Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files

by Marriott, Trevor

  It was also reported that Cutbush had made rough drawings of the bodies of women, and of their mutilations. These were apparently found along with two scribble drawings of women in indecent poses in his room following his arrest. The head and body of one of these had been cut from some fashion plate, and legs were added to show a woman's naked thighs and pink stockings.

  I think if the truth be known had it not been for The Sun newspaper article on Cutbush published in 1894 in which they suggested that Cutbush could have been the elusive Jack the Ripper, he may never have ever been looked upon as a Ripper suspect. However, the police had to then investigate him but could not connect him to the murders then, and I could find nothing 125 years later to suggest he had any involvement in any of the murders either.

  MICHAEL OSTROG

  Ostrog was another suspect mentioned in the Macnaghten memorandum. It has been suggested that Ostrog came under scrutiny by the Metropolitan Police at the time of the Whitechapel murders. It is also said his whereabouts could never be satisfactorily accounted for.

  Ostrog was a small-time petty criminal/confidence trickster who used numerous aliases, including that of a Dr. Grant, and also that he was a former surgeon in the Russian Navy. He spent much of his time in police custody for various fraudulent and thieving offences. Clearly he was a persistent offender but was he a killer? Ostrog became a “high profile” suspect when it was stated in the “Police Gazette” around the time of the murders that, “special attention is called to this dangerous man.”

  The Police Gazette is a publication, which was sent to all police stations on a regular basis. It sets out details of either persons wanted by specific police officers for specific crimes, or highlights certain criminals who are suspected of being engaged in criminal activities.

  In the case of Ostrog appearing in one of these publications, it could have been in relation to his petty criminal activities and the wording as to dangerous misconstrued. If he were suspected of being the killer or wanted for questioning as a suspect then this would have been written within the text. Looking at the number of times he was arrested for petty crimes, the police would have had ample opportunity to question him regarding the murders. It appears that this was never done.

  Macnaghten wrote about him as follows:

  “Michael Ostrog, a mad Russian doctor and a convict and unquestionably a homicidal maniac. This man was said to have been habitually cruel to women, and for a long time was known to have carried about with him surgical knives and other instruments; his antecedents were of the very worst and his whereabouts at the time of the Whitechapel murders could never be satisfactorily accounted for. He is still alive.”

  I have to wonder where Macnaghten obtained his information, as the character of the man he describes is totally different to that of Ostrog.

  Ostrog was a petty criminal with numerous convictions for theft and fraud. He did not have any history of violence either generally or towards women, nor is there any record of him using or carrying knives. It was later ascertained that Ostrog was in prison in France at the time of the murders. I have to ask why Macnaghten didn’t know this.

  Three of the four suspects discussed so far have been put forward as a direct result of the Macnaghten memorandum, a document formulated six years later. I have already highlighted major discrepancies. In the absence of anything further to substantiate the content of the document or any direct evidence connecting the suspects contained therein I suggest the suitability of Macnaghten’s three aforementioned suspects as being Jack the Ripper are unfounded and should not be relied upon. The fourth suspect Kosminski mentioned by Macnaghten I will discuss in more detail in due course.

  JOHN PIZER

  I will mention John Pizer who may have also been known as John Pozer. Pizer was one of the very few persons ever arrested at the time of the murders. He was arrested following the murder of Annie Chapman.

  He was a Jewish man resident in Whitechapel and also known as Leather Apron, as he worked in the leather trade and as a result had access to long-bladed knives. As part of his work attire he would have owned a leather apron, one of a similar type found at the scene of Chapman’s murder. He was supposedly seen arguing with Annie Chapman prior to her murder. However, this has never been confirmed. There is an official record of a John Pozer having a criminal conviction for stabbing another male with a shoemaker’s knife, who some researchers suggest was in fact John Pizer.

  Despite being interrogated for a long period of time, Pizer had a solid alibi in relation to the Annie Chapman murder and for the previous murders, thus eliminating him from any further suspicion.

  JOSEPH BARNETT

  At the time of the murders, 30-year-old Joseph Barnett was the boyfriend of Mary Kelly and prior to her murder had been living with her at 13, Miller’s Court, the address where she was found murdered. At the time of her murder he was not living there with her, they had apparently fallen out and he had moved into lodgings nearby. However, it is documented that they were still seeing each other on a regular basis.

  Barnett was interviewed in relation to her murder but gave an alibi, which was apparently accepted by the police at the time. This alibi being that he was playing cards with others at his lodging house until 12.30am and then went to bed and did not go out after that. The police had no choice other than to accept the alibi in the absence of anything to disprove it.

  However, it would be wrong to totally rule out the possibility of Barnett being responsible for killing Mary Kelly and making it look like she was another victim of Jack the Ripper. Some researchers have gone so far as to say that Barnett could have been Jack the Ripper himself.

  But what motive could he have had? Well the main one that springs to mind in relation to Mary Kelly is jealously. They had been having a normal relationship and Kelly although having been a prostitute previously was not engaging in prostitution whilst they were together.

  Barnett was employed in the fish market but lost his job and was unable to support both of them. So Kelly apparently told him she was going to return to prostitution. He was strongly against her resorting to this. Therefore he could have murdered her out of jealousy as a result of the demise of their relationship and made the killing look as if it had been committed by the real killer.

  So did Barnett kill Mary Kelly and was he also Jack the Ripper? There are a substantial amount of similarities between Joseph Barnett and various descriptions purportedly to have been Jack the Ripper, but was he the killer?

  Joseph Barnett's physical description tallies very well with a number of witness descriptions, particularly in height (5' 7"), age (30), build (medium), complexion (fair) and the presence of a moustache. But of course as previously stated these cannot safely be relied upon.

  His link with Mary Kelly could explain why the killings ceased after her murder. However, this is not the case if either of the other two later murders were committed by the same killer.

  There is also the mystery of Mary Kelly's locked door. It was locked when police arrived, indicating the killer either had a key, or when leaving locked the door behind him taking the key with him. We know the key was missing as the police had to break the door down. Although Barnett later stated that as far as he was aware the key had gone missing previously.

  This could be explained either by Barnett still being in possession of a key, or his knowledge of the layout of the room and the fact that by reaching through the broken window the door could still be unlocked even if the key were on the inside. However, the same could apply to the killer. It is not known whether Barnett was still in possession of a key to the room despite what he told the police.

  It is readily accepted that Kelly took her killer to her room voluntarily presumably after meeting him on the street. But this may not have been the case. What if the killer was prowling the streets, as we know he did? What if he looked through the broken window saw Kelly lying asleep on the bed wearing only her underclothes and he let himself in by reaching inside and unlo
cking the door, killing her as she slept as has also been suggested? Well, there are a number of interesting theories to consider.

  In my opinion Barnett was not involved in the Whitechapel murders but I cannot totally rule him out as being the killer of Kelly. However, if he did kill her and it was a crime of passion, would he have mutilated the body of someone he loved to that extent? Just to make it look like the work of the Ripper? After all he could have just killed her outright as he had an alibi, which would have stood or fallen whether he mutilated her or killed her outright.

  PRINCE ALBERT VICTOR – DUKE OF CLARENCE AND AVONDALE

  For centuries now the public at large have been fascinated by a royal scandal and almost 125 years after the Whitechapel murders took place we still have a scandal revolving around Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, grandson to Queen Victoria and an heir to the throne.

  One of the modern-day theories in recent times suggested that Prince Albert was directly involved in the murders or had knowledge of who was involved in them. Others who have been suggested as also being involved in some way with the Prince include Sir William Gull (the Queen’s physician) and John Netley (a royal coachman).

  The Royal Conspiracy theory first appeared in 1973 in the BBC programme, Jack the Ripper. The programme’s investigators stated they had finally solved the Ripper mystery through a series of conspiracies and cover-ups. The story goes that the producers of the programme in doing research were told to contact a man named Joseph Sickert, aka Joseph Gorman, who stated he knew about a secret marriage between Prince Albert and a poor Catholic girl named Alice Mary Crook. Sickert painted a strange story involving Prince Albert, Lord Salisbury, Sir Robert Anderson, Sir William Gull and even Queen Victoria herself.

  Joseph Sickert, stated he was the son of the famous painter, Walter Sickert, who told him the story in later years. Sickert initially stated that his father, Walter Sickert had lived in the East End during the time of the murders and was supposedly a close friend of the royal family. Although it has now been proved that this is not the case, Joseph Sickert told the story of how Lord Salisbury asked his father to take the Prince under his wing and look after him. Joseph Sickert stated his father eventually introduced him to a poor girl named Alice or Annie Crook, who worked in one of the local shops in Cleveland Street. Prince Albert became infatuated with the girl and apparently got the girl pregnant. They then set up home together in the East End and they were living quite happily with their daughter Alice, until the Queen discovered her grandson's indiscretion and demanded that the situation be terminated. Not only was Annie a commoner, but a Catholic as well and there was belief that news of a Catholic heir to the throne would spark a revolution. The story goes that the Queen ordered her Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, to resolve the matter quickly and discreetly. He, in turn, allegedly went to Sir William Gull. They traced the address in Cleveland Street. Prince Albert was taken away and Annie was taken to one of Gull's hospitals where Gull performed experiments on her designed to erase her memory and drive her insane. The story goes that their child, however, escaped the raid unharmed with her nanny, Mary Kelly.

  Sickert stated Kelly had been a co-worker of Annie's, as well as a model for Sickert, and she became the child's nanny soon after its birth. Knowing that the child was in danger Kelly hid baby Alice with nuns and fled back into the East End. Eventually, she told the story to several of her friends (Nichols, Stride and Chapman) and they decided to blackmail the government when they needed money to pay local protection gangs. When Lord Salisbury learned of the threat, he called on Sir William Gull again.

  This time, Gull supposedly devised an elaborate scheme to silence the women based on Masonic rituals. Enlisting the help of John Netley, a coachman, he created Jack the Ripper. Sir Robert Anderson was enlisted to help cover up the crimes and act as lookout during the murders which were carried out in the royal carriage.

  The killing of Eddowes, Joseph was told by his father, was a mistake. She often used the name of Mary Kelly and it was a case of mistaken identity. Once the truth was known, the real Mary Kelly was found and silenced. The conspiracy closed in upon itself and for some reason Montague Druitt was chosen as a scapegoat to take the blame and, Sickert hinted, Druitt was murdered for it. The girl, Alice, grew up and later, by an odd series of twists and turns, supposedly married Walter Sickert and gave birth to Joseph.

  Records show that there was an Annie Crook who did work in a shop in Cleveland Street. and she did have an illegitimate daughter Alice. The records also show that her daughter remained with her for many years. There is nothing to show she knew Mary Kelly.

  My enquiries led me to the conclusion that this story is nothing more than fiction. It is not even worth considering Prince Albert as a suspect for a number of reasons. Alice Margaret Crook was born on 18th April 1885, which means that her conception must have occurred between 18th July and 11th August 1884. At that time the Prince was 400 miles away in Heidelberg with his German tutor. He arrived there in June and returned to England on August 18th. These facts are confirmed by The Royal Archives.

  The Royal Marriages Act was still operative and therefore any such marriage between the Prince and Crook could have been set-aside as illegal, because the Prince was under twenty-five years-old at the time of the “marriage” and he had “married” without the Queen's consent.

  As previously written, I wrote a letter to Her Majesty the Queen informing her that it was my intention to try to exonerate the Prince from being a suspect for all these years. As a result, documents I received from the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle gave him cast-iron alibis for the murders.

  The documents in question show that on August 8th, a letter from the Prince of Wales records that Prince Albert Victor was laid up in York with gout. At the time he was stationed there with his regiment the 10th Lancers. So therefore could not have been involved in the murder of Martha Tabram.

  Between August 31st and September 7th, he was staying with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge, Grosmont, Yorkshire. So he could not have been involved in the murder of Polly Nichols on August 31st.

  Between September 7th and 10th the Prince was at the cavalry barracks in York, so he could not have been involved in the murder of Annie Chapman on the 8thth September.

  Between September 27th – 30th the Prince was at Abergeldie, Scotland, where Queen Victoria recorded in her journal that he lunched with her on 30th September. (Stride and Eddowes were murdered between 1.00 and 2.00 am, 30th September.)

  Between November 2nd and November 12th the Prince was at Sandringham. (Kelly was found murdered November 9th.)

  On July 17th 1889 when Alice McKenzie was murdered the Prince wrote in a letter to his brother dated 21st July that he was again in York.

  On February 13th 1891 when Frances Coles was murdered, it is documented that the Prince lunched at Marlborough House en route from Osborne to York.

  In any event, can we honestly be expected to believe than any member of the royal family, let alone an heir to the throne, would be left to his own devices to come and go as he pleased in the East End of London and be allowed to set up a home and to live as a normal person? I think not.

  The other issue with the Prince is the suggestion that he was a homosexual. If this were the case, then this is another aspect which makes the story unbelievable. He died in 1891, supposedly of pneumonia; some say it was syphilis.

  I have also looked at the suggestion put forward with regards to Sir William Gull, the Queen’s physician being involved and the murders being committed in the royal carriage. I can easily discount this suggestion outright. Firstly, I only have to look at the reports from the doctors who examined the victims at the murder scenes. They all clearly state that the victims were killed where they were found.

  If they had been killed in a carriage the bodies could have been dumped anywhere in an isolated place, not in locations where they were likely to have been seen being dumped. It should also be noted that in the case of s
everal of the locations it would have been impossible to drive a carriage to the locations where the bodies were found in any event.

  At the time of the murders Sir William Gull was 72 and had suffered a stroke, he could hardly walk. He would have been incapable of murdering anyone, let alone carrying out mutilations. He died of another stroke in 1890.

  Is there any other form of evidence to support this story of Joseph Sickert? The answer is no. What motive did Joseph Sickert have for coming forward with this story? The answer is none, other than possibly for financial gain from the press and television. Joseph Sickert later retracted his account after a great deal of pressure was put on him from undisclosed sources.

  The problem with the Whitechapel murders and the worldwide interest they still generate is that there is always someone going to appear out of the woodwork with another suspect or another theory. All of which seem to have no substance to them and no form of corroboration. But because the public worldwide are still, to this day, interested in these crimes and are desperate for new facts and evidence to emerge, which may finally identify Jack the Ripper, as a result the press and media will follow-up new revelations and heavily publicize it.

  FRANCIS TUMBLETY

  Francis Tumblety, aged 54, an American living in London in 1888, was said to have frequented Whitechapel at the time of the murders. Although described in many US press reports as a doctor or physician, there is no evidence he had any formal medical training or held any medical qualifications, and there’s little to suggest he was anything more than a quack who sold potions, pills and creams for a wide variety of ailments.

  Tumblety as a Ripper suspect was named by a Scotland Yard police officer serving at the time of the Whitechapel murders in a private letter written twenty-five years later, which was obtained in the early 1990s by Ripper expert, Stewart Evans.

  At the time of the murders, John George Littlechild was a Chief Inspector at Scotland Yard, in charge of what was variously known as Special Branch, the Secret Department or Section “D”. It was also referred to as the “Special Confidential Section”, the “Special (Secret) Branch”, and the “Home Office, Crime Department, Special Branch”.