I have to admit. I am having way more fun with Mystery Month on the blog than I thought I would. If you missed my thoughts on what happened to Amelia Earhart, click here.
I am in no way a professional researcher, or historian, just widely interested in these topics. I also have not done the thousands of hours of reading all the material and opinions written on these topics, though I have gone down several delightful rabbit holes and learned a few new things. I have also tried to link to my main source material so you can follow the rabbit yourself.
Warning! The content below can get a bit graphic, but I tried to keep it as PG as possible.
Jack the Ripper. It is still a name that causes emotions even 131 years after the Whitechapel murders. There are a great deal of literature written, documentaries filmed, and websites launched about who was Jack the Ripper? I am far from being a “Ripperologist” but I wanted to dig beyond the surface information. I wanted to look at the source material from the day and see what witnesses said, the police reported, and what happened at the inquests. It was a terrific and disturbing journey. I come with no solid answers, just personal speculation into the identity of the murderer. I will give you the surface information first…then my theories.
The well-known information
Jack the Ripper killed prostitutes in the Whitechapel area of London from August to November 1888. There are 5 known victims of the Ripper.
- Mary Ann Nichols killed August 31, 1888
- Annie Chapman killed September 8, 1888
- Elizabeth Stride killed September 30, 1888
- Catherine Eddowes killed September 30, 1888
- Mary Jane Kelly killed November 9, 1888
There are thirteen other murders that are alleged Ripper murders as well going from December 1887 to April 1891, but scholars have reasons to doubt these were all the work of Jack the Ripper and I did not look into these deaths.
I focused on the main 5 and some patterns started to emerge.
- All 5 girls were killed on the weekend (Friday, Saturday or Sunday nights)
- 4 of the girls suffered gross mutilations
- Nichols had her stomach opened and slashed
- Chapman again had her stomach torn open and part of her internal organs carved out and taken.
- Eddowes suffered severe mutilation on her face and body. She had organs thrown about and body parts removed.
- Kelly had the worse damage done to her face and body, the photographs are haunting.
- 4 of the murders occurred in dimly lit or dark streets in quiet locations, only Kelly was murdered in a room off the street.
Which one was different?
Elizabeth Stride. She was killed with her throat being slashed like the rest, but not anything else. It seems odd to me, given the possible escalation and drive of the murderer, to not do more damage to the body. Stride was also killed near a busy club in a well-lit area, with witnesses who saw Stride with a man.
Ok, I admit there could be explanations. Stride was the first of a double murder night and the Ripper was interrupted before he could do his full damage. Stride was found in a dark private area; a dark yard. However, one thing I found makes me question if Elizabeth Stride was actually a victim of Jack the Ripper, the direction of the throat slash.
According to research done by Scott Hannaford on casebook.org, Hannaford believes that Stride’s killer was right-handed while it was the belief of the police that the Ripper was left-handed.
Another essay on casebook.org by Fisherman details that night of Stride’s murder. Fisherman outlines that Stride was seen with a man who was pulling her into the street, towards people, when she fell down. Witnesses heard her cry out but not an “I’m in danger” cry but rather “I’m angry in public with someone I am close to” cry. Stride lowered her voice. Why? At this point in time two other murders in the area had happened, why wouldn’t she scream like crazy? Fisherman believes it is because she knew the man, she didn’t have reason to be afraid.
Witnesses that night say the man cried out, “Lipski,” but Fisherman believes the man actually cried out “Lizzie” in frustration.
What do I think? A man known to Stride found her on the streets and was trying to persuade her to come with him, hence pulling her to the street, and cried out Lizzie when she refused. They went to the more private yard to talk and one thing led to another and he killed her. Who was he? I don’t know for sure, but I am less inclined it to be Jack the Ripper, especially since he murdered and mutilated another girl 45 minutes after Elizabeth’s death.
Back to Jack the Ripper: The Police Suspects
There were several main investigators looking into the murders, demands from everywhere for the murderer to be brought to justice and I firmly believe they did their due diligence.
The list of suspects, depending on where you look, can be long or short and ranging from the royal family to unnamed lodgers. I read the profiles and the available police notes about many of them and, in my line of thinking, rejected the ones that logically did not make sense. Here are three of my top suspects and my questions.
Joesph Barnett
- PROS:
- He knew and actually lived with Mary Kelly and from the research, I read, disapproved of her prostitution lifestyle.
- It is documented at the inquest of Kelly that she had brought in a woman of “bad character” to live in their home and he objected. He left and at some point the week before she died argued with Kelly.
- Barnett was trained as a fish porter, which meant he carried fish from the boats to the shops.
- Barnett states at the inquest that Kelly was afraid of someone, the Ripper, because newspapers and read to her the accounts of the murders, at her request.
- Was Barnett killing prostitutes to prove to Kelly that the lifestyle was dangerous?
- Was the reason Kelly was more mutilated than the others because Kelly was the angriest at her for not giving up that life? It’s interesting. Is that why the murders stopped?
- Barnett lived in Whitechapel, knew the area well and knew some of the victims. Was he the Ripper?
- He fit the description given by witnesses of a man seen at the crime.
- CONS:
- He carried fish. Did he know how to filet fish as well? Was he trained to slash and cut? Would that knowledge be enough to dismember the victims?
- He was arrested and questioned for four hours after Kelly’s murder. He was then released. Would the police let him walk if they had further suspicions?
Aaron Kosminski
- PROS:
- He was a Polish immigrant and lived around the Whitechapel area. Ripper was believed to be an immigrant.
- Kosminski had a history of odd and unstable behavior.
- He is listed in the Macnaughten Memorandum as a top suspect by the leading investigators.
- CONS:
- At the inquest for Mary Kelly, Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, a police surgeon on the scene gave statements about the mutilation of the body. Dr. Brown states the kidney removal “was done by somebody who knew what he was about” and “it would require a good deal of knowledge about its position, as it is apt to be overlooked.” He listed barber/hairdresser as his work in some records but others lists no occupation. Would he know human anatomy?
- In 1891, he was admitted to an asylum and considered not a danger to others, so no violent tendencies?
- NEW EVIDENCE AGAINST KOSMINSKI:
- In a 2019 report, History.com stated that new DNA evidence links Kosminski to the crime.
- This is where it gets a bit strange as if it wasn’t already strange. According to the historical record, at the crime scene of Catherine Eddowes, Acting Sergeant Amos Simpson saw a shawl lying on the ground and asked to keep it. Permission was granted and Simpson took it home to his wife. The gift was rejected and the wife boxed it up and there it sat, passed down through the family until sold at auction in 2007. Russell Edwards, a fan of history and cold cases, bought it. In 2011 it was DNA tested and examined. Stains consistent with arterial spray, evidence of split body parts and seminal fluid were found. Relatives from both Eddowes and Kosminski were found and offered their DNA as a comparison. Matches were found!
- I have a few issues with this.
- Did they test the DNA against every Ripper suspect’s family line?
- Clothing was frequently repeatedly worn without frequent washing. Catherine Eddowes spent the night before her death in police custody for drunken behavior. Could the seminal fluid be from another encounter? Kosminski was reported to have been in trouble for public masturbation.
- The arterial blood spray- going back to the inquest report, Dr. Brown stated that there was no blood on the front of the clothes or blood on the front of the jacket. The coroner later asked Dr. G.W. Sequeira, a surgeon called to the scene, would you expect the murderer to be bespattered with blood? Sequeira replied, not necessarily. Ok, so logically, no blood on the killer, he slashed her from behind therefore keeping the spray in front of him. However, Brown also stated that there were no stains of blood on the bricks or pavement around. So how did the killer stay clean of blood, the front of the victim clean of blood, but spray on the shawl?
Francis Tumblety
- PROS:
- Was involved in peddling pornographic material as a child- experts agree the Ripper was a sexual serial killer
- Worked at a small drug store and did disreputable medial practices- medical knowledge?
- Known to hate women of all walks of life, especially fallen women
- Was arrested on November 7th on eight charges of gross indecency and indecent assault (assumed homosexuality) and also charged on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders, believing a likely suspect. He was bailed out on November 16th and fled to France on the 24th and from there New York.
- Fits much of Jack the Ripper’s serial killer profile
- The murders stopped after he fled England if you only count the 5 known Ripper victims
- Was known to be violent
- CONS:
- He was released on bail if he were the Whitechapel murderer he would have stayed in custody.
- Police found him in New York but did not bring charges strong enough to warrant extradition. So they did not have enough evidence to prove he was the Ripper?
So, who is Jack the Ripper? If I had to take a wild leap of speculation, my instinct goes with Joesph Barnett. He lived and worked in the area, had a personal relationship with Kelly and knew of the other victims. Yes, there are some logical reasons why it isn’t him, but that’s my instinct. It makes the most sense in my head. I fully acknowledge though, I am willing to be wrong.
So what do you think? It is said that Catherine Eddowes knew the name of Jack the Ripper, if so why didn’t she go to the police? Maybe the secret of the Ripper’s true identity died with her?
Thanks for walking the Mystery Month road with me! So many more mysteries to cover. Do you have a mystery you want me to look into? Leave me a comment below.
Till next time,
Kimberly