maniac like the Ripper shouldn’t be able to stop.  GWB the Australian suspect who according to his son admitted to the murders saying he had been getting very drunk and then getting the urge to gut prostitutes doesn’t sound very plausible.  It doesn’t explain why the killings stopped so soon after starting.  Its only hearsay. 


Some think that the Ripper stole the key and that was why it was missing. Let’s see what the implications are.


The Ripper must have been to her room some time previous to the murder.  He must have known Kelly reasonably well.  He found the key and kept it which was why it was missing.  He locked the door after he slaughtered her.  Had he got the door secured some other way he would have left blood marks on the door.  If you use a key you can avoid blood marks if you are careful.  You can make sure only the key gets the blood. 


The Ripper had been planning to kill her for some time.  She knew him and she trusted him.  He either found the key after she lost it or he was the reason she lost the key. He had stolen it.  Either way she respected this man.  She let him treat her room like his own.  He didn’t have sex with her at any time.  Perhaps he just paid her to sit and talk with him.  The Ripper didn’t do sex. 


The possibilities are that Ripper entered by stealth using her key – assuming it had been lost and stolen by him.  Or she let him in and he slept beside her or he knew how to unlock the door through the broken glass.  Joseph Barnett had visited her hours before her murder and would have known if the key had turned up again for she would have been likely to hang it up on the same hook or nail on the wall. Perhaps Kelly kept the door on the latch and the Ripper got in easily and when he left he left it off the latch so that the door locked. This is unlikely for she would have known that Hutchinson who was concerned and keeping an eye outside that night could decide to send the police into her room and she would be caught in prostitution so she would have locked the door so that she might have some warning at least.  But how the Ripper got in doesn’t matter.  What matters is that he had the key.  He knew this woman and she knew him when he went to such lengths.  


The murderer had waited a long time before striking Kelly.  It seems he was waiting until he would be sure that she was alone.  He was waiting until her lover had left her and a night in which she wouldn’t be sharing her bed with her prostitute friends. 


One more thought, the Ripper didn’t wash at the pump next Kelly’s windows.  If the Ripper didn’t know the pump was there was it because Kelly let him in the door with the key which would have meant he wouldn’t have seen it?


Top of the Document




Goulston Street Graffiti


The Ripper cut Elizabeth Stride’s throat and then not long later that same night he killed Catherine Eddowes.  The Ripper was seen by three men with Catherine Eddowes just a few steps away from where she was found murdered minutes later.   He cut off a piece of her apron and took organs away with him.  Later the empty piece of apron was found in Goulston Street with a chalked message blaming the Jews above it.


Why did the Ripper cut off a piece of the apron?  If he had to clean his knife then why not just swipe  it across her clothing?  Why didn’t he take the whole apron?  He took a piece because he wanted to ensure that later it would have been matched up to the apron.  He took the piece to put organs in.  But that was not the only reason.  He had planned to dump it at Goulston Street all along.


The graffiti at Wentworth Buildings, Goulston Street was the work of the Ripper for it was not seen until the piece of Catherine Eddowes’ apron appeared there.  He left the apron piece there to make sure people knew he wrote the message.  The writing was tiny and put on a black doorjamb (page 90, 91, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals).   It was first discovered not long after the killing of Catherine Eddowes by PC Long who found the apron piece first and then the grafitti above it.


Some have suggested that since PC Long paid so much attention to the cloth and the message before knowing about the piece of missing apron that he planted this evidence having found the apron piece elsewhere and had written the message above it himself.  He knew a woman – Stride - had been killed and he knew the Ripper could have struck again.  That is the only explanation we need.  Had it not been written by the Ripper or that night people would have testified that it was there ages before Long saw it.  They would have said it was there even at the time that Long said it wasn’t there. 


The coincidence between the writing  being found above the discarded apron piece would have to point to the Ripper being the writer.


The writing went:


The Juwes are

The men that

Will not

be Blamed

for nothing


PC Long wrote the message down as follows:



And spelled Jewes not Juwes.  It was DC Halse who corrected him and gave us the correct version including how the writing was laid out on the wall.  Notice how the handwriting in both cases doesn’t differ too much.  Halse however has it as The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing which is different from Long’s.  But as Long studied the writing more than Halse did we can conclude that Long gave us the right wording.  The fact that Long thought Juwes was Jewes means not that he didn’t look at it every well but only that he made a mistake anybody could have made.  Long made a note in his notebook that it was Juwes not Jewes.  DC Halse seems to have preserved the layout for us because he stated that the writing was in three lines.  And besides why else would he have started writing near the middle of the page?  Perhaps significantly we see the cross.  The writing is laid out like a cross.  This was an extraordinary thing for the Ripper to do when he was writing on bricks.



They have not the capitalisations as they were.  The version as follows is what should be accepted.


The Juwes are

The men that

Will not

be Blamed

for nothing


Notice here the strange capitalisations.  The Juwes may be a spelling error.  Notice the poor grammar.  This was the way the man would write normally.  Why does he put the lines in that way?  Its like he writes poetry.


It is not true that the message means that the Jews will not stand for being blamed.  The two negatives is a feature of popular speech.  It means that the Jews will be blamed for something and should be.  What the Ripper could have meant by Jewish men being to blame is that their religion in the scriptures commands that prostitutes be cruelly slain and that they are to blame for his actions for he is a Jew.  He was not suggesting that a group of Jewish men were going around killing prostitutes.  He was not suggesting that the Jews were as much to blame as he was for protecting him from the police.  Why?  What about the women?  And there is no reason for the Ripper to then think that Jews were protecting him.  If they suspected him they could stop him without resorting to Gentile justice.


It was possible that he wanted to put the blame on the Jews who lived in Wentworth Buildings because it would send the police off on a wild goose chase so that he wouldn’t be suspected.  This is the answer to those who claim that a Jew wouldn’t have written such a message so the Ripper could not have been a Jew.


The writing was very small – it had to be squeezed onto a doorjamb. A vandal would have written somewhere better and more prominent and written in bigger and more conspicuous letters.  In case there would be any doubt, the cloth was placed below it then to make sure it would be seen and linked with the Ripper. 


The Ripper must have gone to his lair after killing Eddowes returned to the streets to leave this message.  The one hour and nineteen minutes delay between the murder and the finding of the message shows this.  Eddowes was dead by 1.45 am and when PC Long passed the wall where the message later appeared with the apron piece below it at 2.20 am he saw nothing.  When he returned about 2.55, to his shock he discovered the items then.  The view that he had been careless when he went past at 2.20 and failed to see them is unnecessary.  If we begin questioning testimony for no reason we can end up anywhere.  Overcrowding was Whitechapel’s other name.  The houses and tenements were so packed with people that people were out all night.  Had Long been wrong or lying somebody would have been able to say so.  The Ripper as well had to be careful of the fact that a lot of people were out on the streets all night. 


The Ripper did not write the message while fleeing back to his lair.  The Ripper may have gone back to his lair and started thinking about how he had been seen at Mitre Square and how the police could appear at his front door any minute.  He decided to fabricate evidence that he had fled in another direction.  So he decided to return to the streets with the apron piece and also write the message.  He didn’t take the piece of apron to clean his knife in Goulston Street.  You don’t put a dirty knife away inside your clothes to clean it later with a rag.  He took the apron piece both because he wanted to put organs in it and also because he planned to leave a message and he wanted the police to know he wrote the message by dumping the apron piece below it.  So he must have gone back to his lair to take the organs out and then he took the apron piece out with him to go to Goulston Street.  He didn’t want to contaminate his person with the organs so he wrapped them up in the apron cut off.  This indicates that the witnesses who saw him with Eddowes and who saw a reasonably well-dressed man did in fact see the Ripper.    


Did the killer have a key to some premises in Goulston Street to clean himself up so that he could leave the rag to misdirect police away from his home direction?  Without the bloodstains the police would have paid no attention to him. Our suspect may have had a butcher’s shop to wash at in Goulston Street.  He was once dragged up before the law for stealing meat from his workplace 58 Goulston Street. The killer wouldn’t dare carry the rag too far.  It was dirty and smelly.  He knew the police would be searching men on the street.  If the knives were taken to a butcher’s shop nothing would be thought of them.  Something would be thought if they happened to be found in a doss house where privacy was difficult or at home.


The killer looked dressed – he didn’t look like a worker when he was seen with Eddowes. So it looks like he went back home or to his butcher’s shop to get chalk to write the message at Goulston Street.


It took a short time to write the message.  What if the Ripper had been seen in the doorway by residents?  Why choose this place and not somewhere safer along the street?  Why not some place where he could write the message bigger?  Was the Ripper confident that if he had been identified by Jews living in the building that they would not testify against him?  Yes - the Jews didn’t believe in giving one of their own over to Gentile justice. 


Would a Jew spell Jew wrong?  No.  In the police transcript Juwes is written like it was Juives with no dot above the i.  Did the police miss the dot?  Juives is French for Jews.  It may have been a mistake made by the killer in the dark.  He meant to write an e but it appeared like a u but then we would have Jewes.  We must remember that if it is a real spelling error, that to believe somebody living in the East End and reading the papers could nevertheless spell Jew wrong is no more difficult to believe than that a Jew could spell Jew wrong.  He spelt the word nothing right so it is hardly likely that he could misspell Jews. 


If it was Juives then the killer wrote the message.  Nobody else would change the spelling of Jews.  A Dutch Jew like our suspect would be more likely than a Polish Jew to know of Juives.  Why did the killer write Juives then?  To give the misleading impression that he was a Jew who also spoke French.  Our suspect didn’t speak French.  The real killer was unlikely to hint that he spoke French if he did speak French.  That would narrow things down too much for the police.  In any case, the killer planned a lot of things carefully in advance. 


Only a Jew would be interested in scrawling down the French spelling of Jews.


A possibility is, the killer was a Jew.  He wanted to boast of it.  But he deliberately spelt it incorrectly to make it seem that he wasn’t a Jew reasoning that detectives would think a Jew wouldn’t misspell Jews.  The killer had been seen that night by five potential witnesses.  He wasn’t likely to have thought he couldn’t or shouldn’t even bother trying to hide the fact that he was a Jew.  So he decided then to put out a little misinformation about what kind of Jew he was.  The killer then probably did write Juives.  


Concerning the writing Detective Halse who saw it said, “It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing.  I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground, though I did look about to see if a knife could be found.  There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy’s round hand.  The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4  in, and the other letters were in proportion.  The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white”.


So it must have looked so fresh that they actually looked for chalk dust.  Chalk dust can blow away easily which shows that when they looked for it they were sure it was more than fresh.  When one looks at new chalked writing very closely one can see a lot of dust composing the writing that is just about adhering to the surface.  In a very short time these come loose especially when there is a breeze.  


If you believe the allegation of some that the writing was seen to be slightly erased then the following is how you must think.  The Ripper put the apron piece in that doorway to lay the blame on the Jews in the building for his crime for he knew he had been recognised as a Jew at the scene of the Eddowes crime and he wanted to create a false lead for the police.   The Ripper took a change of heart – an attack of guilt maybe for trying to get one of his own people suspected - and most probably tried to erase it but was disturbed and made off.  When the writing was fuzzy but legible despite being so small it shows that the Ripper half-heartedly tried to erase it.  The idea that since it was written in a doorway people coming to and from would have brushed against it is only plausible if it had been there for a few days at least.  And the building was a habitation of Jews who would soon have washed it off.  The Ripper wrote it and changed his mind and wished to erase it.  This tells us that the killer was indeed a Jew. 


If the Ripper didn’t write the message, then someone who saw him plant the apron piece there did. 


What about the man who on the day following the killing of Annie Chapman was drinking with a prostitute called Lyons?  In a pub called the Queen’s Head, she and a friend noticed a large knife in his trouser pocket.  The man said to Lyons, “You are about the same style of woman as the one that’s murdered.”  Lyons asked him what he knew about her.  This was his answer, “You are beginning to smell rats; foxes hunt geese, but don’t always find them”.  He then left and she followed him as far as the church near Church Street.  He turned around and saw her and then he vanished into the street.  It was decided that the man looked like a picture of the suspected killer known as Leather Apron.  The man was Jewish for the Leather Apron image carried a Jewish appearance.  Furthermore, where he vanished was very close to Miller’s Court where Mary Kelly was slaughtered by the Ripper.  His answer shows the same liking for leaving cryptic clues that the Ripper had when he left the Goulston Street message.  It shows that he liked to boast as the Ripper did.  This man probably was the Ripper.  The foxes hunt geese but don’t always find them seems to mean the Ripper hunts but doesn’t always get women to kill.  He didn’t mean that he was one of the geese and the police were the foxes doing the hunting.  He was unlikely to infer that he was one of several serial killers in the East End for it wasn’t true.  Lyons was a young prostitute.  Was he so angry at her that when he got Mary Kelly, another young prostitute, into his clutches that he took it out on Kelly?  Lyons could have become a Ripper victim because the Ripper killed at the weekends. The day of her incident with this man was a Sunday.


The Ripper wouldn’t have gone far from his lair to plant the fake evidence at Goulston Street.  He couldn’t – not after two murders.  Middlesex Street would have made an ideal lair for him.  The Ripper dashed from Mitre Square to Goulston Street.  Middlesex Street was between them but closer to Goulston Street.  He wanted the police to think he dumped the apron piece on his way further into the city while in fact his lair was Middlesex Street.  He knew that as soon as he would get off Goulston Street that the apron piece could have been found quickly.  He couldn’t have went far to get back to his lair. 


The man who attacked Stride that night called Lipski to another man on the side of the road.  The witness made a report to the press that said that the other man had a knife.  Evidently the attacker was calling the other man a Jew.  Lipski was a Jew who had allegedly committed murder.  The knife wasn’t mentioned in the police report but if he had one that would explain why the other man was verbally abused this way.  This other man was probably Jack the Ripper.  This may have inspired the Ripper to write the Goulston Street message.  The coincidence between the Ripper being called a murdering Jew due to him having being seen with a knife and the message appearing later and so soon after, indicates that the Ripper did kill both Stride and Eddowes that night.   The message was a taunt because the Ripper had been correctly identified as a Jew near the scene of the murder of Elizabeth Stride.  We know a witness was able to identify the Ripper but would not testify for both witness and Ripper were Jews.  This witness was not the witness of the attack on Stride.  The attacker was not a Jew for a Jew would not use an anti-Semitic insult.  Who the witness was will be uncovered later. 


Were the witnesses who saw the Ripper afraid to give the Ripper a name because he was a Jew? 


Top of the Document




The Ripper gets his name


The Ripper was capable of writing letters to the police to taunt them.  The writing on the wall at Goulston Street proves that as does his making a mystery by laying out items near Annie Chapman’s body. 


The Central News Agency on September 27th, 1888 received a letter claiming to be from the murderer and calling himself Jack the Ripper. This was the first letter ever signed Jack the Ripper and it gave the Ripper his gruesome nickname for the first time.  The Ripper could have been inclined to write letters after what he left at Goulston Street. 


Dear Boss,
I keep on hearing the police have caught me but they wont fix me just yet. I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits. I am down on whores and I shant quit ripping them till I do get buckled. Grand work the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal. How can they catch me now. I love my work and want to start again. You will soon hear of me with my funny little games. I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I cant use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope ha. ha. The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you. Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight. My knife's so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance. Good Luck.


Yours truly
Jack the Ripper


Dont mind me giving the trade name


PS Wasnt good enough to post this before I got all the red ink off my hands curse it No luck yet. They say I'm a doctor now. ha ha


“Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight”, is certainly a sign that this letter probably came from the real killer.


“My knife's so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance”.  This all turned out to be true.  The Ripper only killed at weekends and didn’t seem to be able to slaughter whenever he wanted. This wasn’t known or figured out at that time.


After the letter was received Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were killed on the 30th September 1888.  This letter was taken seriously when it appeared that the killer of Eddowes had cut a lobe off.  Nowadays it is thought to have been a hoax by an enterprising journalist.


Surely a forger would want people to think the killer was a doctor or at least he wouldn’t put people off the impression that he was?  It was more frightening and controversial if he was a doctor.  And surely a forger would encourage the belief at the time that the killer was a doctor?  And of course the Ripper was not a doctor but nobody knew that then. The letter writer did for he was the Ripper.


The killer is said to be presented in the letter as a daring rascal and not as one who delights in his “holy” crusade against prostitutes.  But we have a letter this same person wrote that does present the killings as a “holy” crusade.  It is not a daring rascal that appears in the letters – it is one who is sure that he won’t get caught as if God is protecting him and one who enjoys his work, doing what he perceives as God’s work.  The view that the daring rascal impression could only have been created by someone other than the killer who would have been outraged at being seen that way is wrong.  The killer did like to shock and might have pretended to be a daring rascal to achieve that end.


This letter speaking of the Chapman murder said, “Grand work the last job was.  I gave the lady no time to squeal”.  Did he mean he caught her by surprise?  No for Chapman was heard saying, “No!”  Then something was heard to hit against the fence.  He meant that he killed her before she had a chance to scream.  He was right about this for the medical examination results that were confirmed after the letter appeared showed that she couldn’t have screamed.  Also there were people about and the killer did such a good job of not attracting attention as he attacked her that it has to be clear what he meant.  He meant that he should have been caught at work but wasn’t.  He probably heard people out and about in the other yards.  Only the Ripper could have thought of that.  The writer was speaking from memory.  Nobody knew but the killer that he should have been caught but wasn’t.


The killer had been more daring with Chapman than with Nicholls.  He took parts of Chapman away with him.  This was only two murders so far.  Only the killer would have been in a position to write that he was going to do more killings.  And when it was only two murders nobody knew but the killer that the killer was only out to kill “whores”.  He could just have been an evil person attacking prostitutes because they were easy targets but who hoped to start killing any women he could get his hands on.  A lot of people thought at the time that it was women not just whores the killer hated.  Only the killer at that time knew different.


The writer said he would kill if he got the chance.  We know that the Ripper couldn’t kill whenever he wanted – he always had to wait to the weekend.  Only the Ripper could know that he wouldn’t be free to attack women when he wanted.


The knife was sharpened after the Nicholls murder.  The letter boasts about the sharpness.  At that time only Chapman had been killed with the sharpened knife and so we get the impression that the killer wrote the letter and is vowing to keep his knife sharp from now on.  A journalist might have thought that since Nicholls was killed with a knife that wasn’t too sharp that the Ripper didn’t care if the knife was sharp or not as long as it did the job.


The Americanism, Boss, was not contrived by any journalist for no journalist wanted to advocate the notion that the Ripper was an American.  Better to suggest a Whitechapel man as the murderer and have everybody thinking they might know him or live beside him and have everyone quaking with fear.  Fear sells papers.  A butcher like our suspect might have picked up the expression from American customers.  The journalist forging letters from the Ripper would want to support and inflame public opinion to make more stories and get more papers sold.  The letter had to match what people thought of the Ripper for making unusual suggestions was more likely to result in the letter not being taken seriously.


The papers couldn’t risk saying things like that the Ripper was an American for there would be a lot of embarrassment if he was caught and it was found he was not an American.  Like fortune tellers they had to play safe and make safe guesses.


We will soon see that the letters were written by a Jew.  The journalist accused of writing the letter was not a Jew and nor was he prosecuted even though Sir Robert Anderson of the Criminal Investigation Division of the London Metropolitan Police said he could name the person who wrote these letters!  Certainly the letters then might have come from the Ripper’s pen.  Nobody could prove they came from anybody else. 


No journalist would write, “I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I cant use it.  Red ink is fit enough I hope ha ha”.  The journalist would know that the police would expect the killer to be familiar with blood and how it thickens.  The killer is afraid the letter might lead back to him and so if it does he can point to this line as proof that he didn’t write it.


The Ripper wrote in this letter that he wouldn’t stop ripping until he got caught.  This proved to be true for the Ripper was certainly stopped from killing by his relatives. 


The letter writer wrote that the joke about Leather Apron gave him real fits.  What did he mean?  Surely a journalist wouldn’t write like somebody who did the writing version of thinking out loud?  The Ripper at that time was nicknamed Leather Apron.  Why does the killer think its funny?  A journalist would have wanted people to believe the Leather Apron thing.  It is surmised that because a leather apron was found in the yard where Chapman was slain which was assumed to have belonged to the Ripper until the real owner claimed it that this is what the writer finds funny.  “I have laughed when they [the police] look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits.”  The police believed at that time that the killer was a butcher and indeed even suspected a mad Jewish bootmaker John Pizer of the crimes.  Pizer was subsequently cleared.  The killer is laughing because the police suspected the wrong man.  Now that wouldn’t be funny unless the killer was a mad and Jewish himself.  He probably found it funny as well that he wore a Leather Apron as a bootmaker while he himself wore one as a butcher.   This ties in with other things we know about the killer and gives us greater certainty that the Ripper wrote the letter..


The letter writer says that Jack the Ripper is his trade name.  Trade name?  Butchers are rippers.  He speaks as if his ripping women is part of his job.  Is this a hint that he is a butcher?


The killer didn’t seem to be particular about washing his hands.  The letter writer was as bad for he admitted to forgetting to wash the red ink off.


The Ripper did indeed play funny little games as the letter writer says.  The letter writer was the Ripper.  At that time the only game was Annie Chapman’s belongings laid out by the killer in some arrangement.  After that they got stranger.  Nicks in Eddowes face, the apron piece planted at a spot bearing a message from the killer, and the puzzles created in Mary Kelly’s room.  Only the killer would vow to play games in a letter and do so.


It is thought that the promise about trying to cut the woman’s ears off reveals the letter to be a fake because it was known because of the early morning papers that the killer tried to do that.  But notice he says he didn’t have the time to cut them off.  This was not known at the time.  And we know the killer worked fast when he slashed Eddowes for the policeman was approaching and left himself very little time to get away.  The policeman may have missed him by seconds. 


The letter has every mark of being written by the killer. 


This letter was signed Jack the Ripper leading the world to use this nickname for the uncaught killer who stalked the streets of the East End. 


Sir Robert Anderson was head of the Criminal Investigation Division of the London Metropolitan Police in 1888.  Anderson said he knew the journalist who wrote the letter.  But Anderson refused to identify the man.  You can’t admit that you know somebody who has broken the law by giving false evidence and then not give a name so that the man may be dealt with by civil justice.  John George Littlechild said it was believed to have been written by Tom Bullen a journalist with the Central News.  Believed to shows that he wasn’t sure.  Anderson’s bizarre behaviour in this case shows a need to convince everybody that the letter was fake.  Why go to that trouble unless your investigations show the letter is real and you don’t want it to be real.  For the police to admit that they were getting letters from a killer they couldn’t trace or stop would be extremely shameful. 



Top of the Document


The Postcard of 1st October


Referring to the previous letter the Central News Agency received the following which became known as the Saucy Jacky postcard.


I was not codding dear old Boss when I gave you the tip, you'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow double event this time number one squealed a bit couldn't finish straight off. ha not the time to get ears for police. thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.

Jack the Ripper


It may be authentic because though some think the writer got the information about the double event from the early morning newspapers.  Did the police really think so when they took it so seriously? The postcard could have been posted on September 30th just after the murder of Stride and Eddowes. 


A lot of people were saying that the killings may not have been related – not much was known.  But this message states it as fact that the two women were Ripper victims.


And it was true that Stride had alarmed people by squealing a bit. 


A witness said she screamed but not loudly when she was attacked on the street.  Perhaps it was this that the killer meant – if so then he didn’t mean that she squealed when he attacked her after he pretended to comfort her after the first attack and scaring that attacker off.   Because she had made a noise just minutes before he didn’t dare start mutilating her especially when there were people going to and from a club. 


It was not reported in the papers that Stride squealed a bit.  The postcard is authentic.


He writes that because she made some noise he couldn’t finish straight off – this suggests that he killed her and left her there intending to come back to mutilate her later if the coast was clear but that didn’t happen.  This fits in with the observation that the Ripper frustrated because he didn’t get the chance to mutilate her may have went in search of another victim to glut his macabre urge.


And it was true that the killer didn’t have time to deal with Eddowes’ ears.  In the confusion after the murder, nobody could have known that the killer was in such a hurry but the killer.  At that time nobody could say if the killer really had killed both Stride and Eddowes. 


Top of the Document


The letter of 5th October 1888


The Central News Agency got a letter on the 5th October that was found to be written by the same person as the writer of the previous letters (page 98, The Lodger).


In the name of God hear me I swear I did not kill the female whose body was found at Whitehall.  If she was an honest woman I will hunt down and destroy her murderer.  If she was a whore God will bless the hand that slew her, for the women of Moab and Midian shall die and their blood shall mingle with the dust. I never harm any others or the Divine power that protects and helps me in my grand work would quit for ever.  Do as I do and the light of glory shall shine upon you.  I must get to work tomorrow treble event this time yes yes three must be ripped.  will send you a bit of face by post I promise this dear old Boss.  The police now reckon my work a practical joke well well Jacky’s a very practical joker ha ha ha Keep this back till three are wiped out and you can show the cold meat


Yours truly

Jack the Ripper


The interpretation of this letter is that the Ripper believed that God approved of his murders and was a Jew for he knew of Jewish doctrine and the curse on the women of Moab and Midian.  He knew the Old Testament well. 


Is it authentic? 


Possibly it was the work of a Jew because it doesn’t advertise its Jewish origin but its origin can be easily seen and the “Dear Boss”, is contrived Americanism to misdirect the police towards looking for an American killer.  


What hoaxer would think of capitalising the word Divine out of respect for God?  What hoaxer would think of talking about the light of glory?  Judaism spoke of the light of glory in memory of the glowing pillars of cloud in which God was present with Moses and God’s people during the Exodus from Egypt in the Jewish Scriptures.


The Ripper suffered from a religious mania that made him hate prostitutes so this letter rings true.  It bears the marks of religious mania. No journalist would think of a line like “the women of Moab and Midian shall die and their blood shall mingle with the dust”.  Only a Jew would for it is so Old Testament.  It almost reads like a line from the Bible.  At that time the Ripper was believed to be a sex freak who hated women. 


The suggestion in the letter that the Ripper didn’t harm anyone other than prostitutes.  It fits the psychological profile of the killer as a man who seemed relatively normal at least most of the time in daily life.  No hoaxer would have wanted people to think that the Ripper wouldn’t attack any of them.


The real Ripper would indeed have thought that his dodging capture and the police so far would have been a sign that God blessed his homicidal exploits.  The inexplicability of the killer not being caught was the main reason this case became the ultimate murder case. 


A journalist or journalists were thought to be the real writers of many of the letters.  A journalist would have wanted people to think the Ripper maybe did or actually did commit the Whitehall Murder.  In this murder, the body of an unknown and dismembered woman was found wrapped up in a package found in the cellars of new Scotland yard.  The killer was never found.  The letter starts off by claiming that the writer was innocent of this crime which looks like he was outraged at the thought that he ripped her up.  The real killer might react that way.  It was prostitutes he wanted dead.  To suggest to him that he could kill an honest woman might have offended him terribly. 


The “show the cold meat expression” is like something a butcher would write.  Our suspect was a butcher.


The killer of Annie Chapman placed a piece of muslin, a small toothed comb and a paper case containing a pocket comb placed in some kind of arrangement (page 161, Portrait of a Killer). He took time to do this.  The arrangement was placed at Chapman’s feet (page 21, The Crimes of Jack the Ripper ) and shows shows a sick sense of mystery-mongering humour.  He might indeed have written some of the Ripper letters.  It shows that his mind was so odd during his mania that he suggestion that he couldn’t have written the Goulston Street message is flawed.


Why does he promise three murders soon?  This is a nasty joke and he says he is a joker.  A journalist wouldn’t want to give that impression for a journalist would want people to expect three murders. 


Now, the Ripper put Stride and Eddowes on their sides after killing them.  This was two women in one night showing he had no intention of mutilating them any further than cutting their throats which he had done.  But he decided that he had done enough for one night and then started knifing Eddowes.  The mutilations he inflicted on his victims were frenzied and he enjoyed them.  He would have thought that he must go and find a third prostitute that night to kill so that he can mutilate her to glut his overwhelming perverted desire for ripping.  Why?  For he had been seen at the Stride and Eddowes murder sites and it was too risky there to begin slashing.  The Ripper thought of joking that he was intending to commit three murders because he thought he would have done three that night he killed Stride and Eddowes.  That was the inspiration.     


The letter says the sender will send a bit of face.  Soon after, Kelly’s face was cut off.  The murderer made no effort to cut off the face of Catherine Eddowes whose murder had just taken place not long before.  The Ripper said he planned to kill three women the next day.  For this reason the letter was thought to be inauthentic.  But what does he mean by Jacky being thought to be a practical Joker?  Its that he didn’t intend to kill three women at all.  The letter puts divine in as Divine so God means something to him. 


The letter writer didn’t mean it when he said he would rip three up.  But what did he mean by “Keep this back till three are wiped out and you can show the cold meat”?


Perhaps the only way the Ripper could kill three women was indoors.  Mary Kelly and a prostitute named Julia and Mrs Harvey were three women who often slept in Kelly’s room at 13 Miller’s Court.


The “cold meat” expression shows that he intends to kill a woman or women indoors for only that way can he present them for display like meat.  And only that way can he make sure they are cold meat when found for he can close the door behind him or lock it. 


It looks as if he means he will kill three and the police can show the bodies.  But the police never showed bodies.  It could mean “Keep this back till three are wiped out” and until after “you can show the cold meat”.  Mary Kelly was left as a heap of cold meat and put on display by the Ripper and the police for she had to be identified with difficulty and was left to be found by the public.  Only the killer could write a letter expressing an intention to probably kill indoors and leave women displayed as cold meat when it actually happened with one woman, Mary Kelly.  It was probably due to circumstances beyond the Ripper’s control that he didn’t manage to kill two more in a similar way.


This letter was determined to have been originated by the same person as who wrote the  postcard on October 1st saying he had no time to get the ears cut off to post to the police.  Indeed the killer of Eddowes the night before apparently had tried to do that.  It said the first one squealed a bit and she couldn’t be finished straight off.  Clearly then the letter writer was claiming that Stride squealed which was why he didn’t take time to mutilate her.  But he doesn’t necessarily mean she squealed with him.  He must have been present when she squealed when she was attacked by a man who may or may not have been the Ripper. An earlier letter than this one dated 25th September contained a promise to cut the next victim’s ears off and post them to the police which was an accurate forecast.  It was posted only two days before the murder of Stride and Eddowes.  He had no time to mutilate Stride but may indeed have tried to cut Eddowes ears off.  A lobe was cut off suggesting this was a possibility.  The Ripper didn’t succeed for time was slipping away. 


These are the only letters which may show knowledge of the murders and so which were written by the killer. The author knew of the religious element to the murders which has been proven to exist only recently.  Therefore he was the murderer.   


Notice how the letter above makes grammar errors, starts a new line with small letters, has poor sentence construction at times. It has all the same characteristics as the Goulston Street message.  The letter explains how a Jew could put the blame on a Jew by writing nasty graffiti on a building there inhabited by Jews.  He believed they weren’t doing anything wrong if they killed prostitutes and should be praised for it. 


If the letters are hoax letters then what hoaxer would send letters in which he admits to being a joker?  The whole point of the letters was to boast about the murders and that can’t be done if they are not taken seriously.  The real killer would boast but then say he was joking and make jokes in case the letters get traced back to him or he says something that ends in his getting captured.  He doesn’t want to look like the killer.


Would it be too much to suggest that ^ cut into each of Eddowes cheeks make ^^ when put together an M for Moabite or Midian?  Is the letter trying to get at that?  Did the killer put his mark on her to show she is a Moabite or a cursed person in his view?  The marks stood for something – the Ripper despite being in a hurry and knowing the policeman could catch him at any minute didn’t put them on her face for nothing.




Top of the Document


The Letters and Goulston Street


Analyse The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing.


Notice how its correctly capitalised at the start.  But The starts off with a capital letter as does Will and Blamed.  There are no punctuation marks.  It is written with bad grammar, it should have been The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for anything.  It follows popular speech.


Compare this with lines from the letters.


“I keep on hearing the police have caught me but they wont fix me just yet.”  It follows popular speech and bad grammar and betrays carelessness with punctuation.   It should be I keep hearing that the police have caught me but they won’t catch me just yet.  Here’s the whole letter with the errors explained.


Dear Boss,
I keep on hearing [should be I keep hearing that] the police have caught me but they wont [won’t] fix [catch me – fix me is popular speech] me just yet. I have laughed [I laugh] when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits. I am down on whores and I shant [shan’t] quit ripping them till I do get buckled. Grand work the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal. How can they catch me now. [no question mark] I love my work and want to start again. You will soon hear of me with my funny little games. I saved some of the proper red stuff [popular speech] in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with [no comma] but it went thick like glue and I cant [can’t] use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope ha. ha. [should be ha ha and then full stop] The next job I do [no comma]  I shall clip the ladys [lady’s] ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly [no comma] wouldn't you. [no question mark] Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight. My knife's so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance. Good Luck. [capitalised luck unnecessarily]


Yours truly
Jack the Ripper

Whoever wrote this letter wrote the message at Goulston Street. 


I was not codding [joking] dear old Boss [unnecessary capitalisation] when I gave you the tip, you'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow [no full stop] double event this time [no full stop] number one squealed a bit couldn't finish straight off. ha [no capitalisation] [Didn’t have] not [bad sentence construction] the time to get ears for police. thanks [no capitalisation] for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.


Jack the Ripper


Whoever wrote this wrote the first letter and admits it and it shows all the characteristics of the Goulston Street message.  The capitalisation has been watched for some reason with this letter.  The killer probably heard that the police were on the look out for somebody that wrote the way the Goulston Street message was written. 


In the name of God hear me I swear I did not kill the female whose body was found at Whitehall.  If she was an honest woman I will hunt down and destroy her murderer.  If she was a whore God will bless the hand that slew her, for the women of Moab and Midian shall die and their blood shall mingle with the dust. I never harm any others or the Divine power that protects and helps me in my grand work would quit for ever.  Do as I do and the light of glory shall shine upon you.  I must get to work tomorrow treble event this time yes yes three must be ripped.  will send you a bit of face by post I promise this dear old Boss.  The police now reckon my work a practical joke well well Jacky’s a very practical joker ha ha ha Keep this back till three are wiped out and you can show the cold meat


Yours truly

Jack the Ripper


This letter too deliberately avoids the strange capitalisations of the Goulston Street message.  We know he was contriving this because the first letter has the same bizarre capitalisations of the Goulston Street message.  A hoaxer wouldn’t do that. 



Top of the Document


The Lusk Letter


Scholarly analysis has decided that the infamous Lusk Letter which claimed to be from the killer could well have been really his work.  Mr George Lusk of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, which patrolled the streets trying to capture the Ripper, got a parcel in the post containing half a human kidney.  There was a letter in the parcel.


From hell.
Mr Lusk,
I send you half the Kidne I took from one woman and prasarved it for you tother piece I fried and ate it was very nise. I may send you the bloody knif that took it out if you only wate a whil longer

Catch me when you can Mishter Lusk


Let’s examine this curiosity.


The letter sought to give the impression that the kidney came from Catherine Eddowes.  Upon examination it was thought it could indeed have come from Eddowes.  This of course could not be proved.  The kidney carried signs of Bright’s Disease – and Catherine Eddowes had Bright’s Disease.  Dr Openshaw stated that the kidney belonged to a woman of Catherine Eddowes’ age and was in a similar diseased state to the remaining kidney.  Major Smith of the City Police said that two inches of renal artery were left in Eddowes when her kidney was removed and the kidney portion received by Lusk still had one inch left on it as if it would fit in her body. Some doubt the declarations at the time that the kidney was indeed human.  It was preserved for several days before it was sent raising the question of why the killer or the sender took so long to send it.  To many, the reason would be that he wanted to think carefully and took his time to think and be sure he wasn’t leaving a trail to himself.  He believed that what he was sending should convict him as the killer should he be found to be the sender of the parcel.


The killer disguised his writing and wrote to give the false impression of being very illiterate. The spelling is mostly good and easy words are misspelled – he obviously misspelled on purpose.  Why spell hell right and spell nice wrong?  Nice is a more commonly known and used word than hell.  Again you have the strange capitalisations that took place with the Goulston Street message.  It is interesting that the only three words relevant to a butcher, kidney, preserved and knife are spelt wrongly.   The writer was trying to hide his occupation.  He tried too hard and gave himself away!  From hell may indicate a religious interest. 


The Ripper appeared attached to his knife like it was his friend. That he said he might send it if Lusk could wait a while shows that he planned to stop killing soon.  This turned out to be true.  The killer killed Kelly and there were no more murders.  He writes as if he planned to keep the knife to kill one more woman and then think about posting the knife to Lusk.  The killer may even have used a kidney from his butcher’s shop to post to Lusk. 


If the Ripper indeed ate a diseased piece of kidney then was it because he didn’t care for he was already diseased like a syphilitic?


The letter was not written to the police or the papers to keep the papers and the world blazing with speculation and to create a big sensation.  It was sent to Lusk to create a Whitechapel-confined mystery.  The killer was a local man.   The absence of effort to make publicity with this letter lends support to its authenticity.


Top of the Document





The Ripper was a Butcher


We have a suspect who was a butcher from Aldgate, Whitechapel. 


The Ripper was a butcher by trade.


When Mary Ann Nicholls was murdered it was determined that the knife used to mutilate her was moderately sharp (page 30, The Lodger).  A medical student or a mad doctor would have a very sharp knife.  A butcher would have a blunter one that needs frequent sharpening.  That was why the knife was sharper later.  


Nicholls had slight stomach mutilations.  Just eight days later Annie Chapman was found dead with severe mutilations.   Why the difference?  The Ripper must have been practicing between these crimes so that he could go a lot further with the second victim. 


Blood marks were found at the Annie Chapman murder scene as if the killer battered his coat against a wall to shake blood off.  A piece of paper crumpled up with bloodstains on it looked like he wiped his hands with it (page 199, Portrait of a Killer).  But why didn’t the Ripper use the water tap where a leather apron was found in the yard to clean his hands? (page 31, The Complete Jack the Ripper).  There is only one possible answer.  He was afraid that if people thought he used the tap, that the apron might be his.  This indicates that the Ripper needed an apron in his work life.  Butchers often wore leather aprons.  A butcher was suspected of being Jack the Ripper just because he wore a leather apron.   


We know the Ripper could have been a butcher.  Eddowes was described as having been cut up like it was the work of a butcher.  Dr. George Bagster Phillips gave the following testimony at Annie Chapman’s inquest:


"He should say that the instrument used at the throat and abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer. He should say that the injuries could not have been inflicted by a bayonet or a sword bayonet. They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument. Those used by the slaughtermen, well ground down, might have caused them. He thought the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade. There were indications of anatomical knowledge”.


He was a butcher and experienced in cutting and ripping.   Doctor Brown and Doctor Sequeira who had been present at Catherine Eddowes’ post mortem stated that her killer showed as much knowledge of the human body as you would expect from a butcher.  A doctor or surgeon cuts into bodies slowly for they have to take their time.  A butcher would be an expert at cutting with some skill rapidly.  If the Ripper had been a doctor or surgeon he would have shown more concern for giving himself time to cut up his victims.





The Ripper kept one step ahead of the police by checking out the beat times.  He knew he had to work fast.  Annie Chapman was extensively mutilated in about two minutes.  Only an expert at cutting flesh up fast could manage all this.  And only a butcher would have that kind of practice.


A big problem with the people who originally investigated the murders and examined the bodies is that it never occurred to them that the Ripper used great speed in mutilating the women.  They thought it took time.  You read in the book Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals that Ivor Edwards the author believes that Chapman was seemingly cut up in less than two minutes.  Edwards offers as proof for this the speed with which he was able to cut sheep and cattle when he worked for the Fresh Meat Company (page 43, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals).  He also believes that Eddowes was mutilated in two minutes as well (page 81, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals).  Incredibly he still thought that the Ripper was a surgeon. No surgeon could mutilate Chapman so quickly for surgeons have to take their time.  Butchers and slaughtermen would be adept at gutting and mutilating rapidly.  A slaughterman or butcher would be a better candidate for having being the Ripper.


Butchers used chalk to write on message boards.  The killer carried chalk.   A butcher could carry chalk.


A butcher could have a good excuse for being seen with blood on his person.  There was a water pump in the yard very close to the window that Kelly allegedly put her hand through to open the door.  The Ripper didn’t use this pump to wash.  The question then is, why not?  He had committed his messiest murder – he left Kelly all in pieces over her room -  and he didn’t wash.  Even if he covered up his clothes he still wanted to get the blood washed off in case the police got a suspicion about him.  Only a man who was known as a butcher who worked or brought meat to the market like our suspect did could dare go out with any blood on him.   Even if he was covered up well the police could stop him and search his body and look for blood marks say under the nails for example. Nobody would have seen him washing in the dark.  The killer had to have been somebody that would have been taken for a butcher at the Market if blood was seen on him. The Ripper then was not the witness George Hutchinson or Joseph Barnett, Kelly’s lover who have been accused of the crimes through the years.  Somebody more than familiar with Miller’s Court would not have forgotten about the pump to wash at.  Again we see the Ripper doing what he did at the Annie Chapman murder scene.  He just didn’t wash though there was running water available probably because there was a butcher’s apron there and he didn’t want people to think it was his for it would be a giveaway.  These things though small are signatures pointing to a butcher having been Kelly’s murderer. 


A butcher could carry knives without anyone worrying about it


Nobody would pay any attention to bloody body parts stolen from the prostitutes bodies being found in the Ripper’s lair  if he was a butcher.  They would think the parts were animal parts.  The parts must have been discovered by someone for the Ripper was insane at times and had to have been careless sometime.  They would smell as well.  The Ripper had to wrap Eddowes organs in a piece of her apron that he cut off.  Not exactly careful! 


A butcher would be in the habit of cleaning his hands.  The Ripper left no marks on Mary Kelly’s door when he exited.


A butcher would have the stomach to perform the murders.  The Ripper’s acts were so sickening that you would expect the Ripper to have thrown up at some stage when he had thought of what he had done. 


The fact that the Ripper at times was good at ripping and not so good at other times suggests that he was better at ripping animals.  A butcher who wasn’t experienced at ripping up people might do a good job at this one night and be bad at it the next.  The Ripper may have been in a frenzy when he slaughtered Mary Kelly for it was concluded by the doctor that the killer had no surgical skills.  The Ripper intended to desecrate Kelly not extract her organs to take away trophies which could have been why he seemed so unskilful.


The Mary Kelly photograph shows her lying on her bed and what remained of her face turned towards the window from which the photograph was taken.  It is impossible to deny that the killer ripped her up without having planned it this way for the horrid display couldn’t have been achieved better.  A butcher would be good at displaying meat.  Only a butcher was likely to stand in that room and plan the murder in such a way that the horrific results of his work could only been seen in all their gore from the window.  It is as if he knew that the photographs would have been taken through that window.  Only a butcher would have been any good at it.  The Ripper closed the door in the hope that whoever discovered the murder would see through the window – have the most shocking view of the corpse possible.  This would indicate that the Ripper had a lot of familiarity with her room.  He didn’t plan these things on the spot.    


Furthermore, the Ripper must have put the table with Kelly’s innards on it back in its place to make the display complete.  The table would have had to have been moved when the Ripper was mutilating Kelly’s head and upper body for it would have been in the way.


The Ripper never left any bloody footprints anywhere.  A butcher would be experienced at watching this.  The murderer of Kelly, the bloodiest and most gruesome murder, left no prints on the floor.  All this caution in relation to the Kelly murder points to the possibility that he was seen with or near the previous murder victims Eddowes and Stride or was interviewed by the police or both.


Officers at the scene of the Chapman murder believed that the knife used on her may have been an amputating knife or a well-ground butcher’s knife, narrow and thin (page 54, The Lodger). 


Kelly was lying in a sleeping position when attacked.  From cuts on her hands and cuts on the sheet as if it was slashed as it covered her face it seems she struggled a bit with her attacker.  The hands showed evidence that she grabbed the knife in a struggle with the killer.  A faint cry of, “Murder”, was heard between 3.30 and 4.00 am.  Only somebody used to killing animals could cope with a struggling woman.  There were people living all around her.  A wooden partition separated her room from somebody else’s so why where there no big thuds against the partition? Why did the bed not make a lot of noise as they struggled?  She was not strangled like the other victims for the killer just cut her artery in the bed.  Remember there was some annoyance when she was heard singing hours before.  This man handled her like a frightened calf knowing it was facing its death.  He was a butcher, a slaughterman.  He applied his skills to handling violent animals to handling her.  Nobody but a butcher who had experience as a slaughterman could have been that lucky. 


There is evidence from a photo of Kelly’s murder that some piece of her was hung from the ceiling.  A butcher would be inclined to do that.  The killer took care to put parts of her on the table just like a butcher would put meat on a table. 



We must remember as well that with Catherine Eddowes that a section of her intestines was placed by her left side between the arm seemingly by design.  This is what is stated in the report given by Doctor Brown.


A butcher’s habits die hard.  When he had the time and the sufficient clarity of mind he laid the body parts out tidily as a butcher would. And sometimes even when he was in a hurry he took time to lay out the innards – this was by force of habit.


The Ripper can be named.


Top of the Document




Jacob Levy


Jacob Levy, an Aldgate butcher, was Jack the Ripper. The Ripper planned his killings in advance for he knew when to clear off before he was found by policemen on their beat.  Only a man living in Whitechapel like Levy could have been the murderer.


He was a butcher and we know the Ripper was a butcher.


Jacob Levy had a conviction for theft.  He had worked at 58 Goulston Street and stole meat from his employer.


The killer was a thief for he stole back the money he gave the prostitutes and took Annie Chapman’s rings.  He could have stolen clothes and jewellery to make himself look like a gentleman.


He was a Jew.  He was so confident that he wouldn’t be caught that he even boasted of his Jewishness when he scrawled that the Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing at Goulston Street.  Witnesses described the killer as having a Jewish appearance. 


The killer wrote that the Jews were responsible and tried to rub it out having had second thoughts.  Therefore what the message said was true.


The killer liked to boast.  He wrote letters that only the killer could have written and which indicated a Jewish writer.


The killer probably had a wife for he only killed at weekends as if he wasn’t that free.  Why did the killer take Annie Chapman’s two imitation gold rings which were made of brass?  This may indicate that the Ripper was poor or wanted trophies.  But why Annie?  He didn’t take the belongings of the other victims.  He took Annie’s organs so what would he want with these other trophies?  Did he want the rings to give to his wife?  The best suspect, Jacob Levy, had a wife.  His taking the rings again shows that he thought very strangely and could have written some of the strange letters and the strange message at Goulston Street.  


The Ripper was not afraid of syphilitic blood which was a danger with prostitutes.  He had to have actually cut himself while mutilating at some stage but even then the blood was possibly dangerous.  The Ripper was probably syphilitic for he had no fear of cutting himself or getting syphilis from the victims’ blood.  Did he have syphilis already?  Was he dying anyway?    The answer was yes on both counts for our suspect.  The Ripper may have had sex with prostitutes in the past.  He acted like a man who thought that whatever he could catch from a prostitutes’ blood didn’t matter for he had already got it from them through sex anyway. 


Jacob Levy suffered from syphilis and it took his life in 1891.


He didn’t have much respect for fallen women.  This was hardly surprising since he probably caught syphilis from Whitechapel prostitutes. The Ripper was good at talking to prostitutes - he was able to charm them and approach them and even make them feel safe with him. This was a man who had used prostitutes a lot in the past.  Something had happened to change his liking for prostitutes into hatred.  Levy fits the bill for being the Ripper at this point as with many others as we shall see.


The Ripper would have probably seemed sane – at least some of the time - in ordinary life.  What this points to is that the Ripper believed he was doing God’s work and was protected.  The reason the police didn’t catch the killer was due to their conviction that he was a maniac.  Levy seemed sane most of the time so he would have escaped suspicion. 


The Ripper from the descriptions did not look like a man whose health was ruined by syphilis but our suspect got physically seriously ill only after the murders.  The Ripper knew he had to pretend at times to be about to have sex with the prostitutes he met and he wouldn’t have got far if he seemed ill .  Levy was physically healthy looking at the time of the killings.  The Ripper was a very fit man.  Levy was described as very healthy and fit and it was much later and near the time of his death that he got very physically incapacitated with his syphilis.  The Ripper could climb fences with agility and dodge the police.  He could move quickly from one place to another.


The Ripper was not killing the prostitutes for sexual perversion.  He never had sex with them and no semen from masturbation was found at the crime scenes.  His frenzy was hatred of prostitutes.  Not necessarily women.  The suspect Aaron Kosminski can be eliminated for he suffered from compulsive masturbation in public.  He would have been found masturbating over the bodies had he been the killer.  Levy wasn’t having sex with his wife for he went out walking at night and she said he paced up and down the bedroom floor and of course they only had two children so they didn’t have much sex together prior to the onset of his bizarre behaviour either.. 


The Ripper showed signs of anger against female genitalia.  He performed mutilations in the genital area of four of his victims- he may not have had a chance to do this with Catherine Eddowes the exception.  This is most probably a sign of a man who contracted syphilis from prostitutes and attacked the genitals of prostitutes to release his anger.  He took trophies – parts of the bodies of these women to satisfy his feeling that he was stronger than these women, that he was in control.  There is no evidence that the Ripper got any sexual enjoyment out of doing this.  The fact that he took Eddowes’ kidney – an organ nobody would associate with sex - and engaged in abdominal mutilations and ripped intestines out shows that the crimes were motivated by anger not perverted sexuality.  This man was not a sex killer of any description.  He was angry with the bodies of prostitutes and his attacks on the genitals suggest that the basis of his anger was something that happened to him as a result of sex with prostitutes. Our suspect, Jacob Levy, would certainly have felt anger against prostitutes for giving him syphilis.  For those who question that that was how he got the disease they must remember that syphilis was caught mostly by men who went with prostitutes.  Our suspect had only two children which suggests that he cheated on his wife with a streetwalker and didn’t have sex afterwards with her for he suspected syphilis.  Why else wouldn’t there have been more children than that?  A man like him would have hated the female genitalia that left him waiting for death.


Annie Chapman and Kelly were displayed with legs apart in a mock sexual position.  The Ripper wanted to mock their sexuality and make a display of them.  This could be interpreted as, “Here they are ready for sex but I want to put you off the idea of having sex with them”.  This interpretation would surely indicate that the Ripper considered prostitutes dangerous and to be objects not people.


The attacks on the womb especially with Annie Chapman suggest a desire to punish the womb for being the source of life.  The Ripper removed her uterus and the top of her vagina and took them away.  He removed the uterus when he killed Catherine Eddowes as well.  The Ripper did not hate his own life – he didn’t want to end up hanged.  He didn’t want to attack the womb because it was the seat of his life that he wished he had never been born. But his anger may have been roused by the fear that since he had syphilis he might have given this killer disease to his children when he fathered them with his wife.  Jacob Levy had a wife and children.


The Ripper wasn’t very tall because almost all the women he attacked were between 5 feet and 5 feet 2 inches tall.  Annie Chapman was five foot tall, so was Catherine Eddowes.  Stride was 5 foot 2 inches tall as was Nichols.   Kelly killed indoors was 5 foot 7 but she was attacked in bed when she was drunk and trapped in a corner so a smaller man wouldn’t have been put off by her height.  The man seen with Eddowes seconds before her murder was five foot three.  So was Jacob Levy.


The Ripper was definitely a stocky man according to witness reports.  Levy was stocky.


Jacob Levy suffered from the feeling that he was possessed by forces that urged him to be violent.  He heard voices that said religious things to him.  There was a religious element to the Ripper murders.


He heard screams in his head.  Due to his psychosis, he may have not been sure if he committed the murders or not. 


Levy’s conscience tormented him a lot.  Had he caught syphilis from prostitutes he might have tried to deal with his conscience by killing them to punish them for being bad women and seducing him.  He blamed them to cope. 


The killer took an attack of conscience and regret when he tried to obliterate the Goulston Street graffiti he wrote.  Perhaps that is what happened when he killed Elizabeth Stride when he cut her throat.  He felt so bad that he decided not to mutilate her abdomen but later the madness came over him again and he made up for it with Catherine Eddowes.  He strangely took time to pull Mary Ann Nicholl’s clothes back down to spare her modesty.


We have a Ripper letter which shows that the killer was outraged at the thought that he killed a woman who may not have been a whore and shows the signs of a guilty conscience.


He was once prosperous and so would have had nice clothes to put on.  The Ripper’s wardrobe ranged from shabby gentleman’s clothes to being well-dressed.


The Ripper knew Goulston Street well.  Levy used to work there.


Mary Kelly took her killer back to her room.  The killer was beside her on the bed for she was tight next the partition on the bed to make room for him and she had told him he would be comfortable meaning all night.  When she still wasn’t asleep despite having had drink and a late night it may indicate that whoever lay beside her was restless.  Levy suffered from sleeplessness according to his wife. 


We have to explain the Ripper’s incredible eyesight.  Lighting in the streets at night was extremely poor and he kept out of it while killing.  A man suffering from sleeplessness like Levy would soon become adept at seeing things in the dark that nobody else would see.  What else would he have to do to keep occupied during long night hours?



Did the man attacking Stride who called Lipski to the murderer really say Levy?  Schwartz, whose language was Hungarian and he didn’t have much English might not have heard the man properly.  Or the language barrier may have led to a misunderstanding. The man was struggling with Stride at the time and might not have been speaking clearly or might have been tipsy.  Schwartz stated that he seemed a little drunk.  Lipski was a common insult so Schwartz might have more assumed that he said that than heard him say it.  The evidence for holding that he didn’t say Lipski might be seen in the fact that the man he called to was standing at a distance and was just lighting his pipe. 


Jacob Levy had to have been questioned by the police at some stage for he was out on the streets after dark due to his insomnia.  He had to have been a suspect.


When Jacob Levy died of general paralysis of the insane brought on by syphilis in 1891 on 29th July, the Jack the Ripper case was rapidly closed. This was very odd for many detectives and policemen at the time thought the Ripper liked to take longer gaps between murders and was still killing.  This can only be explained by the police having proof that when Jacob Levy died Jack the Ripper also died. This makes no sense as nobody agreed on how many murders were committed by the Ripper then.  There were killings still being attributed to the Ripper.  The only explanation that makes sense is that the police knew that the Ripper was dead.


Jacob Levy perhaps ended up being confused with the Polish Jew, Kosminski, a major police suspect.  Kosminksi was not the Ripper for he was totally incoherent to talk to and ate scraps off the street.  Not the kind of man who could get a prostitute to go with him or be good at dodging the police.  To assert that the police possibly mixed Levy and Kosminski up is a controversial assertion and one that now demands to be examined.  


Top of the Document


The Kosminski Suspect


Assistant Chief Constable Macnaghten wrote in 1894 about the suspect Kosminski,


Kosminksi, a Polish Jew, and resident in Whitechapel.  This man became insane owing to many year’s indulgence in solitary vices.  He had a great hatred of women, especially of the prostitute class, and had strong homicidal tendencies; he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889.  There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong ‘suspect’.”


Machnaghten was responsible for the destruction of some of the most important files on Jack the Ripper.  He stated that he burned them to protect the murderer’s family. (page 88, The Complete Jack the Ripper).  His daughter however claimed that he lied about burning the papers to avoid being pestered by questions about them. 


It is totally ridiculous to imagine that Macnaghten needed to burn papers that he read and studied to stop questions!  It was what he remembered about the Ripper and the papers that the questioners wanted to know about.  Why didn’t he just have the papers locked away somewhere where nobody could get to them?  It was easy enough to have papers locked away for years so that nobody could get them until it was safe. 


But it seems that Macnaghten did burn the papers as he said.  When Macnaghten felt he should destroy the papers it shows he KNEW who the Ripper was.  It shows something more important: Kosminski was the Ripper’s nickname not his name.  Why burn papers to hide the Ripper’s identity and protect his family if Kosminski was the real name of the Ripper as he had stated in 1894?   It doesn’t happen. 


The itinerant Aaron Kosminski was an outcast from his poor family.  To imagine needing to hide evidence to protect his family is ridiculous.  Revelation of the Ripper’s identity would do a business family harm.  It would do even more harm if the family was Jewish.  Jacob Levy was once a well-to-do butcher who blamed his wife for his failures.  His family were still successful butchers.  They were Jewish.


Here are the seeming errors in his account.


#1        The name Kosminksi itself could be an error.  We know the killer went to an asylum.   The killer’s name could not have been Kosminski for the only candidate in the asylum records, Aaron Kosminski, was not the Ripper.  Some say another Kosminski was enrolled in asylum records under a false name such as David Cohen.   If it is true as some sources say, the Ripper was identified when he was already committed to an asylum, then there was no need to hide his name then.  And the police were not going to declare him to be the Ripper to convict him for they couldn’t convict an insane person so there was no need to hide his identity.  Kosminski was not the Ripper’s real name.  It may have been his nickname or the name he used.  This is perhaps where the police got it from.  The name may have been created to hide the Ripper’s identity.  We know that the police thought it was expedient to keep his identity under wraps.


The asylum had no reason to give the suspect a false name but the police had.   


#2        Macnaghten wrote that Kosminski was put in an asylum in March 1889.  In fact Aaron Kosminski was committed in March but in the year 1891.


The solution to the “errors” is that the man he was thinking of was not Aaron Kosminksi and Kosminski was not the killer’s real name.  The Ripper could not have been committed in March 1889.   The date fits no known suspect.


Top of the Document


Anderson’s Suspect


Sir Robert Anderson who was head of the Criminal Investigation Division of the London Metropolitan Police in 1888 declared in 1910 in Blackwood’s Magazine, Part 6, that the case of Jack the Ripper had been solved back then in 1888. 


"One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice. And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point. For I may say at once that ‘undiscovered murders’ are rare in London, and the ‘Jack-the-Ripper’ crimes are not within that category. And if the Police here had powers such as the French Police possess, the murderer would have been brought to justice. Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate officers of the department will tell tales out of school, and it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service…"


A footnote added: -


"Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I should almost be tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter [‘Dear Boss/Jack the Ripper’ letter] above referred to, provided that the publishers would accept all responsibility in view of a possible libel action. But no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer. I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him."


His reasons for not saying much more was that “no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer”.  He also said in 1910 that the killer was a low-class Polish Jew.  He disclosed that “when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew, he declined to swear to him.”  He added that the killer was "a sexual maniac of a virulent type", that he lived "in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders".  He said that the man’s “utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute".  Anderson was not referring to Aaron Kosminski who showed no sexual deviances in the asylum.  Kelly’s murderer may have suggested sodomy to her.  Anderson wrote, “For I may say at once that ‘undiscovered murders’ are rare in London, and the Jack the Ripper crimes are not within that category”.   Also, “In saying he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact”. 


Incidentally, when Anderson says that no benefit would come from naming the forger of the letter we have to be sceptical.  If the forger was caught he should have been convicted.  If he was not, then Anderson and the police had no proof that he was the forger.  Thus we cannot listen to those who say Anderson refuted the authenticity of the Ripper letters.


Did Sir Robert Anderson have the same person in mind as Macnaghten? Or did they mistakenly think they had the same person in mind? Anderson was unlikely to resort to secrecy if the suspect had been named as Kosminski by Macnaghten in 1894.  People would only assume it was Kosminksi Anderson meant.  Either Kosminski was a false name – after all we know it was agreed that the Ripper shouldn’t be named to protect his family - or a nickname for the Ripper or Kosminski was not identified as the Ripper.  That Macnaghten didn’t have to fear a libel case years before and Anderson did, indicates that Macnaghten had a different name but not necessarily person in mind from Anderson. 


Insane people couldn’t be hanged.  Anderson by saying that the killer was an inmate of the asylum when identified and that the witness didn’t want to swear to it for the killer was a fellow-Jew was indicating that the killer wasn’t insane all the time so the killer might still have ended up at the end of a noose. 


But it is far more likely that Anderson was wrong about the killer having being identified while he was in an asylum.


Anderson says that the witness who identified the suspect without hesitation refused to testify against him in the murder trial they hoped to have when he learned that the suspect was a Jew.  The words, “but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him” tell us that the witness didn’t know who he was asked to identify or that he didn’t know the killer.  The latter is doubtful because the witness must have known the killer to be able to identify him months and years after seeing him at the scene of a crime.  The witness must have known the suspect when he was so sure it was him after getting only a quick look at him.  There had to have been rumours about who this suspect was among the Jewish community.  The witness would have known a Jew by his appearance.  It seems then that he didn’t know who the suspect was until he met him.  Chances are the Jews in such a small area as Whitechapel all knew each other.  And we can’t believe that the police knowing that Jews didn’t tell on each other would tell the witness that the suspect was a Jew as well!


A house to house search of the Whitechapel area in October 1888 led Anderson to declare: “The conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews… and the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point". The result can only refer to the positive identification of the killer by a fellow Jew.  He speaks of proof here.  This identification must have taken place after the Kelly murder.  It may have been the reason the killer stopped killing. 


Top of the Document


Swanson and the Ripper


Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, head of the Ripper investigation, wrote in 1910  that the Ripper was identified at the Seaside Home and was returned to Whitechapel and later he went to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch, Lunatic Asylum.  He wrote that Kosminski was this man and he died soon after. 


"After the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect’s return to his brother’s house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards – Kosminski was the suspect – DSS"


Aaron Kosminski never went to Stepney Workhouse - there is no record of it (page 63, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals).  And neither did Jacob Levy so this error made by Swanson doesn’t worry anybody. Its just a mistake and need not be considered in working out who he meant.


He wrote that the suspect had been identified by a witness at the Seaside Home.  And that the killer had been identified by a witness who wouldn’t testify against him because both suspect and witness were Jewish.  He said the witness did this "because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.  And after this identification which suspect knew no other murder of this kind took place in London."


Swanson wrote that the witness would have been the cause of the murderer being hanged had he testified that this man was indeed the murderer.  Swanson then is hinting that the police did know who the killer was but just needed a sworn identification to prove it.  How else could a sworn identification be sure to lead to the gallows?  Identifying somebody as the killer doesn’t mean that your word will be taken for it.  There must be evidence to support what you say. 


Because of religion, justice couldn’t be done for the five murdered women.  Religion not only took their lives but it sought to protect the murderer.


The witness made it clear that he didn’t want the man hanged so he must have been certain that the suspect was indeed the killer.  The suspect was watched by police when he went back to his brother’s home in Whitechapel day and night showing the police were sure he was the killer but had no proof.  Soon the suspect had to be taken with hands tied behind his back to Stepney Workhouse and then the asylum at Colney Hatch where he died soon after.  Then we are finally told, “Kosminksi was the suspect”.  Aaron Kosminski was totally and permanently insane and couldn’t be hanged anyway.  The witness had nothing to fear from testifying.  Jacob Levy wasn’t always insane and wasn’t thought to be insane at the time and would have hanged. 


After the identification, the killer didn’t kill any more.  Swanson speaks as if the identification put the killer off committing any more murders which fits his saying the killer was sent back to Whitechapel.  Aaron Kosminski was too irrational to think like that so our Ripper wasn’t insane all the time.  The identification must have taken place after the killing of other women who were thought to be victims of the Ripper such as Frances Coles and Alice McKenzie. 


Those who think Kosminksi is Aaron Kosminski say that Swanson erred in saying that Kosminski died soon after being committed.  Aaron Kosminski lived decades after.  The solution is that the Kosminksi was not Aaron.


Why didn’t the reports give Kosminksi’s first name?  Not even an initial was given in the Machnaghten report, though it gave a first name to another suspect and the first initials of another?  There is no proof that Kosminski carried the first name Aaron.  It has been down to the fact that the only Kosminksi that went into an asylum was an Aaron Kosminski that led to the theory that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.  This person matched some of the things these men said about him.  But so did several other Ripper suspects.


Top of the Document


Matches and Mismatches


What Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson and said carries more weight than all the modern speculations about the Ripper put together. 


None of what they said points the finger at Aaron Kosminski.  The hatred of women, hatred of prostitutes, the insanity, the Jewishness, and the other facts about Aaron prove nothing.  The only matches with Aaron Kosminski is first, that Swanson’s Kosminski was incarcerated in Colney Hatch.  Aaron Kosminski was indeed put there.  The second is that Kosminksi was a Polish Jew.  Aaron Kosminski was a Polish Jew.


Anderson says the suspect was caged in an asylum when identified.  Swanson says he was staying with his brother and wasn’t put in the asylum yet.  This is not necessarily an error.  There might have been two identifications.  Perhaps the police wanted to make sure the witness was able to pick the suspect out of an identity parade.  After all it had been a long time since the witness saw the suspect at a crime scene. 


The errors make it possible that Aaron Kosminski was confused with Jacob Levy.


It seems that Jacob Levy is the best fit for being the Kosminksi suspect and was mixed up with Aaron Kosminski. 


Here are the similarities in the accounts and reports that exist between Aaron Kosminski and Jacob Levy and they can account for a mix-up.


Kosminksi and Levy were Jews. 


Kosminksi was a Polish Jew and Levy was a Dutch Jew. 


Kosminski was committed in March1889 according to Macnaghten and Jacob Levy in August 1890.  This is pretty close.  And even more so when the correct year of the Kosminksi admission was 1891!  It’s easier to make a mistake and say 1889 when you should have said 1890.  And especially when they are adjacent years.  It is unlikely then that he was thinking of 1891!


Nobody knows when the killer was identified at the Seaside Home Brighton.  But it happened after the Home opened in March 1890 and before the killer was committed.  The killer was identified and sent home before he was committed under a police watch.  He couldn’t have been home long – the police wouldn’t have went to such a huge expense.  Jacob Levy having been committed in August 1890 and possibly identified in March 1890 is the best match.  The records are confused but it seems this scenario sorts it out. 


Kosminksi and Levy both lived in Whitechapel.


Levy lived with a friend and Aaron with his brother.  Levy’s friend must have been related to him when he was willing to take in a man prone to fits of insanity. It is possible that Levy stayed temporarily with a brother or just now and again.


Both hated women.     


Both were insane but only Levy would have had sufficient sanity and intelligence to commit the crimes.


Both wandered the streets and could have been out the nights the women were murdered.  Levy was very restless at night and paced back and forth a lot.  Eventually his wife would have told him to go and do his pacing outside instead of disturbing the house.  She said: “he does not sleep at nights and wanders around aimlessly for hours.”  So like Kosminski he was probably on the streets when the murders took place. 


Both engaged in masturbation.  Levy didn’t give his wife syphilis indicating that he was using masturbation.  The Ripper didn’t have sex with his victims – even the pretty Mary Kelly - indicating that he may have preferred masturbation the solitary vice.  Kosminski would have probably masturbated at the crime scene but Levy didn’t for his masturbating wasn’t compulsive like Levy’s.   


Both would have looked about the same age.  Levy was born in 1856.  Aaron Kosminski was twenty-five in 1891 making him born in 1866.  Aaron Kosminski had maltreated himself so severely that he would have looked ten years older.  He would have passed for Levy’s age.  Levy had an easier life than Kosminski who would have been aged prematurely by poverty and his maltreatment of himself and by the horrors he experienced in Poland before coming to England.  Kosminski knew he was mentally ill and believed at times that if he starved himself he would get better.  All this would have made him look older. 


Some would say that both had violent tendencies.  Levy did have stronger violent tendencies than Kosminski.  Kosminski lifted a knife to his sister but in the asylum there were no instructions for keeping him away from people he could endanger.  It seems to have been a misunderstanding or something for it was thought to be a once-off.  It can be said then that what the reports said about the Kosminski suspect matches Levy better.  Kosminksi sounds like a lunatic who was easily restrained.  Could he have been the man who was able to strangle struggling prostitutes and cut their throats and exercise such violence that Annie Chapman’s head nearly came off?  The Kosminksi suspect was taken from Whitechapel to the Seaside Home, Brighton, for identification with his hands tied behind his back as if he could be uncontrollable.  This was not Aaron Kosminski.


Levy was not always insane unlike Aaron Kosminski so he could have been found guilty of the crimes and hanged.  Does this explain how a witness could identify the Ripper and refuse to testify in case he would be hanged?


Now to the objections to the hypothesis that Jacob Levy was the suspect and was misnamed or nicknamed as Kosminski.


  1. Levy was not a Polish Jew.  If he used the nickname Kosminski he might have been thought to have been a Polish Jew.  He might have thought he was a Polish Jew during his delusions.  Kosminksi was a common name among Polish Jews and this could have led to the idea that the Ripper was Polish.


  1. Levy was committed to the City of London Asylum, Stone, Kent where he died. Kosminski was committed to Colney Hatch.  After that Kosminksi went to Leavesden Asylum for Imbeciles, where he died in 1919. 


New Ripper suspect Hyam Hyams, is thought to be this man who was sent to Colney Hatch.  Hyam Hyams was taken there under restraint but he never went to Stepney workhouse.  But his case is important if but for one reason.  There is no doubt that all who named Kosminski were confused.  Hyam Hyams could have been confused with Jacob Levy as both were known to Ripper witness Joseph Levy.  Hyams was related to Joseph Levy’s wife.  Is this confusion where the idea that the Ripper went to Colney Hatch came from?  He could not have been the Ripper because he didn’t hide his violence towards women, his wife and his mother and was an uncontrollable maniac.  And he lived too long after ending up in Colney Hatch to have been the Ripper.  While Swanson and Anderson could err about where the Ripper ended up they couldn’t err too much about the time of his death.  Both stated that the Ripper passed to his reward in Hell soon after the crimes.  That is the one thing that mustn’t be ignored. 


  1. Levy never went to the Stepney Workhouse but according to Swanson the Kosminski suspect did before being signed into Colney Hatch.   However we know that Aaron Kosminski was never in Stepney Workhouse.  So he has that in common with Levy.  Swanson made an error which has no relevance to the case.


  1.  Macnaghten’s suspect entered the asylum in March 1889.


This was an error.


We can dismiss these as refutations of the hypothesis that Jacob Levy was the Ripper for five important reasons.


  1. There is no doubt that the facts about the killer were confused with the facts concerning somebody else for what they wrote fits nobody exactly.


  1. There are similarities between what we know of Jacob Levy and the police suspect.


3.      When we read that the Ripper went to Colney Hatch we are left with the impression that he died there.  Aaron Kosminski was there a while but was longer in to Leavesden Asylum for Imbeciles, which was his abode until his death in 1919.  If they had meant Aaron Kosminski one would expect them if they were going to mention an asylum they would have mentioned the one he was longest in.  


  1. There is one thing no mistake could have been made about: the time the Ripper died.  Aaron Kosminksi was committed to an Asylum in 1891 not 1889 and lived for several years after.  The Swanson Kosminski suspect died according to Swanson soon after being committed which may indicate 1891.  Levy died in 1891. Whatever errors that our writers made one thing is certain: they could not have made a mistake concerning the Ripper having died and at least roughly when.  You don’t forget things like that.  Aaron Kosminski may have been mixed up with their suspect but he was not the suspect.


We will see later that there was a reason to have Jacob Levy identified at the Seaside Home and none to have Aaron Kosminski or anybody else identified there.


Jacob Levy was the Kosminski suspect.   His being given the name Kosminksi may be due to it being a confusion with the real Kosminski or a nickname or just a name the police used to hide the Ripper’s identity.  


What detectives living in the times of the Ripper believed matters more than what any modern Ripperologist believes.   Levy is a better match for the Kosminksi suspect than anybody else.  We know the Levys who may have been related to him were close to the Kosminskis. 


Top of the Document


Was Aaron Kosminski the Kosminski Suspect?


Aaron Kosminski was just days locked away in an asylum when the police began searching for Jack the Ripper as a result of the Frances Coles murder of 13th February 1891. So it proves they didn’t know who the Ripper was then and that they had no proof that it was Aaron Kosminski.  He wasn’t put away until two years had passed since the last Ripper murder.  He couldn’t have been the Ripper for he was not the suspect identified by a Jewish witness.  If he had been he would have been put away sooner.  The witness who identified the Ripper would not have been taken to identify a madman. 


Aaron Kosminksi was so insane that the police wouldn’t have been allowed to have him identified as the killer after his incarceration in an asylum. Jacob Levy would have been a different case with having attacks of insanity. 


Aaron Kosminski was not a sexual maniac whose vices were so unmentionable that he was lower than a brute.  He suffered from compulsive masturbation but the way Anderson speaks of the Kosminski person is as if he was an extreme and unusual kind of pervert.  Perhaps somebody that had sexual fantasies about mutilating prostitutes.  Kosminski had lived on the streets which wouldn’t have been the case had he suffered from extreme sex addiction.  The Ripper showed no sign of any sexual interest in the prostitutes he slain. Levy may have got his syphilis from prostitutes while Aaron hated them and women in general and so he would not have had any depraved sexual desire to have sex with fallen women.  Kosminski wasn’t syphilitic so it was unlikely that he was ever with prostitutes. 


Anderson speaks of the Ripper in the past tense as if the Ripper were dead.  Aaron Kosminski, the only person that could have been referred to by Macnaghten if Macnaghten was using Kosminksi as a real name was still alive then when Anderson wrote in 1910. 


The evidence for Kosminski’s guilt is non-existent but there is evidence for Levy’s.    


Aaron Kosminski was not the suspect.


The Ripper was known on the streets.  He may have used the name Kosminski to persuade women that they didn’t know him at all or to mislead them.  There is no evidence for the view that Kosminski was Nathan Kaminsky who was put away for syphilis treatment in March 1888.  Martin Fido thinks his name was also David Cohen who was totally violent.  The Ripper of course was not.  He was only violent when he wasn’t being watched. 


The Ripper victims had different names.  Mary Ann Nicholls was often known as Polly Nichols.  Annie Chapman as Annie Sivvey.  Catherine Eddowes was also known as Catherine Conway.  Worse, her other name was Mary Ann Kelly!  Mary Jane Kelly was Mary Jeanette Davies by marriage.  So it stands to reason that the Ripper may have had more than one name too.  I think Jacob Levy was also known as Kosminski!  No real Kosminski fits the bill for being the Ripper.  


We know the statements about the killer are confused and we know that Kosminksi can’t really be the name of the killer.  If the suspect was Jacob Levy then Jacob Levy was Jack the Ripper. 


According to Detective Inspector Edmund Reid, the Ripper died before the year 1896.  It was declared that, "The mania was of a nature which must long ago have resulted in the death of the maniac - an opinion that is borne out by the best medical experts who have studied the case”.  This suggests that the killer suffered from a killer disease such as syphilis and mania like Jacob Levy did.  They were surprised he lived as long as he did. Aaron Kosminski’s mania and sickness had no reason to kill him.  Aaron Kosminski was not Jack the Ripper.


Levy was described as suffering from mania and hearing voices.  This must have taken a religious form at times.  Aaron Kosminski showed no tendency towards religious mania.  Religious extremism was a leading feature of the Ripper’s mania.


Top of the Document


The Identification of the Ripper


We need a positive identification to prove who the Ripper was.  And the men investigating the murders said there had been one.  There is much confusion about who the witness who made the identification was.  But it can be cleared up.  Joseph Hyam Levy saw the killer with Catherine Eddowes and it is most likely that the man he saw was his close neighbour Jacob Levy.  Joseph Hyam Levy didn’t want to say anything about the killer but he may have changed his mind later when he identified him, 


Griffiths who must have consulted Macnaghten and others wrote in 1898 that there was some evidence that the killer was a Polish Jew who was known as a lunatic who was roaming around Whitechapel at the times of the murders and who was put into an asylum afterwards for his urge to kill.  It says the policeman at Mitre Court meaning Mitre square where Eddowes was found murdered got a glimpse of him and agreed that the person was the murderer.  Anderson wrote in 1910 that the only person who got a good look at the killer identified the suspect without hesitation but wouldn’t give evidence against him.  It is thought that this was the policeman.  But we read the policeman got a glimpse while somebody else got a good look.  And a policeman would have to give evidence.


We know a Jew identified a fellow Jew as the Ripper but refused to testify against him in court.


Who was this witness?  It was not Israel Schwartz for he didn’t see the killer dispatching Elizabeth Stride.  He saw a man with a knife who scared him away.  When Schwartz said so much about this man he would have identified him and had him hanged.  He even talked to the papers. 


It was not Joseph Lawende the Jew who saw the man with Catherine Eddowes that same night minutes before her murder.  He said he couldn’t identify the man.  The witness had to have been the Jew, Joseph Hyam Levy, who was in his company.  This man acted so strangely that undoubtedly he knew more than he let on. 


The Assistant City Police Commissioner in 1888 was a Major Henry Smith.  He wrote that he interviewed one of the Mitre Square witnesses who he described as a sort of hybrid German.  Lawende was a Polish Jew so he was not the interviewee. It had to have been Joseph Levy who was a Dutch Jew.  Lawende was more loquacious and prominent at Eddowes Inquest than Joseph Levy so when the name wasn’t given we can assume the witness didn’t want it to be given and so it was Joseph Levy who didn’t want any attention at all.  When Joseph Levy was interviewed he must really have known a lot more than he wanted people to think.  He must have known the killer.  The three witnesses spoke German.  But that doesn’t make them hybrid Germans.  Joseph Levy was the best candidate for being the hybrid German or mistaken as one.  


Joseph Hyam Levy and two friends, Joseph Lawende and Harry Harris, saw a man and woman standing talking to one another near Mitre Square.  Minutes later Catherine Eddowes was found dead and mutilated in the a corner of the Square.  Joseph Levy said to Harris: “I don't like going home by myself when I see these sort of characters about.  I'm off!”.  He stated that somebody should keep a close eye on Mitre Square. 


What a strange reaction!  He should have been used to seeing characters like that all the time.  Why would he feel he would have been in danger from them?  Why would he feel the need to get away so fast?  There could have been nothing upsetting about seeing Eddowes and the Ripper talking because neither of them looked out of the ordinary.  Why would he say that Mitre Square especially would have to be watched?  Prostitutes had their haunts everywhere. 


Joseph Levy admitted to being afraid yet he didn’t take with his friends the quickest way back to his house in Hutchinson Street that night which was through the smaller streets.  This street juts off Middlesex Street.  He took the longest way back because it was better lit.  He must have been afraid.  Was he afraid he might see Jacob Levy ripping up a woman in one of the darker streets?  Probably he was afraid of seeing an undiscovered victim slain earlier that night lying somewhere.  Or was he afraid because the Ripper lived on Middlesex Street and the Ripper had seen him and he had seen the Ripper with Eddowes?  He knew the Ripper would take the back streets to return to his lair.  The Ripper knew he had been seen.  He went to the trouble of putting Catherine Eddowes on her side and then he changed his mind and put her on her back to mutilate her.  Like with Stride, he wasn’t going to go any further and the desire to mutilate Eddowes took over and he gave in to his frenzy.    


The answer is that Joseph Hyam Levy already suspected the man of being the killer.  That was why he wanted to get away.  He knew the man who was with Eddowes.  He was the one who in the later reports written by police was the Jew who was able to identify the suspect without hesitation as being with Eddowes and being her murderer.  Instead of wanting to help the woman, he wanted to get away.  He didn’t want to be involved.  He worried that he might have to identify the killer.  He wanted to be off the scene to avoid that.  However he did identify the killer later.   


Joseph Levy was indeed the witness for he behaved so strangely from the start that he would have been the type of man to identify the killer and then refuse to testify in court against the man.  The witness told a strange lie in saying he didn’t want the man put to death over his testimony.  If so then why didn’t he just say that the man was not the Ripper? The witness then acted like Joseph Levy – true to form!   And even more so when he lied that he wouldn’t testify in court against the killer for it would lead to the killer being hanged.  But surely he knew that a man suffering from mental illness couldn’t be hanged – even if he wasn’t committed yet!  True to form again! 


Was the real reason Joseph Levy didn’t want to testify in court concerning who the murderer was because he didn’t want to bring shame on his own family?  His reasons for not testifying don’t hold water.


Joseph Levy and Jacob Levy may have been related.  They were neighbours bearing the same surname living just about sixty yards apart and both were butchers by trade.  Jacob Levy’s father’s name was Joseph.  This may indicate a blood relationship because families tended to name new children after living or dead close relatives. We think that Jacob Levy used the nickname Kosminski or because the police wouldn’t name the Ripper they just called him Kosminski to hide his identity.  Interestingly, Joseph Levy supported the Martin Kosminski application to be accepted as a British citizen in 1877.  If Joseph Levy was related to the Ripper, did he want to cover up for the Ripper in case he would be suspected of being an accomplice?  Who knows?  Perhaps he knew the true story if at any time Jacob Levy tried to give him body parts to sell in the shop!


The crimes were so horrific and the men were afraid for their female relatives.  The possibility that the killer hated women not just prostitutes was popularly accepted.  They often thought he only went after prostitutes late at night because they were easy targets.  Joseph Levy then would have identified the killer even if it meant telling on a fellow Jew but not if the killer were a relative.  When he talked to the police at all it shows he was thinking about telling all but then his reluctance to bring shame on his family took over.  Perhaps he knew Jacob was insane at times and hoped some other way to stop the killings could take place without having any police involvement.  If he was related he might have thought of such a way.  He must then have been in a position to talk to the family indicating a family relationship.


Why did Joseph Levy get away with not testifying?  The police needed a solution to the Ripper murders case for they had put themselves before world ridicule over their mishandling.  Did he get away with it because the man he identified was a relative?   It seems so!  Or more likely it was because he was afraid of repercussions from Jacob Levy’s family.  He couldn’t betray a fellow Jew and the police understood that.


Did Joseph Levy confront the Ripper after he had seen him with Catherine Eddowes the night she was killed?  Did he find the organs the Ripper took?  Was that why the Ripper didn’t steal women’s uteri since Eddowes died?  He didn’t take any parts of Kelly away with him.  The organs might have been found by Joseph Levy on a butcher’s premises.  Something put the Ripper off taking Kelly’s organs. If he took her heart that wasn’t characteristic of him.


The Evening News issue 9th October 1888 printed the following, “Mr Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give the slightest information and he leaves one to infer that he knows something but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest. At the inquest Levy admitted observing a man and a woman at the entrance to Church Passage though he did not take any particular notice of them although he described the man as having been three inches taller than the woman and when pressed under cross examination he denied thinking her appearance as `terrible' and went on to add that he was not exactly afraid for himself".


Joseph Hyam Levy had forgotten what he said about the pair being a sinister looking pair which was why later he denied saying the woman looked terrible in appearance.  Evidently, when he said the pair looked sinister what he really thought and meant was that it was the man he didn’t want to have to look at.  The reason was not the man’s appearance but who he was.  He knew him.  From Lawende, we know that there was nothing sinister looking about the man.  But if you know something bad about somebody you will think of their appearance as terrible.  This explains why Joseph Levy thought the man looked sinister too and why he started to tell lies later on denying that he was shocked by the pair. 


Joseph Hyam Levy lied about not paying much notice.  He didn’t want to have to say too much about the man he saw for he had taken a lot of notice.  He took so much notice because he recognised the man with Eddowes. That was why his memory was so clear that he was able to identify the suspect without any doubt with the police later.


His saying that the man was three inches taller than the woman gives us the height of Jacob Levy.  Jacob Levy was five foot three making him three inches taller than Eddowes. 


When you see a couple together especially at night you don’t think of what height they are.  He was sure the man was three inches taller which may indicate that he already knew what height the man was.  But not too much can be read into this for witnesses did often give varying heights. 


What does Joseph’s behaviour throughout the affair tell us?


He knew the Ripper was at work.  He knew the Ripper was a Jew which was why though he had two men with him he didn’t try to disturb him or scare him off.  He didn’t want the Ripper to be caught and hanged.  Jacob Levy was Joseph Levy’s neighbour – they almost lived on the same street.  Joseph Levy may have heard a confession from the man himself or seen proof before then that he was the killer.  But, whatever, Joseph knew!


You don’t pay too much attention to unmarried men even ones you know who are going with prostitutes.  But you do pay attention to married men you know doing it for they are hurting their wives and children.  Joseph Levy’s behaviour suggests that the Ripper was a married man.  Our suspect was married.


It was dark at the time.  It was hard to recognise people in the poor street lighting unless they were family or neighbours. As stated, Jacob Levy was a neighbour of Joseph Levy’s.  If the man with Eddowes showed a reaction to Joseph Levy observing him that would prove to Joseph that the man was indeed the man he knew. 


He insisted to the police that he wasn’t exactly afraid of the man for himself.  He talks like he knew the Ripper was only a danger to women.  He knew the Ripper.


The killer was seen by Joseph Levy on 30th September.  No murders took place until Friday 9th November the slaughter of Mary Kelly in her room.  The entire month of October and over a week of November saw no Ripper murders.   This was a long gap for the Ripper.  Some think it was because the Ripper may have cut himself while slashing Eddowes and had to recover.  It is unlikely that he would have cut himself that badly.  And when he took bigger risks every time it shows that he wasn’t thinking of what could happen.  He just wanted to kill and mutilate.  If he had been seen at Mitre Square that would have shook him up.  At that point he made up his mind to kill no more women until he got them indoors.  He didn’t want Kelly found too quickly while the other victims were laid out in a gruesome display.  Had he not been seen at Mitre Square he would have left Kelly’s door open or perhaps dragged her out of the room into the passage.   


Another possibility is that the Jews tried to handle the Ripper their own way and managed to stop him killing for several weeks. One night he got away and cut up Mary Kelly. When they didn’t do a good job it looks like it was the Ripper’s family that tried to control the problem.  Jacob had a wife and two children and relations living with him.


Either way, the killer had been seen and he knew it.


Joseph Lawende, one of the men with Joseph Levy made a statement about the appearance of the killer.  He saw the woman facing the man chatting.  She had put her hand on his chest.  The man was medium build and looked like a sailor.  He wore a pepper and salt coloured jacket which was loose and a grey cap and wore a red neckerchief.  He was about 5 foot 7 about 30 with a fair complexion and a moustache.  He said he wouldn’t be able to identify the man again.  William Marshall saw a man looking like a sailor talking to Elizabeth Stride not long before her murder.  But this was a different man – not the killer. 


Jacob Levy was born in 1856 so his age at the time of the murders was 32! 


Lawende and Joseph Levy would have discussed what to say to the police and would have talked to each other about the man they had seen.  Joseph knew the man so here Lawende must have been pretending to have known nothing about the man.  Lawende said more than Joseph Levy would have had agreed with him saying.  But out of respect for Levy he didn’t say too much.  Lawende’s behaviour was also suspicious. 


Mitre Square was called Court by both Joseph Levy and by Griffiths, a friend of both Anderson and Macnaghten, who wrote a book called Mysteries of Police and Crime, in 1898.  Is it because of Joseph that Griffiths and those he consulted ended up calling a murder site the wrong name, Mitre Court rather than the correct Mitre Square?  If so then it certainly looks like that what he told the police made a huge impression on them!  Griffiths said that the killer was confined to an asylum and was identified by the police constable in Mitre Court who got a good look at him at Mitre Court.  This was an important mistake.  Joseph Lawende was not the witness for Griffiths could not have made the mistake of thinking such a well-known and prominent witness had been a policeman for he wasn’t.  But he could have made the mistake that Joseph Levy was a policeman for Joseph was less known and indeed tried to keep a low profile. 


The killer believed he had been seen.  Was that why he left the message at Goulston Street: “The Juwes are the men that Will not be Blamed for nothing” blaming the Jews for the murders?  Was his game then to take the Jews down with him if he went down?   What supports this contention is that if he was seen by a Jew he could trust not to go to the law about him then what could be more true than that the Jews are to blame?  Why write the Juwes and the men: plurals?  Why not write, “The Juwes are not to blame for nothing”?  It was easier to write.  It was quicker.  And there was little room on the area where he wrote.  He wrote in the words “are the men who are not to be blamed for nothing” to emphasis the plural and that it was men.


There can be no doubt that the killer took a piece of Eddowes apron intending to use it later to leave a false trail away from his lair.  When he found it necessary to do that he must have been seen at Mitre Square.    Jacob had only a hundred metres after that to go in the direction he really intended to get home.  He could have been there and back again to plant the apron piece.  He went back to think about where to put it.  Levy worked in Goulston Street so Goulston street would have come to mind for him.  The Ripper wanted to mislead the police but at the same time give a clue.  He had confessed to being a Jew on the graffito.  Was he trying to say something by choosing Goulston Street as where he would leave these clues?    


Top of the Document


Why the Seaside Home?


Kosminski was identified as the Ripper at the Seaside Home in Brighton.  This does not mean that the Ripper was committed there only that he was brought there. Jacob Levy, who we think was Kosminski, could have been brought there.  Swanson wrote that there was difficulty with getting the suspect there.  Evidently the difficulties were not in restraining him if insane or transporting him there.  If he had been that awkward he would have been committed in which case there would have been no point in trying to get him identified.  It must have had to do with different police jurisdictions and the red tape.  It has been pointed out that Joseph Hyam Levy lived at a point near Middlesex Street probably on the boundary between the City Police and the Metropolitan jurisdictions.  Jurisdiction problems could have come up if he was the identification witness.  But Swanson says the difficulties were to do with the suspect.  It was not that the suspect didn’t want to go for he wouldn’t have known who the witness was going to be.  The answer is simple. The killer lived in Middlesex Street.  One half of the street was City Police jurisdiction and the other was Metropolitan.  Jacob Levy is the only possible Ripper suspect to have lived there.  Sion Square where Aaron Kosminksi lived couldn’t have had this problem.  Jacob Levy was Jack the Ripper.


Joseph Levy abandoned his butchering trade in 1891.  He left the place where he lived.  He left Hutchinson Street and the Middlesex Street vicinity.  He ran a loan office with a partner at Mansell Street, Aldgate.  It looks like he was advised by the police to do this.  If so, then the Ripper and the Ripper’s family probably lived on Middlesex Street and was a butcher.  He may have had to get away from butchers and Middlesex Street simply because he had revealed to the police who the Ripper was.  The City Police watched a suspect working in Butcher’s Row, Aldgate.


When did the witness who had to  have been Joseph Levy identify the killer at the Seaside Home?  Nobody knows.  The Seaside Home opened at Brighton in March 1890.  Jacob Levy was committed in August 1890 to the asylum.  If the killer was identified before he was put in an asylum then the identification took place between March 1890 and August 1890, when Levy was committed.


Now why did the identification take place at the Seaside Home in Brighton?  This was very far away from London.  Joseph Levy moved to Brighton and he travelled to Brighton a lot before the move.  The killer was taken to the Seaside Home to be identified by Joseph Levy because Joseph Levy was associated with Brighton.  It is said that the killer was taken there to avoid press sensationalism and to keep the affair quiet.  But they didn’t have to go so far away.  And the affair wasn’t intended to be kept quiet, they wanted to reveal the Ripper to the world.  They couldn’t stop the witness from speaking out – he did make an identification but not a sworn one.


If the witness lived near the killer’s family or if he was related to the killer an identification far far away would be in order.  And when the police went to all that trouble it proves they knew that the witness was worth taking seriously.  They had other reasons for believing what he said apart from any testimony he would have given. 


The identification was some several months after the killing of Mary Kelly in November 1888.  So the witness took a long time to come forward or perhaps he did before that but owing to one delay and another and to police red tape it didn’t happened sooner.  It proves then that the witness did more than just see the killer but he knew the killer personally.  How else could he remember him so well?  Under no other circumstances would the police accept the testimony of a witness identifying a person some time after the event.  So the witness knew the killer and red tape did delay the identification.


Did the identification take place before or after the suspect was committed to an asylum?  The sources disagree but it probably took place before.  A lunatic couldn’t be identified as a killer unless the doctors had reason to think the man wasn’t insane all the time.  Swanson said that the killer was taken to the Seaside Home for identification and then back to his brother’s house at Whitechapel.  Then the house was watched by the police day and night.  This shows that the killer was sick.  How do we know?  If he had still been dangerous he would have been taken to an asylum soon after the identification.  It would have been cheaper to do that than watch the house.  According to Swanson, the killer went to Stepney Workhouse Infirmary later on with the hands tied behind his back and later to an asylum.  Jacob Levy was sick from syphilis while Aaron Kosminski’s health was quite good despite his insanity. 


Kosminksi did indeed stay with his brother and Levy didn’t.  How do we solve that difficulty?  Maybe we can just say there was confusion. 


Kosminksi could not have been the man watched by the police because if he had been, the asylum would have been told to keep him away from other inmates. 


Swanson wrote that there were difficulties getting the suspect to the Seaside Home. This suggests they had a reason for taking him there.  He talks as if the difficulties could have been averted had he been taking somewhere else.  Taking him there had something to do with the witness.  Maybe the witness was unwell so the killer had to be brought to him and not the witness to the killer.


Joseph Hyam Levy identified the Ripper Jacob Levy at the Seaside Home.  It was all very secret so that the Ripper was nicknamed Kosminski.  This led to the error that the Ripper was Polish for Kosminski was generally a Polish name. 


Top of the Document


The “Ripper Letter” for Joseph Hyam Levy


A newspaper in Whitechapel received a letter in October 1888 claiming to be from the Ripper.  It was thought to have been intended for Israel Schwartz or Joseph Lawende. 


You though your-self very clever I reckon when you informed the police. But you made a mistake if you though I dident see you. Now I known you know me and I see your little game, and I mean to finish you and send your ears to your wife if you show this to the police or help them if you do I will finish you. It no use your trying to get out of my way. Because I have you when you dont expect it and I keep my word as you soon see and rip you up. Yours truly Jack the Ripper.

PS You see I know your address


Schwartz and Lawende both talked to the police about the man they thought was the Ripper.  The letter was not meant for Lawende because Lawende wasn’t of much use to the police and didn’t do the Ripper much harm.  Schwartz was not the man intended because he gave no indication of being able to identify the man he saw at the scene of the imminent murder of Stride and there was no reason to think he saw the killer. Also there was absolutely no doubt that the men there did see Schwartz but here the letter writer speaks as if the man had reason to think that the killer didn’t see him.  The men who passed by as Eddowes flirted with the killer shortly before her murder acted as if they thought the killer did see them.  This would mean that one of these men was the man intended in the letter. 


The man intended had to have been Joseph Hyam Levy who spoke to the police but acted as if he was afraid to say too much.  We know he knew the Ripper suspect Jacob Levy.  We know that Joseph Hyam Levy behaved as if he recognised the man with Eddowes and tried to get away as quickly as he could from the scene.  These coincidences show that the letter was authentic.  Joseph Hyam Levy did indeed play a “little game” with the police.  The others didn’t.  No hoaxer would have written a letter that fits facts that are so difficult to figure out.  We must remember as well that Joseph Hyam Levy was very careful after he went to the police as if he were afraid of someone.


The letter is confirmation that Joseph Hyam Levy and the Ripper knew each other.  In that case, the Ripper was most probably Jacob Levy.  Joseph Levy was the only Ripper witness who seemed to need protection.  


The facts make it plain that Joseph Levy must have identified Jacob Levy as the Ripper!


Top of the Document






The Middlesex Street Connection


Jacob Levy resided in Middlesex Street Aldgate.


There is an alleged FM scrawled in blood plainly to be seen in the photo of Kelly’s murder.  The F doesn’t show up clearly in the oldest photos and may not exist.  But the M is a different story. 


The M was clearly written on the wall in Kelly’s blood.  Is this confirmation for the M on Eddowes face?  Is it telling us what street the Ripper lived on? Jacob Levy lived in Middlesex Street.


If there was an FM written on Kelly’s wall, did it stand for From Middlesex meaning From Middlesex Street?  When three places, the Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly sites, where we know the Ripper was at work are so close together chances are he’s living close to all three.


Of the first four Ripper victims, the site where Chapman was killed was the second nearest to Middlesex Street.  The Ripper didn’t even wash at the tap where there was a butcher’s leather apron.  So he refused to do what he needed to do.  Why?  That the Ripper didn’t want anybody to think the apron may have been his may indicate that his workplace or home wasn’t very far away.  The killer must have preferred to have blood smears on his person which should have been washed off to taking a chance with the apron for some reason.


When Annie Chapman was found dead a piece of envelope was discovered by her head nearby.  It contained two pills and carried a Sussex Regiment seal in blue.  On the front the letter M was written by hand where the address started and lower down Sp which must be Spitalfields.  The postmark read London August 23 1888.  There was what seemed to be the beginning of a 2 (page 47, The Lodger).  So it appeared to be a 2.  What if it was a 3?  William Stevens saw Chapman drop her box of pills in Dorset Street, and then she picked up paper from the floor to put two pills in it.  He thought this was the same piece of envelope that was found. Chapman had pieces of muslin and cloth in her pocket so why would she need the envelope?  Would she really pick a dirty envelope off the floor?  Not when she was clean enough to take pieces of cleaning cloth around with her.  And why such a small piece?  As we will see later the Ripper tore something off it.  We can be sure that it was not because he wanted to take it and ended up tearing a piece of it because he couldn’t get a grip on it in an attempt to take it away.  That is absurd for he was able to get it out of the pockets so there was nothing for it to catch on to. 


Annie Chapman had no place to stay and she would have taken all her pills with her.  She needed more than a piece of envelope for holding her pills.  Therefore the piece of envelope found was not hers.  She carried plenty of cloths with her to use instead.  They were found.  The Ripper left it as a clue.  The man who testified that the piece may have been what she took to wrap pills in had to have been wrong.  Nobody pays much attention to little things like that.  The Ripper took the paper the pills were in and he took her rings.  Two pills were dropped which led to the story that she only took two pills out with her.  Inspector Chandler wrote, “Enquiries were made amongst the men [of the Sussex Regiment] but none could be found who corresponded with anyone living at Spitalfields or any person whose address commencing [sic] with ‘J’.  The pay books were examined and no signature resembled the initials on the envelope.”  He also wrote, “enquiries were made amongst the men but none could be found who are in the habit of writing to anyone at Spitalfields, or whose signatures corresponded with the letters on the envelope.”


The envelope when it was treated this way was regarded as a clue.  It shows that the police didn’t believe the solution to the mystery given by the man who said he saw her lift a piece of paper to put her pills in.  Perhaps she did lift the piece of envelope.  If so then the Ripper found it in her pocket which he ripped open.  It is said that the Ripper intended to make her murder look like a robbery which was why he did this.  Not likely.  No robber goes to the trouble of cutting the victim up and mutilating them.


The police seemingly found the writing on the envelope to have been faked.  Here is the solution.  The Ripper found a piece of envelope in her pocket. He took his pen and wrote his name and address further over to the left.  At this stage it overlapped with what was really on the envelope.  So he tore a piece of the envelope to ensure that only the J for the name the M for the address and the Sp for Spitalfields would be left. The only person who is a perfect match for this clue was Joseph Barnett of Miller’s Court Spitalfields the lover of Mary Kelly.  He was not the Ripper.  And the room number couldn’t have been left out for people came and went all the time.  What the Ripper may have written was Jacob Levy, Middlesex Street Spitalfields.  Middlesex Street is not in Spitalfields but in Whitechapel but Spitalfields would still have got to him and he would have received letters in the past addressed to him using Spitalfields not Whitechapel.  It wasn’t important.  Maybe he put in Spitalfields to avoid giving too much of a scent. No door number means that the Ripper was well known in his street.  He lived there permanently and didn’t need a door number.  Jacob Levy was well known in Middlesex Street. 


Some say there was a mark that was guessed to be a 2 on the envelope as well (page 47, The Lodger).  What if it was a 3 for both numbers have an open circle at the top?  Jacob Levy lived at 36 Middlesex Street.  Why was no Mr or Mrs written on the envelope?  Professionals would put in one of these words where applicable.  They are missing because the Ripper wrote a clue on the envelope.  The Ripper due to his insanity and the euphoria he experienced when he glutted his urge to gut women felt that nothing could hurt him.  That was why he was so daring and confident. 


If the envelope was a clue pointing to 36 Middlesex Street, Spitalfields, then Jacob Levy was indeed the Ripper. 


If she had all her pills with her, did the Ripper take them thinking they might have been syphilis medications?


Middlesex Street is in Aldgate.  The night Catherine Eddowes was murdered was a very wet night and yet she went towards Aldgate instead of trying to go home or to find a friend to take her in.  Did she intend to meet a man from Aldgate who had a house there who she thought could give her a roof over her head?  When Elizabeth Stride’s body was found some time before, she was found to have been soaked to the skin.  The Ripper may not have asked Eddowes to turn her back to him to lift her skirt for sex so that he could grab her round the throat from behind.  He may have just grabbed her once she went in front.  She would have known about the empty houses in Mitre Square that they could use or shelter in.  She believed he lived nearby and trusted him especially when she would have heard the whistles and cries of murder in the street after the discovery of Stride’s body.  She may have thought he lived in the Square.  Mitre Square wasn’t far from Middlesex Street.  It would have been suspicious if a man from further away had been soliciting.  The police were questioning all men seen with women and so the killer knew he had to be near his lair.  It was because he was near his lair that he had to plant the apron in Goulston Street to make it seem that the Ripper fled in a different direction to the direction he really fled in.  The Ripper fled from Mitre Square to his lair in Middlesex Street.  He must have done for he had to go through Middlesex Street to get to Goulston and we know he had to stop somewhere on the way to tidy himself up and get cleaned which was why over a half hour after killing Eddowes the apron piece and the graffiti in Goulston Street had still not appeared.  Logically we will see that he must have had his lair on Middlesex Street. 


The Ripper only had a short distance to go that dangerous night to Goulston Street.  There were too many police about to go any further and if he had been able he would have planted it further away.  He planted the apron piece there to make it seem like the Ripper had gone the opposite direction of Middlesex Street.  Then he returned to his lair.  Middlesex Street was between Mitre Square and Goulston Street with Goulston Street and Middlesex Street being very close together.  That says it all.  It gets better.  The Street connecting Middlesex Street and Goulston Street was a smaller street called New Goulston Street.  The apron piece was found just three doors away from where you leave New Goulston Street into Goulston Street.  The small side street New Goulston Street was the route the Ripper took from his lair in Middlesex Street because the other routes Wentworth Street and Whitechapel High Street were simply too well lit and swarming with police for they were major streets.  Goulston Street itself was a major Street so the Ripper didn’t want to stay on it too long.  He didn’t have far to go to plant his fake evidence and that was how he planned it.  To get out of Goulston Street again the Ripper had to return to Middlesex Street through New Goulston Street.  It was the only way to avoid the busier and more important roads.  No suspect explains why these routes were chosen better than Jacob Levy. 


The killer of Stride fled in the direction of Aldgate.  He had killed Stride.  He had no guarantee that he could kill again that night.  It was too dangerous to kill a second time so soon after Stride would have been found murdered.  He acted like he could make a fast getaway if a second opportunity came up – he could only do that if he lived in Aldgate and knew it thoroughly.  And even more so when at night there were a lot of people about for the houses were so small and uncomfortable. 


After killing Stride, the Ripper would have taken the direct route of Commercial Road and keeping west and then walked left to enter Aldgate High Street.  Ten or fifteen minutes would have got him to the next crime scene, Mitre Square, where he killed Eddowes.  Now her death took place only maybe 45 minutes after that of Stride. The Ripper, we know, at this stage wouldn’t kill just anywhere.  He had chosen the killing site on a map.  So he had to get to Mitre Square and talk a prostitute into going into the Square with him.  This took time unless he had already set a date and time with Eddowes. But in any case the Ripper needed to be there as early as possible.    


If you draw a straight line from the Stride murder site to that of Eddowes you can work out the quickest way from the first to the second.  The killer passed Middlesex Street.  Did he go to Middlesex Street to get his knife for it seems he may not have had his knife when he killed Stride?  That done did he then kill Eddowes just a short walk from Middlesex Street?  He left to clean up after he killed Eddowes for he went back out on the street to plant the apron piece in Goulston Street.  He was frightened that night.  He had been seen twice.  Goulston Street where the apron piece was planted was so near Middlesex Street that you would expect him not to wander too far from his lair. 


The Ripper perhaps carried one knife at a time.  When he killed Stride if he used a knife it was her knife or his own that he carried with him for self-defence.    Stride was relaxed with him so he had time to get his favourite and usual knife out if he wanted.  He didn’t have it with him.  It seems that the Ripper used the knife and took it away to near where he murdered Eddowes later that night to deposit it and get another.  He had to change knives in case the police would search him and find the bloodstained knife he used to kill Stride on him.  So he got his clean knife and murdered and mutilated Catherine Eddowes with it.  Middlesex Street would have been the ideal place for the Ripper to keep his knives.  The Ripper made it quickly from the scene of the Stride murder to where he killed Eddowes and Middlesex Street was between the two spots tempting us to believe he stopped on the way to where Eddowes met her death to get a new knife and wash his hands and perhaps change his shirt as well.  The Ripper would have known that blood could be seen on him or on his cuffs and witnesses did see him with Catherine Eddowes.  He would have needed to take every conceivable precaution that night.


The knife Stride was killed with was a shorter knife than that used on any of the others.  In the last hour of Elizabeth Stride, the Ripper let his knife be seen by Israel Schwartz for he knew from the police reports published in the papers about what kind of knife they associated with the Ripper and what he was holding up wasn’t it.  His special knife was never seen and he made sure he never forgot it even if he had to rush off.  It had to be taken for it would tell the world too much about him.  A butcher’s knife would mean the killer was a butcher.


We know that Catherine Eddowes behaved strangely the night of her murder. Despite the murder of Elizabeth Stride which she must have heard about she still went with a client.  She knew the man.  What may have given her additional assurance was seeing that Joseph Levy and possibly the two men with him seemed to know the man but made no effort to give her any warning.  She could have thought she was safe because of this.  Why did Eddowes hang around so much at Aldgate and close to it as her time on earth drew to a close?  Jacob Levy lived at Aldgate.  It looks as if she intended to meet him.  At 8.30 pm she caused a drunken disturbance outside number 29 at Aldgate High Street.  She was held in a Police Station until 1.00 am.  Instead of turning right to go home she went back to Aldgate.  She was slain in Mitre Square and last seen by the three witnesses including Joseph Levy who had been drinking in the imperial Club, 16-17 Dukes Place Aldgate. 


Catherine Eddowes was murdered by a man who lived in Aldgate.  She knew the man.  Had the man been from anywhere else it would have been strange if he had agreed to meet her in Aldgate.  She wouldn’t have met him unless there was nothing suspicious about him.  This was a woman going into dark Mitre Square with a man while the cry had gone up all over Whitechapel about the murder of Elizabeth Stride. This eliminates a lot of Ripper suspects who would have been so insane or dangerous that she would not have met up with them.  Jacob Levy was sane a lot of the time.  He was able to work.  He even cried about the terrible things he felt inspired to do. 


She believed she knew the Whitechapel killer. She said that but that was more likely than not to be just drunken talk.  She didn’t know him when she went into that corner of Mitre Square with him to meet her death.


Two of the murders, Eddowes and Kelly, were nearest Middlesex Street.  The other murder sites don’t seem to worry about any vicinity or proximity.  Coincidence?  No.  When the two most daring murders the Ripper committed seem to be centred about the Middlesex Street area it may indicate he lived there.  That was his lair.  You feel safer the closer you are to your lair.  Some would say Stride was a risky murder. Not when the killer had scared the witness Schwartz off and when there was another man for the blame to be put on.  Middlesex Street is nearly half way between the Eddowes and Kelly murder sites.  Eddowes’s was a daring murder for it was the one the Ripper went furtherer with in relation to mutilating the woman out doors when police were going to and from.  Kelly’s was daring for the woman was slain despite the killer having been watched going to her room by a witness.  The Eddowes murder is the most daring of all and it took place so near where our suspect lived and when the police were already scouring the streets for the killer after the Stride murder.  That has to say something. 


The man who saw the suspect with Mary Kelly shortly before she was murdered, George Hutchinson, believed he saw the same man on Middlesex Street. And Jacob Levy lived in Middlesex Street. He lived there with a man called Isaac Barnett.  Mary Kelly plied her trade as a prostitute at Aldgate (page 70, The Complete Jack the Ripper).


Catherine Eddowes had an ^ shaped incision cut on both sides of her face below her eyes.  This shows the killer though he was rushing went to the trouble of making these marks.  It was dark and he needed to be in the shadows for there were police about.  He must have struggled to see what he was doing.  So why did he make the marks when it was so difficult?  They were made to say something.  Were they arrows pointing in the direction where the killer lived?  No – they don’t look like arrows.  He was in the mood for being arrogant that night as we know from the message he left later at Goulston Street as a clue.  Those who favour the Jew Aaron Kosminski as the Ripper might see the ^ as a hint of the A for his first initial.  It would have been too bold to actually put in the missing stroke to make a proper A.  But this like the arrows would also be a pointless clue. 


I used to argue the following on the knowledge that religion was involved in the crimes.  Perhaps the marks were made because the triangle is the symbol of the Trinity, a doctrine considered blasphemous by Jews for it has three persons being God.  Jews were taught that this symbol is pagan in origin and that the root of the doctrine is in paganism.  Were these symbols indications of the desire to defile the Christian doctrine?  The killer may have not realised that it needed to be a complete triangle not just two sides.  When one joins up the first murder site the second and the third on a map a near perfect equilateral triangle can be drawn.  When one joins up the second and the third and the fourth which was Eddowes you also get the same effect.  The two triangles marked on Eddowes face may indicate these two triangles.  Had he completed the triangles on her face they would have been equilateral.  Some might say this can’t be coincidence.  In any case, why triangles?  Perhaps it was to desecrate the symbol of the Trinity. 


The marks look like an M that isn’t put together in case its too obvious that its an M.  The M is most likely to refer to the street where the Ripper lived than his initial.  There are fewer streets that start with m than men with an initial m.  The M interpretation is the most likely.  Our suspect lived in Middlesex Street.  Were the two marks making up an M for Middlesex?


He thrust his knife once through both the lower eyelids.  Was this the work of a religious nut who wanted to symbolise the blindness of Christians in their failure to see that his religion was true?  If so the killer was most probably a Jew.  The stabbing of the eyes indicating no sight or blindness and the adjacent triangles may indicate that Christians are blind to believe in the Trinity.  


It is tempting to believe that Mary Kelly who walked the Aldgate streets was slashed so much about the face for the Ripper had often seen her there.  There was something about her face that he hated.  He also knew Catherine Eddowes who haunted the area too and cut up her face but not to the extent that he did Kelly’s.


The Ripper’s lair was probably his own home for after the previous killings the cheap lodging houses were all searched by police.  Two hundred of them at least were searched following the killing of Annie Chapman (page 58, The Lodger).  The ideal lair would be a house with a butcher’s shop attached or a butchers shop.  Then the killer could hide the stolen organs among the meats. 


Ripper suspect Jacob Levy lived in Middlesex Street where he worked at number 111, which was a butcher’s shop.  This was the ideal street for being the Ripper’s lair and there are many indications that it was indeed his lair. 


There is more, Detective Constable Robert Sagar stated, 'We [the City Police] had good reason to suspect a man who worked in Butcher's Row, Aldgate. We watched him carefully, there is no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed, there were no more Ripper atrocities'.  This is very likely to refer to Jacob Levy who worked there as a butcher.  Levy was living with friends when he was committed.  Levy himself said that he should be committed for he had violent impulses.  The fact that the man was watched at work might explain why no crimes happened during the surveillance.  Levy wasn’t committed until several months had passed since the final Ripper murder so he might have been unable to kill for the police were keeping a close eye on him.  It shows that he was not so insane that he couldn’t work.  This was true of Jacob Levy before his mental deterioration worsened.  


Top of the Document


Daily News 19th October 1888


The main details in the Daily News of Friday 19th October 1888 are as follows.  A John Lardy with two friends followed a strange looking man from near the London Hospital on the 18th October who didn’t like them following him. He hid in a doorway at the Pavilion theatre and came out when he thought they had gone.  He seemed to be keeping his right hand in his coat pocket as if holding something very important there.  He bought a newspaper and read the notices in a shop window very carefully.  He then went to the Aldgate direction where Jacob Levy lived.  He got to the corner of Duke Street which leads to Mitre Square.  Then he turned when he noticed they were still following him. He walked back to Leman Street and then he reached Royal Mint Street and into a house on King Street.  He came out in disguise and looked to be about forty to forty-five years old and looked like an American and was wearing a false moustache and had long black hair and was about five foot eleven.  The article stated that the man may have been the one arrested at Bermondsey. 


The man was disguising himself so not too much can be paid to his appearance.   The right boots could make him taller too.  And it is only assumed that he was the same man arrested later on. 


The man was intending to go to Aldgate where Levy lived and because he was being followed he went somewhere else.  He didn’t go up Middlesex Street in case he was being followed but went on further just in case.  Then near where Eddowes was killed he turned and went in a completely different direction.  There can be no doubt that Aldgate was his real direction. 


Was this the Ripper?  Possibly.  Does this story give us the answer to the question of what burned in Mary Kelly’s grate?  The Ripper’s disguise?


Top of the Document




The Cross


The book Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals proves that the murders of Ripper Victims, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes were planned on a map.  The four murder sites make a near perfect parallelogram when they are joined up by lines on a map.  The book shows how this isn’t imagination.  On page 149 we see how between the Nicholls and Chapman murder sites there is 930 yards as the crow flies.  And between Chapman and Eddowes there is 930 yards as the crow flies.  Between Eddowes and Stride there is 950 yards and in case there should be any doubt that Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim the Ripper made sure she was exactly 950 yards away from the Stride site.  But he did that just for show for Kelly was outside of the pattern he was trying to make.  As page 149 shows, the distance of 930 yards between murder site one and two and 930 yards between two and four and 950 yards between four and three and the exact same distance between three and five just cannot be coincidence.  The people who doubt that Stride and Kelly were Ripper victims have to be wrong. The reason the killer didn’t make them all 930 yards was simply because some adjustment was necessary and he didn’t want to end up killing some of them too openly.  They had to be killed in the right place with the right amount of cover.  The book says the killer’s plan couldn’t be improved on. 


The first murder took place marking the east compass point.  This was to desecrate Christianity which sees the east as sacred and the most sacred and meaningful direction  Jesus will return from the east.  It is the direction in which he lived when he was on earth.  Next is Chapman for due north and Stride for due South and Eddowes for due west. 


The directions may indicate that the symbolism is not a parallelogram but a cross.  Why else would the Ripper have gone to the trouble of using a compass?


What is more they make up a cross that is almost perfect. 


To draw a line from Chapman and Stride makes a line that points due north and south.  To draw a line from Nicholls to Eddowes makes a line from due east to west.  The points of the compass are made out (page 13, 59, 150, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals).  One thing is for sure, a killer who takes into consideration the four directions when planning the killings is planning some kind of human sacrifices.


The arms of the cross when drawn go due north, due south, due east, due west.  This is because the first four victims were killed at nearly the same distance apart and at the four points of the compass  (page 140, 150, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals).  Therefore it seems that the cross, not a parallelogram, was what was intended.  It explains why no killing was made at the place where the lines intersect to make sure we knew it was a cross.  It wasn’t necessary. 


Some say that the view that the Ripper was a black magic killer who was desecrating the cross in this way was unlikely.  Why?  Because we don’t have a victim at the spot where the two lines of the cross intersect.  Such a victim would be necessary to show that it really was a cross.  Maybe the killer just didn’t think it would make out a parallelogram and just cared about making a cross.  The cross is the most likely understanding of what the killer wished to symbolise.  Maybe he was making the cross for himself not for us to see it.  Some people might shape out a cross by making just four points after than making another point of where the lines they draw meet.  The chief reason for holding that it was a cross that was intended is seen from the fact that the parallelogram isn’t a likely symbol.  It has no common religious significance.  So it could have been the cross that was intended.  As the parallelogram is composed of two equilateral triangles it would seem that the triangles could be the symbolism intended.  But then why two joined together making a parallelogram?  Why not a triangle here and a separate one somewhere else?   The killing sites were possibly chosen to make a parallelogram or a cross.  If it was a parallelogram then why the killer made this symbol is a mystery.  But it shows that the first four victims were indeed Ripper victims.  The cross interpretation says the same thing.  Both whatever they indicate, certainly indicate that the Ripper murders were religiously motivated.


The Kelly murder is an exception to this symbolism despite the book’s attempts to assume symbols to get her site included.  Its implausibility is shown by the books admission that the killer had to move the centre point to choose her site (page 141). The book shows that murders three and four and five allow a circle to be drawn through them.  But though this is true when you look at the circle you think it may be coincidence.  Jack has a coincidence here so the parallelogram is hardly likely to be a coincidence.  The circle is found if you put the point at a certain spot in the middle of the junction of Commercial Street.  If the circle was planned then the killer chose this spot.  It was not at random.  He would have had to record all the places in the area that would give sufficient cover for killing the women and then choose the ones that were plotted along the circumference of the circle.  The same must be the case for the parallelogram or cross.  He had to be sure of all the places which gave good cover and then plan the cross accordingly. The murder sites had to be checked out before he set out to work on the map. 


Why five murders?  Jesus Christ had five wounds. 


The argument of the book that the killing sites show a very complex Vesica Piscis, the Christian symbol of the fish is without foundation.  We must not get carried away with the fact that symbolism is shown.  But even if it is the Vesica Piscis, it does our argument that the killer was a Jew who wanted to desecrate Christianity no harm.  In fact it, supports it. 


The book concludes that the black magician Roslyn D’Onston Stephenson was the killer for he had suggested the idea that nobody else had thought of until recently that the Ripper performed the killings as a result of a plan he made on a map.  Some dirty ties were found in his room hidden in a box like they were trophies and he had claimed that the killer took away body parts from the victims tucked in behind his tie.  Vittoria Cremers said she examined two ties and found stains in the back of them like something had congealed.  She said she examined the others and didn’t recall how many and the same stain was found on the back of them.  So she must have examined at least four ties. 


The real killer wrapped up Eddowes parts in a piece of her apron.  He didn’t mutilate Stride so how could he have a bloodstained tie to keep?


Stephenson said there were five Ripper victims which was correct and which nobody was sure of until recent years.  It is possible he knew the Ripper.  He claimed that he knew the Ripper.  But he said a lot of things that were not true.  If he was the Ripper and wanted to boast of his crimes by writing to the police and the papers as many believe but without giving away too much then why didn’t he leave a confession behind him?  He could have done this the time he vanished.


He said that the killing of Kelly had nothing to do with the Ripper. He said there were seven victims.  The real killer would not draw attention to the planning on a map.  It could lead police to him.  Why pretend you think there were seven ripper murders to cover up that you know how many were really committed and then mention how the murders were planned? (page 183).  He was not the murderer.  We can be sure of it that if the murders were motivated by black magic and Stephenson was guilty of them he would not have revealed this motive to the police and the public. 



Top of the Document


Human sacrifice and Jacob Levy


In 1910, Anderson wrote concerning the Ripper, “In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute."


Study this declaration.  He writes that he cannot say the Ripper had a religion though he calls him a Jew.  He says he means to specify the race of the Ripper not his religion as if he doesn’t want to insult the Jewish religion by saying the Ripper was a Jew.  Now why would it be an insult to Jews to say the Ripper was a Jew and not an insult to Polish people to say the Jew was Polish?  He doesn’t want to speak of the Ripper as religious because the Ripper had depraved religious beliefs.  Anderson felt that to say that a Jewish fanatic who lived as if brutally killing prostitutes were a Jewish religious duty was a Jew is to insult the Jewish faith.  That is where he was coming from.  He was not necessarily hinting that the Ripper suffered from a religious mania.  The killer could have been a religious extremist and the way Anderson speaks of him shows that the killer was considered evil rather than insane.  Anderson never named the Ripper but we know that for him the Ripper was not Aaron Kosminski for Aaron Kosminksi showed no signs of religious extremism. 


Judaism follows the Law of Moses which is in the first five books of the Bible.  These books endorse the torture and murder of apostates from God’s religion, homosexuals and kidnappers to name but a few categories.  These killings are senseless therefore the killings are really about human sacrifice.  Unnecessary killing in the name of God is really human sacrifice no matter if it is called execution or not.


Pope John Paul II forbade capital punishment except in extreme circumstances though tradition and the Bible, the voices of God according to the Church, command that it be deployed more than that.  Catholics say that he is not saying capital punishment is wrong full stop but only that it is not often necessary today and the Bible regulations are only meant to be carried out if the Church runs the state which it does not.  The capital laws of the Bible were never necessary and God could not object to Christians using the state to kill people their God wants dead like heretics, homosexuals and adulterers.  For him to object now, would be the same as saying he was wrong to go so far.  If killing those people was right then, then it is always right.  The pope is both condoning the crime of capital punishment and saying he does not – another crime.  The Catholic view that capital punishment was encouraged by God to protect the state and its members is misleading because the Bible laws could have done that without commanding the killing of those people and also because the Bible says these killings are punishment.  Now could they be punishment if you need them to protect others?  That would not be punishment but self-defence.  The laws of the Bible had nothing to do with protecting but about showing the people who was boss, God and about God getting his own back on those who ignored his law.

In Genesis 22, human sacrifice is declared not to be intrinsically immoral in the sight of God.  God tells Abraham to take his son, Isaac, up Mount Moriah and offer him up as a burnt offering.  A burnt offering is killed first by having its throat cut and then it is cooked and often eaten in a communion rite.  Abraham obeyed God and when he had drawn out his knife to kill the boy, God’s messenger came to tell him not to do it for God had not been serious.  So God had lied in telling Abraham that he wanted Abraham to kill the boy.  But at the same time his command shows that he approves of human sacrifice for Genesis regards God as good and therefore unable to command immorality.


Leviticus 27:27-29 was thought to command human sacrifice. 


Verse 27 talks about redeeming, buying things back.


Verse 28 says that nothing devoted to God by the owner, be it man or beast or field, can be bought back.


Verse 29 says that no one who is doomed to death can be ransomed or saved but must be put to death.  The Amplified Bible puts notes in brackets to cover up what this really says.  It would have us believe that the verse is about people doomed to death because they have committed a capital crime and is saying that you cannot save a person from it by money in justice.


The verse afterwards says that all that is offered to God is holy.


I believe that Leviticus is really permitting human sacrifice here and does not intend the meaning alleged by the Amplified Bible and the believers.


The context, the verse before and after, does not mention the death-penalty but what is offered to God as a sacrifice, not necessarily a dead sacrifice.  Sacrifices can be alive when offered and then killed as blood sacrifices.   And it is certain that the Law sees death as the only suitable fate for such offerings.  The Law makes a difference between the death penalty and sacrifice because the first is only for those who have been wicked.


The context is about holy sacrifices and criminals could hardly be one of these for not all of them repent.


The sacrifices will be slaves, children and wives who were thought to be a man’s property.

Ransom means to buy back.  How can you buy back a capital criminal for he has not been sold?


What has all this to do with Jack the Ripper?


The first four Ripper victims made a cross on the map.  The religious symbolism indicates the killing of these women as human sacrifices. 


Were the first four Ripper victims human sacrifices to God?  Levy’s surname is in memory of the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe of Israel which offered blood sacrifice by cutting the throats of animals and possibly people.  The Ripper victims had their throats cut. 


Leviticus 7:4 demands the mutilation of an animal to get its kidneys.  Catherine Eddowes’ kidney was taken. 


The killer took the uterus of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes.  That he didn’t do the same with Nichols or Kelly indicates that he did not take the uteri to satisfy some perverted sexual craving or to strike at the seat of life.  He did not take them for trophies.  He took none of Nichols or Kelly away with him.  The Kelly murder was his masterpiece in his twisted mind.  That he took nothing indicates that he didn’t want trophies.  When he took organs it was for some ritualistic purpose – occult or religious.  He probably burned the organs he took to fulfil the law of sacrifice.  However he believed this was optional due to the circumstances – he was not a priest acting in the comforts of a distorted legalised parody of religious freedom - but did it anyway to fulfil the Jewish Law. 


The Ripper cut off Mary Kelly’s breasts and left them on a table.  Why go to that trouble when he threw the rest of her everywhere?  Leviticus 9:21 calls on the priest to take the breasts and use them as a wave offering to the Lord: “The breasts and the right thigh Aaron waved for a wave offering before the Lord, as Moses commanded”.  The killer took Kelly’s amputated breasts in his hands reminding us of this.  He flayed her right thigh down to the femur. 


The killings were human sacrifices and also motivated by God’s call to revenge: “”Rejoice with His people, O you nations, for He avenges the blood of His servants, and vengeance He inflicts on His foes and clears guilt from the land of His people” (Deuteronomy 32:43).  There can be no doubt that this is speaking of revenge in all its ugliness for the nations referred to believed in revenge more than Israel did though Israel promoted revenge too.


Jacob Levy was dying of syphilis.  He most probably got it off the prostitutes who frequented his area.  He would have seen himself in the role of the avenger, the man who had the right to kill in revenge without divine or legitimate civil penalty according to the book of Numbers chapter 35.  All prostitutes in his mind were as bad as each other and spreading death and so they ought to be slain.  


It is possible that because Jews suffered because of Christian anti-Semitic lies such as the story that Jews murdered Simon of Trent and cut open his abdomen that the Ripper avenged this slander by killing Christian prostitutes the same way.


The surname Levy was related to the Jewish saint Levi who left the Jewish Tribe of Levi after him.  The Tribe of Levi was the priestly tribe that offered animal and occasionally human sacrifices to God and perhaps Jacob Levy felt his surname was a call from God for him to sacrifice prostitutes as if he were one of those priests.


The Ripper liked to leave clues so was his Jack a hint that he was a Jacob?  To take Jac from Jack and at the K for Kosminsky gives you Jack!  Coincidence?  If not then the Ripper did write the Dear Boss letter of October 5th in which he claimed a religious motivation for the murders. 


The Complete Jack the Ripper discusses the argument given in Robert Odell’s Jack the Ripper in Fact and Fiction that the murderer was a Jewish ritual slaughterman or a shochet (pages 156-163).  These slaughtermen cut the throat of animals down to the bone like the Ripper did.  But these men according to The Complete Jack the Ripper had much the same expertise as a trained butcher.  A letter by R Hull dated 8th October 1888 stated that as a man who worked as a butcher, R Hull, was sure that there was “nothing done to yet to any of these poor women than an expert butcher could not do almost in the dark.”  He also asserted that the times it was supposed took for the Ripper to cut the women up should be reduced to one third of the time supposed for the Ripper as a butcher would have been able to work fast.  He stated that butchers are good at keeping blood off their person like the Ripper who didn’t have much blood on him.  The shochet idea is possibly true even though the first four Ripper victims were strangled while the rules required the killing to be done by cutting the throat.  Kelly however was killed by a cut to the throat suggesting that the Ripper treated her as a shochet would a sheep or a pig.  The human sacrifice motivation came to the fore and was made evident in the Kelly murder.  Being an indoor murder the Ripper was able to keep the rules properly which he couldn’t have done with the other victims who were killed outdoors.    


Top of the Document


What burned in Kelly’s grate?


The Ripper created a roaring fire in Mary Kelly’s room.  Seven hours after he had gone the ashes were found to be still warm (page 64, The Complete Jack the Ripper). 


Did he burn his bloodstained clothing?  But he never worried that much about his clothing before.  He left the scene of Annie Chapman’s murder in daylight and a man was seen in a pub soon after with bloodstained clothes.  No evidence of buttons belonging to a man or zips were found in the ashes.  What was found was parts of a woman’s bonnet.  There was no need for his clothing to have been drenched in blood.  Just take the coat off.  Go and kill the woman.  Then put on an apron or take more clothes off to perform the mutilations.  Then wipe the blood off and put the clothes on over any smears.  The woman shouldn’t spout blood when she is dead.  Bloodstained clothes don’t burn – they smoulder. 


The remains of Mary Kelly lay on the side of the bed next the door.  The bed was tight against a partition.  It seems that the Ripper climbed over her so that he knelt between the partition and the body on the bed to perform many of the mutilations. 


Did he burn clothes in the room for light?  There was a candle there and he didn’t use it.  He would have had to cut the clothes up first and put them on for throwing clothes on a fire can put it out.  The Ripper was good at working in the dark and was always in a hurry when he ripped women up.  He didn’t need a fire to see.  There was a candle there. 


Was he not afraid of burning the place down or drawing attention by having such a big fire that late at night?  The fire was started at night for nobody spoke of a great smoke coming out of the building in daylight. 


The fire was so hot that it melted part of the kettle.  Did the fire melt the kettle that night?  It probably did for Kelly needed her kettle and wouldn’t have kept a bad one for long.  She sometimes got money from  Hutchinson which would have gone towards a new one if it had melted some time before.  A good second-hand kettle would have been easy to come by. Kelly would have lit big fires especially when she was drunk and during winter.  Whatever caused the heat to be so intense that it could melt the kettle was nothing ordinary.  The killer brought something flammable into the room that he used – alcohol maybe?  Why did he do this?   


Whatever the Ripper burnt could have been evidence of some kind.  It would point to his identity if it was found.


Some believe the Ripper entered Kelly’s room dressed as a woman to avoid detection.  He burned his female outfit and dressed as a man to leave.  This is hard to believe.  Why not wrap it up and take it away?  Better to go dressed as a woman and leave dressed as a woman as well. 


When he took the knife away with him why not whatever he was wearing?  Her killer was the man she took back and he was not in disguise as a woman.  He had oilskin like a parcel with him to wrap bloodstained clothes in to take them away.  What did he wear to leave if he didn’t go out in his bloodstained clothes?  Did he have a change of clothes with him? 


The Ripper had a change of clothes with him.  Because he knew Hutchinson was curious about him and watching he changed his appearance and burned the clothes that Hutchinson saw him in.  Hutchinson saw the face of the Ripper.  He probably cut off the buttons and the zips and took them away with him.  The red handkerchief that he gave Kelly as Hutchinson watched was not found in the room.  Did he burn it?  Maybe because Hutchinson did see him give it to her.  If the killer had been another man he was unlikely to throw her handkerchief on the fire when he didn’t touch her clothes. 


The Ripper burned the clothes that Hutchinson saw him wearing.  There were clothes that belonged to Kelly’s friends in the room.  He burned these clothes with his own to make sure that all trace of his clothes was gone.  This would suggest that the Ripper didn’t burn his clothes with alcohol or something as some have surmised.  It suggests that he was a well-known face.  Why else would he be so afraid that he could be traced by his clothes.  One more thought, there were no traces of zips or metal buttons that belonged to male clothes.  He cut them off first.


The Ripper probably got the fire going so ferociously by burning some of Kelly’s fat on the fire as a sacrifice.


Leviticus 7 requires that the parts of sacrifices that are not eaten should be burned on the altar.  Did the killer burn some part of Mary Kelly in the fire he caused in her grate?  It would have been impossible to put her all back together so this was possible. Was her hearth his altar?  Probably he burned a little of her fat – no wonder the fire burned so furiously that it was able to melt the kettle.  “And they put the fat upon the breasts, and Aaron burned the fat upon the altar” (Leviticus 9:20).  The killer didn’t burn the breasts for he knew that it would be hard to burn them no matter how big a fire he created.  So he considered himself exempt from this requirement.  The permission to eat the thigh and the breast given in the Bible couldn’t apply for Jews had an abhorrence of eating human flesh and eating blood was forbidden.  The killer only loosely exercised his grisly and black priesthood.


The killer burned clothes on the fire.  This would have filled the room with smoke but not if he burned Kelly’s fat with the clothes (page 106, The Crimes of Jack the Ripper).  The smoke would have gone up through the gaps in ceiling into the flat above and disturbed its occupant.  The killer must have planned beforehand what he was going to do.  Only a butcher would think of something like this.  Only someone that was used to burning rags and rotten entrails with the help of fat would have got it so right.


It was a bit strange that the Ripper didn’t burn any of Kelly’s clothes.  They were found neatly folded in the room.


Why did the Ripper not bring a big dark coat to cover his clothes and disguise himself?  Because the papers spoke of witnesses talking about a man dressed that way.  This may prove that these witnesses did indeed see the Ripper. 


The killer attacked Kelly and gave her the fatal wound.  Perhaps, then he changed clothes into ritual robes and mutilated her as a human sacrifice.  He went into a frenzy and his robes were dirty so he decided to burn them.  She was his offering as a priest of God.  This was the only chance he had to kill her garbed as a priest. He burned other clothes with the robes to make sure all trace of the robes was gone. 


Did the killer burn his clothes because he had stolen them?  If that was his reason then he knew George Hutchinson had got a good look at him. And whatever we conclude there can be no doubt that the killer was the man that Hutchinson watched so closely and the killer knew that he had better destroy his clothes because of that.  His behaviour proves that the Ripper himself knew that Hutchinson could give a detailed testimony about him so the clothes had to be reduced to ashes.  The Ripper was also afraid to take his clothes home, this suggests that his family or friends were keeping an eye on him.  He was afraid to even wrap the clothes up in a parcel and carry them through the streets.


George Hutchinson saw the killer carrying a parcel – presumably a change of clothes.  The Ripper having had a change of clothes shows that he planned to kill Kelly well in advance for he made preparations.


Top of the Document


Last but not least…


Last but not least, Number 36 Middlesex Street, is what you find along the line if you draw it from where Catherine Eddowes was killed and where her apron piece and the chalked message were found in Goulston Street.  Number 36 was the residence of Jacob Levy in 1888.  We know the killer was trying to tell us something by killing according to a pattern on a map.  Had this pattern been discerned in time, the murder of Catherine Eddowes could have been averted.  By then, the killer had struck at three places and by working it out on a map one could see where the fourth murder was going to happen.  The killer laughing that nobody had seen the pattern and taunting the police would have told us where his home was.  The line starts with Eddowes who had symbols that make an M – M for Middlesex Street? – carved into her face and ends with her apron and a clue left by the killer about who he was.  The apron piece was purposely cut from the apron and discarded with the intention of dumping it at Goulston Street.  Why take the time to cut a piece of apron in the darkest part of Mitre Square when the whole apron could have been taken which would have been easier?  Why dump the apron piece in a public place where a policeman could find it easily?  Why dump it at all?  The apron in Mitre Square and its missing piece in Goulston Street were meant to make a line.  In that way, Eddowes is the beginning and the end of the line.  The Ripper left a message in chalk that the Jews are not to be blamed for nothing where it is found so that it can be a clue that he wants to point to what kind of man he is.  He left the apron piece to tell the police, “Yes, I want to want to tell you where I live or what direction my lair is in.  And I will but I will not make it too obvious for you have to work it out yourselves.  I have made two bars of a cross, two lines, and I am making a third that will show where I really live if you can solve the puzzle.”  He admitted to being a Jew.  And he admitted to being more than that and it is only the year 2006 that this truth has been rediscovered.



The fact that the street map we have was not meant to be accurate matters not.  The killer had this map and treated it as if it were accurate. 


I make no apology if this is bizarre.  Its an attempt to get into a mind that worked in bizarre ways.


For the first time since the murders, a suspect with a real case for his guilt has been named.  A suspect has been found whose likelihood of guilt is far greater than any other Ripper suspect.  The close runner-up, Rosyln D’Onston Stephenson, cannot be proved to have been right about his claim that the Goulston Street message was the French word Juives not Juwes for the police missed a dot above the i,  He was the first to suggest a pattern for the killings but his deductions were incorrect.  He said some things about the killings that were found to be correct but he also said things opposite to them as well so what he got right can be explained by chance.  The Maybrick diary has been proved to have been a hoax.  Patricia Cornwell despite confidently naming artist Walter Sickert as the Ripper has imagined the Ripper-like images in his paintings and accused him of nearly every unsolved bloody murder that took place in England during his life. 




Top of the Document


Case Closed


If the Ripper murders were not solved by the police, that doesn’t prove that they didn’t know who the Ripper was.  It is possible for even the police to know that somebody is guilty of a crime and be unable to prove it.  And even more so when you are talking about the nineteenth century!  The Ripper murders officially speaking are unsolved. Unsolved crimes are more than possibilities: they are facts of life.  But for a criminal like Jack the Ripper to leave no trace of who he was is near-impossible.  One of the known 150 plus Ripper suspects was the Ripper.  We can be confident that he was most likely one of the obscure and most ordinary suspects.  Jacob Levy was an ordinary man.  He is a suspect that doesn’t appeal to the sensationalists.


Jack the Ripper and Jacob Levy were one and the same.  Case closed.


Top of the Document


Works Consulted



Jack the Ripper Casebook –

particularly by Mark King



The Crimes of Jack the Ripper, Paul Roland, Arcturus Foulsham, 2006

The True Face of Jack the Ripper, Melvin Harris, Michael O’ Mara Books Limited, London, 1994

The Complete Jack the Ripper, Donald Rumbelow, Star, London, 1979

The Lodger, The Arrest & Escape of Jack the Ripper, Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey, BCA, London, 1995

Portrait of a Killer, Patricia Cornwell, Little Brown, London, 2002

Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals, Ivor Edwards, John Blake, London, 2003

Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates, Stewart P Evans and Donald Rumbelow, Sutton Publishing, Gloucestershire, 2006

Christianity for the Tough-Minded, John Warwick Montgomery Editor, Bethany Fellowship Inc, Minnesota, 1973

Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Map Booklet 1888, Geoff Cooper and Gordon Punter, ripperArt, 2003


Top of the Document


Sunday, 30 March 2008