Chapter 55

“I am not in an official position, and there is no reason so long as the ends of justice are served, why I should disclose all that I know.”

-Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Priory School

We were in the van with the Doyle notes. Wolfie was settled in the back with a blanket and a big bowl of fresh water. Ranger Anderson hadn’t prevented us from leaving, and now he and the Haven were already out of site behind us. It was still dark, and my eyes still smarted from the smoke. We’d been through a lot.

Tom turned on the overhead light. “I’m sick about what happened, DD, but we have to read this.”

I nodded, and he began reading what we believed were Doyle’s notes about the Jack the Ripper case - notes for which three persons had died and one hopefully would be executed.

It has been almost six years since the Jack the Ripper Murders. My colleague Dr. Joseph Bell and I used our powers of deduction and reasoning to identify the culprit. But as with all things, time dims the memory. I am making these notes now to preserve for our edification the lines of reasoning and deduction that we followed, although this will never be made public.

ACD

Tennison Road, South Norwood

1894

***

My esteemed colleague Dr. Joseph Bell and I have been associated with many investigations that tended towards the unusual and even the fantastic, and we have been privy to many secrets throughout our professional association. The strangest of these secrets was handed to us one day in late 1888 when we tried our hand at solving the biggest puzzle of them all - the identity of “JTR,” the murder case so lately in the news. It was obvious to us at once that this case was not a simple one, but was an extremely complex one that struck much deeper than either the police or the public were at first inclined to think. As the facts were laid downbefore us, we found ourselves at once drawn into the horrific tangles of the case and the dark secret we were about to uncover.

Toward the close of 1888, with Ripper hysteria still sweeping through London, Dr. Bell received a report from Dr. Henry Littlejohn, the medical advisor, detailing all aspects of the Ripper case. This was not unusual, for over twenty years Littlejohn regularly took Dr. Joe Bell into his cases to have a second man, and in this case Dr. Bell shared the report with me.

Dr. Bell and I espouse the principle that detection is or ought to be an exact science. We work on the premise that good doctors make good detectives; so when two of us set out to investigate a crime mystery, it is where our researches intersect that we will have a result. So we adopted our method, which was our usual practice of observing and utilizing the diagnostic arts and a study of mankind. As Henry James suggested, our goal was to be “those upon whom nothing is lost.” On that basis, using observations, toxicology, chemistry, and handwriting analysis, followed by deductions and inferences on the evidence before us, we enjoined the hunt to unmask the fiendish murderer known in the popular press as Jack the Ripper.

The cause and manner of death of the victims warranted particular notice. We had Police Surgeon Thomas Bond’s 10 November report detailing the similarities in the five victims. All were strangled, then had their throats cut and abdomens slit open. Some had certain viscera removed; others had facial disfiguration. The last victim’s heart was removed. None of the victims was sexually assaulted. We concurred with Dr. Bond’s assessment that all the victims were, without doubt, murdered by the same hand.

Further analysis disclosed significant patterns surrounding the slayings. All occurred in a one-mile area in the East End. All took place on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday; all happened either on the first weekend or the last weekend of the month; and all were committed between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. Despite the presence of nearly one hundred fifty extra police and numerous citizen vigilantes patrolling the small area, the murderer remained undaunted. Boldly he continued his murder spree undetected in a cloak of virtual invisibility in the same one-quarter mile square area, on the same class of victim, with the same modus operandi over a 10-week period.

The perpetrator of these ghastly murders must be possessed of uncanny stealth and elusiveness, and the circumstances of the murders point to a person - women were not ruled out - who certainly was calculating and adroit, possessed of no little anatomical skill, and who had a fixation about prostitutes. The audacity of the crimes coupled with the taunting of the police points to someone enormously clever and capable. The possibilities of the use of disguise and of a hidey hole somewhere in Whitechapel should not be dismissed.

After sifting through numerous reports and interviews and asking an occasional question, we concluded that the solution to the case hinged on the analysis of ten crucial elements of diagnostic information we isolated. These pertinent clues, when linked to the profile elucidated above, would lead us to deduce the perpetrator.

The first and most important clue was The Royal Pardon. During our lengthy discussions and analysis, our focus was drawn to the extraordinary pardon issued on 10 November 1888 by Her Majesty Queen Victoria. This pardon permitted an accomplice to come forth and not be prosecuted, provided they were not the actual murderer.

We considered it noteworthy that no Royal Pardon had ever been issued or granted for a capital offence prior to the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. Since such a unique document had absolutely no precedent, tohave it issued indicated that suspicion had fallen upon someone at the highest levels. The granting of such a pardon had been motivated by an anonymous letter to Scotland Yard pertaining solely to the last victim, Mary Jane Kelly, in which the writer claimed to be an accomplice demanding a free pardon in exchange for handing over the Ripper. This extraordinary Royal Pardon overarches all else in the Ripper case, and we considered it the foundation to solving the case.

The second element of significance was the behaviour of various high-ranking police officials involved in the investigation. Valuable evidence in the case was both suppressed and destroyed in actions uncharacteristic of the Metropolitan Police Force. Witness testimony was suppressed at coroner’s inquests, tracking bloodhounds were never used, and some chalked graffiti was erased on the night of the double slayings. The graffiti, “The jewes are the men That will not be blamed for nothing,” was ordered erased by Charles Warren, Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, before being photographed, thereby eliminating any study of the handwriting. No rewards were ever offered by the Metropolitan Police, and even Sir Alfred Kirby’s offer of £100 reward and 50 militiamen to help apprehend the criminal was declined. Lastly, police transferred, resigned or were forced to leave, including Police Constable Robert Clifford Spicer, transferred from his Spitalfields beat under interesting circumstances; and Commissioner Charles Warren, who was never invited to attend the daily police briefings on the Ripper case and resigned on the date of the final slaying. That all this could be attributed to carelessness was not believable. It seems that efforts were made to hide something and why would such efforts be made unless there was indeed something to hide, something the top officials did not want revealed.

Implicit in the issuance of the Royal Pardon and the strange actions of the top police was not only the suggestion of involvement of a high personage in the crimes, but also an effort by the police to conceal the perpetrator’s identity and shelter him and his family from the consequences of his actions. In and of themselves, these first two clues taken together indicated someone of one of the upper classes but brought us no closer to indicating the name of that monster. In order to deduce that, we had to consider, evaluate and analyze the detailed information collected on the murders and then consider the suspects.

The third crucial element in the case was the eye witness testimony. There were a number of persons who purportedly saw the murderer and could provide us with clues to the Ripper’s identity. There were six major eyewitnesses. Testimony of two of them, Israel Schwartz and Joseph Lawende, was given particular credence by Chief Inspectors Swanson and Anderson. Israel Schwartz saw two men on Sunday, September 30th, at the scene of Elizabeth Stride’s murder. Joseph Lawende witnessed a man at the murder scene of the Catherine Eddowes, the second victim killed that same night. Both accounts describe a man of age 30, five foot five to five foot nine with a fair complexion and mustache wearing a dark coat. Lawende’s description included a red neckerchief and a deer stalker cap. Schwartz described the second man he saw at Stride’s murder as 35 years, 5 ft 11in; fresh complexion, light brown hair, wearing a dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat with a wide brim. He claimed that this second man warned the other by shouting out the word “Lipski.” On an odd note, Schwartz was not present at the Stride inquest to give testimony; and Lewende was prevented from testifying to any details at the Eddowes inquest by City Solicitor Crawford who declared, “Unless the jury wish it, I have special reason why no description of this man should be given at this time.”

Matthew Packer, a third witness, described a man he saw with Elizabeth Stride that same night as dressed in a long black coat, white cuffs and white collar.

The fourth witness was PC Smith who described a man he saw speaking to Elizabeth Stride on the 30th as wearing a deerstalker hat, about 28, and of respectable appearance.

The last two witnesses saw a man with Mary Jane Kelly, the fifth and final victim who was butchered on 9th November. Thomas “Indian Harry” Bowyer described a man he saw twice with Mary Kelly as having very peculiar eyes, 27 or 28 years old, a dark mustache, dressed very smart and showing very white cuffs and a long white collar, wearing a long black coat. This description matches Matthew Packer’s of the man with Elizabeth Stride. George Hutchinson describes the man he saw with Mary Jane Kelly as also wearing a long dark coat with a white collar and black necktie, and adds more details. The suspect was about five foot six, 34 or 35, dark complexion and heavy mustache turned up at the end, with dark eyes and bushy eyebrows, no side whiskers and a clean shaven chin. He wore dark spats with light buttons over button boots, and a massive gold watch chain with a big seal with a red stone dangled from his waistcoat. He carried a small parcel with a strap around it. The man gave Mary Kelly a red handkerchief that he waved about like a bullfighter and made her laugh. Abberline and Anderson gave great credence to this testimony, and Abberline sent it to Scotland Yard noting: “An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of the opinion his statement is true.”

One other identification we placed in this description compendium was not an eyewitness account but an arrest, one of the many arrests made during the investigation. Police Constable Robert Clifford Spicer believed he had captured Jack the Ripper shortly after the double murder on 30 September at 1:45 a.m. Peculiar circumstances surround this arrest. Spicer found a man seated with a prostitute on a brick dustbin at the end of Henage Court, which was very near by Miller’s Court in Dorset Street where Mary Kelly, the fifth victim, lived and where she was butchered weeks later. The suspect was wearing a top hat, a black suit with silk facings and carried a gold watch and chain and a brown bag. PC Spicer escorted him to the Commercial Street police station where eight inspectors assigned to the Ripper case were on duty. The suspect identified himself as a doctor and was let go. Police did not inspect his bag. Spicer was immediately transferred to another beat. (My note, ACD: Spicer resigned from the force five months later).

Our attention was drawn to the word “Lipski,” which we identified as the fourth critical clue. Israel Lipski was a man convicted and hanged the previous year for poisoning one Miriam Angel, six months pregnant. The trial, presided over by a high ranking Judge, James Fitzjames Stephen, was highly controversial with overtones of institutionalized anti-Semitism. In our estimation, the word “Lipski” undoubtedly held a special meaning for the two confederates involved in the crime. Beyond a doubt this word was a pre-arranged signal between the two, chosen particularly as their code word to be used as a warning call. Therefore, the importance of the word “Lipski” is not negligible. This also may well be linked with the writings ordered erased by Chief Constable Warren.

The fifth clue, like the fourth, is also an essential part of the puzzle. Of the nearly one thousand Ripper letters received weekly by the police, one was singular. George Lusk, President of the Mile End Vigilance Committee in Whitechapel, received a parcel postmarked 15th October. Inside was part of a human kidney and a letter that read:

From hell

Mr Lusk

Sor

I send you half the

Kidne I took from one women

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

Signed Catch me when

you Can

Mister Lusk

My colleague and I were struck immediately by two features in the letter, namely the lack of consistency in the line spacing as well as the lack of punctuation. Significantly, these particular two characteristics of altered handwriting are extremely difficult to disguise, leading us to believe without doubt the writer was cleverly attempting to conceal and camouflage his handwriting to avoid detection. Additionally, we noted the originality in the writer’s use of different “S” and “I” characters within the letter, none consistent. This writer was capable of censoring the normal handwriting process so as to successfully modify the writing and prevent identification. Few people can successfully accomplish this. The letter and the parcel further strengthened our conviction that the murderer was a highly intelligent, cunning person with the hardihood to remove the kidney in the dark and the recklessness and contemptuousness to send it to Lusk. A 25 September letter and 1st October postcard both look similar in some ways to the 15 October letter. Phrases such as “You will soon hear of me with my funny little games,” were consistent with the personality we believed to be at the core of the murders. However, the letter and postcard did not display the disguise mechanisms seen in that of 15 October. The earlier letter and postcard have definite margins, regular spacing, regular punctuation including comma, dash and underlines, and the letter “I” is repeated without variation. Yet the earlier letter and postcard messages resonate, and it must be registered that predictions in these two messages - removal of an ear and a double murder - did in fact take place. Our murderer, with his desire to poke the nose of authority, surely enjoyed these communications and the subsequent “blind man’s bluff” portrayal of the establishment. It was exactly what he wanted.

The sixth element in the case concerned the house-to-house search in Whitechapel undertaken by the police during October 1888. Officers recorded notes in these inquiries on every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could come and go and rid himself of bloodstains in secret. My colleague and I concurred in the significance of this search. We questioned the lack of reports provided for our perusal.

Clue seven concerned the bloodhounds in the case. We noted that despite several bloodhound trials that were made with encouraging results, no dogs were ever used to track the murderer. Ostensibly this was owing to police and dog owners being unable to agree on terms. Although employing dogs to scent out the killer was a new method in detection, it was an accepted one. Failure to utilize this technique to track the murderer suggests police ineptitude or worse.

The eighth clue, two Mary Kelly’s, was, in our consideration, worthy of great emphasis. The third victim, Elizabeth Stride, used the name Mary Kelly. Mary Kelly was also the given name of the Ripper’s fifth and final victim. Neither my associate nor I believe in coincidence, and we have dissected in detail these two slayings. We speculated that this coincidence in same names indicated the murderer pre-selected his victims. If pre-selected, the murderer had a rational motive to kill these women, and he was not simply a madman randomly butchering prostitutes. We concluded the Ripper’s victims were not random but were targeted.

The ninth clue was the second man. On at least one occasion, two persons were observed at a murder scene. However, we agreed with the coroner’s assessment that all the victims were, without doubt, murdered by the same hand. Therefore, we concluded that the second person involved was a spectator, a confederate perhaps, but had not done murder himself or herself. That there was an accomplice confirms the wording in the Royal Pardon.

The final tenth clue is 9 November 1888. This is the date of the final Ripper murder of Mary Kelly. It is also the day of the investiture of the new Mayor of London. If we accept that the murders were not random but were premeditated with motive, then we must agree that this date was particularly chosen by the Ripper, and as such has great significance in the case. Celebrations for the investiture were quickly overshadowed by the horrific murder of Mary Kelly. Once again the murderer is sending a loud, clear message. He craves attention and is determined London - and the world - give it to him.

Our next task was to take into account all the Scotland Yard suspects and at least two additional suspects from Scotland. Dr. Bell and I examined individually and in detail the histories of each, then methodically applied the clues to each suspect in turn. It appeared to me that none of the suspects but one jumped out from the list as a person highly placed in society with a definite connection to the case as well as with the requisite physical skills to commit these murders. Only this one individual of all the suspects had the direct and inescapable connections to both the Royal Pardon and to the word “Lipski.” This one suspect decidedly possessed the fierce intelligence, the reckless daring, and the temperament we had ascribed to the murderer. This suspect could easily have penned the Ripper letters we had examined. They reflected his personality, temperament, education, and inclinations. This suspect also fit well the eyewitness descriptions. Moreover, his important connections with society and government provided the rationale for a subtle police conspiracy directed at the highest level.

After each of us had individually given due consideration to the list of suspects and the crucial elements of the case, my good colleague Dr. Bell and I independently wrote down the name of the individual we each suspected. We placed the name we had written into an envelope, and we then exchanged envelopes.

Opening the envelopes, we found we had both written the same name. That name was James Kenneth Stephen.

James Kenneth Stephen, son of Mr. Justice James Fitzjames Stephen, was tutor and companion to Queen Victoria’s grandson, Prince Albert Victor, second in line to the throne. The obvious connection to the Royal Pardon is his direct relationship with the Prince; and he is directly connected to the Lipski case through his father the judge.

James K. Stephen was handsome and brilliant with a very dominant personality. He was a big, muscular, strong and talented college athlete. He was full of mischief and mania, and was known as an evil sprite who loved to play games. His wit was exceptional, and had a reputation for displaying a dark side that indulged in verbal abuse and insults. He was a member of a Cambridge secret society called the Apostles, many of whom were avowed homosexuals, and he drew Prince Eddy into this circle. Many of his poems were highly controversial, and Londoners knew him well enough that his verse was published simply under his initials, JKS, instead of his full name.

James K. Stephen exerted great influence over the Prince as his tutor and close companion from 1883 to 1885, and during that time, his social status rose even higher. However, through 1888, rumors of his excessive and eccentric behaviour were rampant. These behaviour patterns displayed at base the same recklessness, risk taking and disdain of convention that are so marked in the Ripper case.

What further drew our attention to J. K. Stephen as a prime suspect was the severe head injury he sustained in 1887. Both my venerable colleague and I knew from our medical diagnostics that such an injury may well cause far reaching negative effects - both emotional and cognitive - on the brain.

As to motive, Scotland Yard, we felt certain, would uncover a motive connected to the targeted prostitutes, for we agreed the slayings were not random acts but were planned with specifically targeted victims. We speculated that the Yard may have discovered some information on motive before the Royal Pardon was offered to the accomplice. This information was not shared with us. We supposed it was to be found either in the anonymous letter that prompted issuance of the Pardon and or in the police reports taken during the house to house searches in Whitechapel.

We informed Scotland Yard at once of our observations and conclusions. Our inclination then was to act upon our deductions. However, Scotland Yard assured us they would handle the matter at the top levels of the government, and discouraged us in the most vigorous terms from proceeding any further with our individual efforts. We were asked to keep our conclusions confidential and not release our information until such time as they had obtained sufficient proof. Further, we were assured that the suspect, James Kenneth Stephens, would now be under the strict care of his family and the Yard until such time as definitive evidence could be obtained, and that no further Ripper murders would take place. We agreed that it was not for us to judge, and since the Yard could not now bring the murderer to trial and prevail, much mischief might be done to the country. We thus agreed that our deductions would not be seen by other mortal eyes, and that the secret was safe with us.

Note: These subsequent events confirmed our deduction.

JKS was first put under close watch by his family and then taken to an asylum and locked away. He was quite mad, as was his father the Judge who also died in an asylum. He believed there was a warrant out for his detention, and had delusions that there was a plot against him for some crime he had committed. Coincident with this, the police stopped the search for the Ripper, and shortly after JKS died in February 1892, they officially closed the Ripper case.

Moreover, the events of the Cleveland Street Scandal confirmed the open secret that Prince Eddy and JKS visited male brothels where the Prince used the code name of “Vicky” in mockery of the Queen. Further evidence of our conclusion was a memo from Detective Inspector Abberline to the personal attention of G. J. Goschen, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, concerning J.K. Stephen being interviewed with other high ranking individuals about the Mary Kelly murder. In this memo, he indicates that no further investigation will be made and that their duty has been done.

Sir

With respect reference

to your last instruction

my interview with J. K.

Stephen. Lord Randolf

Spencer Churchill Sir W.

Gull were confirmed. I

am sending this report

for you personal Attention

No further investigation

will be made. I leave this

in your hand. I have done

our duty, Rest of my report

will be sent on. I shall now

heed to my burns.

Yours respectfully

D.I. F.G.Abberline

All this confirmed our suspicions, and after he was removed from society and closely watched, there were no more atrocities. Finally, there was the curious death of JKS who, upon learning of Prince Eddy’s death on January 14, 1892, ceased taking nourishment and starved himself to death 20 days later. Thus within three years of the murders, two handsome, promising men, both in the prime of their lives, were dead - Stephen at age 32 and the Prince at age 28. The insane perpetrator had suffered and paid a price for his crimes with a higher power, since evidence to convict was not available to exact justice in the here and now. Not being official agents, and since the details of the case would severely damage the crown and the country for years to come, my colleague and I agreed there was no gain to be had in pursuing the matter.