Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files

by Marriott, Trevor

  In respect of the piece of apron and whether it was used as a sanitary towel or not, it is quite possible that even in Victorian times women in their late forties would still be menstruating and may well have used this piece of rag as a sanitary towel. Blood spotting is a part of the female menstrual cycle. I have not been shown a photograph of the apron piece, which shows the blood spotting as described. I therefore cannot give a definitive answer as whether the blood spotting on the apron piece is consistent with the menstrual cycle.

  I have provided a photograph of a surgical swab showing the effect of wrapping a recently removed normal sized uterus from a live donor. (Picture 7). This clearly shows a heavy concentration of oxygenated deep-red blood, which has heavily stained the swab.

  Annie Chapman

  My comments above on the removal of the uterus will again apply. I note that in this case it is reported that the appendages were removed. In addition the uterus and cervix were removed, the transverse incision cutting through the vagina. However, in this case a portion of bladder was also removed.

  Anatomically the bladder is loosely attached in front of the cervix and must be reflected out of the way when performing a hysterectomy, (removing the uterus). In patients who have had a pelvic infection (as a prostitute may well have done) this attachment may be quite dense and tough. The removal of a portion of the bladder suggests to me that speed was important, but does not help determine where or when it was done. However, I note that in this case it seems to have been important to remove the female pelvic organs intact (i.e. uterus, cervix, ovaries and fallopian tubes), which could, in conjunction with a nephrectomy suggest removal for experimentation.

  I agree with the suggestion at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge, but it is interesting that it is the left kidney that was removed rather than the right, which would probably be more difficult to access because of the liver, thereby making the task of removal more difficult to accomplish.

  Conclusions

  As to the time and feasibility of undertaking these procedures in semi-darkness, the doctors’ assessment at the time of the inquest was probably around about right. To my mind the various stab wounds noted in the livers would again support my theory that the blade was stabbed in through the abdominal wall and drawn upwards rather than a surgical type incision from the outside. The uterus would be fairly easy to remove with a modicum of knowledge by pulling up hard and cutting down the sides and across the bottom. It would require more medical knowledge to understand the need to severe the mesentery of the gut in order to identify the kidney and remove it. It should also be noted that an anatomist would know that there would be no need to take out the intestines in order to remove a uterus.

  PAUL LANGFORD

  In pursuit of further corroborative evidence I obtained an additional statement from a master Butcher. Many people still suggest that the killer could have been a butcher or slaughterman despite this theory being negated in the murder of Annie Chapman. I therefore interviewed Paul Langford a master butcher whose statement is set out below.

  I am a master butcher having worked in the meat and butchery trade for 35 years. In my early years I worked in abattoirs where I was involved in the removal of the internal organs from the carcasses of recently killed cattle, sheep and pigs.

  The organs in these types of animals are located in almost similar parts of the carcass to that in a human. There is direct comparison between a human and a pig whereby the organs of a pig are almost identical in size to human organs.

  In abattoirs very little care is taken in removing the internal organs from animals it is very much what is called “cut and slash” The dead carcass is hung upside down by the legs and then slit from top to bottom allowing full access to the animals internal organs making it easier to remove the various organs by the “cut and slash” process.

  I have been asked if I could remove a uterus and a kidney from recently deceased human body “carefully” having regard to my experience in removing the same organs from animals.

  I would probably be able to facilitate the removal of the organs but I would need there to be sufficient light and it would need to be a controlled situation and time would be needed to complete the removal. In removing a uterus from a human body I would not need to take out the intestines, as I know the uterus sits in the lower abdomen. I would not be able to use a six-inch bladed knife to remove the kidney.

  I have also been asked whether I could carefully remove these same organs in almost total darkness using a six-inch sharp bladed knife. If I were to attempt these removals from a human body in almost total darkness I would encounter many problems. The first would be the need for a big enough incision for me to be able to gain access to the stomach. The second would be trying to locate the organs, which would be wet and slippery and covered with blood from the abdomen. This in itself would cause great difficulty in gripping them sufficiently to be able to remove them carefully. I would also not want to be working with a sharp knife in an abdomen not being able to see what I was doing or where my fingers were in relation to where I was attempting to cut. I would also say that I would find it difficult to work with a long-bladed knife and could not remove a kidney using a six-inch bladed knife. If I were in a hurry to remove a kidney and were able to find the renal fat, which encases the kidney, then I would be able to grip it and rip it out by hand.

  The new evidence obtained from the aforementioned experts and the experimental removals they performed together with photographic evidence supports and adds even more weight to my original theory that the killer did not remove the organs from the victims, and in the case of Eddowes did not take away those organs in an apron piece cut from her own apron.

  It should also be noted that Dr. Calder casts a doubt about where and when some of the victim’s abdominal injuries were carried out. This corroborates a doubt raised previously where I suggested that some of the abdominal injuries noted by the doctors at the post-mortem could have been caused when the organs were removed at the mortuary and in order to effect those removals.

  Not forgetting the Anatomy Act 1832 I previously mentioned. If we look again at the victim Chapman, Mr. Neale states the way the uterus was removed is consistent with it being removed for experimentation, and that the uterus from Eddowes was removed in a totally different way. So if both of those victims were killed by the same person and that person removed the organs, then why were they removed in different ways? It should also be noted the method of entry into the abdomens of both these victims is also different.

  This to me goes even further to suggest that the organs of both of these victims were removed by two different people at the two separate locations where the bodies were taken and left for many hours unattended before the post-mortems were carried out.

  Furthermore many people, who subscribe to the theory that the killer removed the organs from Eddowes and Chapman, heavily rely on the fact that the intestines were taken out and placed in a way, which would have allowed the killer easy access to the organs. It has already been documented that anyone with anatomical knowledge would know that there would be no need to remove intestines to facilitate the removal of a uterus.

  Staying with the originally accepted theory that the killer removed the organs at the crime scenes it should be noted that in the case of Chapman her legs were both drawn up. Presumably this is how the killer left the body. If that was the case it would be an almost impossible task to perform surgery and organ removal with her legs in that position. In the case of Eddowes one of her legs was also described as being drawn up so the same must apply in her case also.

  I have stated previously that in my opinion the killer did not remove the organs at the crime scene of either Chapman or Eddowes. Take the case of Chapman at her inquest Dr. Phillips stated that to have performed the mutilation on her and removed the uterus it could have taken him a surgeon up to twenty minutes. Now with Eddowes in addition to removing her uterus the killer is suppose
d to have removed her left kidney, which is a far more difficult organ to locate and to remove, given the conditions at the crime scene.

  On a final note regarding the removal of the organs and in particular those from Eddowes; I refer back to the letter sent to George Lusk chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee on 16th October. With this letter was half of a human kidney, which had been contained in a preservative. The writer of the letter (the killer) was suggesting that the kidney was from Eddowes. The kidney was examined by Dr. Oppenshaw who found that the kidney bore signs of Bright’s disease. Eddowes was also found to be suffering from the same disease. Although some researchers suggest that the letter is a genuine letter from the killer as is the kidney.

  Others subscribe to the belief that the letter is a hoax and it was sent with the kidney by a medical student. If the latter is the case I would suggest this adds further corroboration to the theory that the organs could have been removed by one of a number of bona fide medical person’s i.e. medical student in the way I have previously suggested and sent as a prank.

  CHAPTER NINE

  THE ANARCHIST THEORY

  I would from time to time receive letters and emails from members of the public offering further information in relation to my investigation. Others would furnish me with the information in relation to departed distant relatives who they believed were Jack the Ripper. As a professional investigator you learn never to disregard any information without assessing and evaluating the content. Sadly most of the information forwarded to me in good faith by these persons turned out to be nothing more than wild speculative uncorroborated theories. I will however elaborate and highlight many of these at a later stage. However, I will mention one in particular at this stage.

  In December 2008 I was contacted by a lady called Fiona Saint. From talking to her she had been taking an interest into the Whitechapel murders. She is an artist/painter in her own right; she is intelligent, intellectual and has a wealth of knowledge into the arts. Fiona had read my book and wanted to volunteer some information in relation to the new recently discovered statement I have documented in my first book, which I found in the archives of Lord Salisbury.

  Lord Salisbury instructed Sir Charles Warren to have a statement taken from a man by the name of Charles De La Ree Bott, who at the time of the murders had sent letters to a number of government cabinet members stating he had information in relation to the Whitechapel murders. The statement was taken on or about November 3rd, 1888, in which Bott stated: “Regarding the Whitechapel outrages they may have been committed by perhaps 20 persons with some connivance. There is no necessity for immediate action; they are stopped for the present unless they occur again for mere bravado.”

  Little was known about De La Ree Bott, Sir Charles Warren describes him as, “An educated man who has studied hard, and appears to have eccentric ideas, though he is probably not a lunatic” other information to hand suggests he was also a writer and in some way was connected to or had a great deal of knowledge of the Celtic faith. He admits to spending five years writing a book about the Celtic religion and in doing so had apparently incurred the wrath of the ritualistic Celtic priests regarding the intended publication of this book. Further investigations have revealed that there was a Charles De La Ree Breytte who was an art dealer who had close contact with many artistes of the day who are now famous names in the art world; Ms. Saint suggested these could be one and the same.

  Having regard to the fact that the statement suggested no further murders would take place and of course it is known that subsequently a further murder did take place that of Mary Kelly on 8th November very little credence was taken of De La Ree Bott’s statement at the time. The content of the statement suggesting a large group of people might lead us back to the theory put forward by some Ripper experts suggesting that there could have been some ritualistic or Masonic involvement in the murders.

  However, with regards to the murder of Mary Kelly as previously stated many people including myself have kept an open mind as to whether she was in fact a victim of the killer known as Jack the Ripper.

  Ms. Saint also wanted my help in investigating a theory she also had in relation to the Whitechapel murders. I do not intend to elaborate or comment on that as Ms. Saint is still pursuing other lines of enquiry and I am given to understand she intends to publish the results of her specific investigation. For the record I will say that I agreed to help her with her work and in doing I cast a professional eye over the extensive research she had already carried out and ultimately passed on my comments and advised her accordingly.

  So what was the information Ms. Saint wanted to give to me regarding The De La Ree Bott statement? Little did I know at the time that this would lead to another mystery within the Ripper mystery and would again cast a doubt about many aspects of this 125 year old murder mystery. It would also lead me to new evidence and a possible link the murders of Catherine Eddowes and the Carrie Brown murder in New York.

  Ms. Saint suggested that the 20 referred to in De La Ree Bott’s statement could be a group who called themselves Les XX (20). They were a group of artists, playwrights, and writers. The group was originally formed in Belgium in 1883 and known to have anarchistic views, which they often made public.

  Membership was by invitation only. Each year the original twenty would invite others to exhibit or perform and as the group grew it became increasingly radical; several of the original moderate members either resigned or were forced to resign. In later years some British artists were invited to join Les XX along with other foreigners. Walter Sickert had strong connections with Les XX and was invited to exhibit some of his work by them in 1887.

  Other famous painters and artistes associated with Les XX over its ten-year lifespan included, Debussy, Strindberg, Cezanne, van Gogh, James Ensor, Monet, Seurat, Sisley, Toulouse Lautrec, Octave Mirbeau, Rodin, Whistler, Edvard Munch, Paul Signac, Paul Gauguin, Pissarro and his son Lucien.

  In 1888 the International Workers Club in Berner Street becomes an important part of the Ripper mystery. At the time of writing it is not known exactly who the bulk of its members were. However, the uncovering of new police records may in the future tell us more and it would be interesting to see if any of the members of Les XX were actually members.

  The International Workers Club offered a base for radical and trade union movements. It was an old wooden two-storey building with a spacious room for a capacity of over 200 people and contained a stage. Plays were performed at weekends invariably on Saturday or Sunday; there was a truly international gathering of Russian, Jewish, British, French, Italian, Czech, Polish and other radicals.

  Interestingly also connected to the Berner Street club was a Benjamin Feigenbaum B.1860. Could he have been a relative of Carl Feigenbaum, and the reason for him to have been in Whitechapel, either as a resident during the times of the murders or as a visiting merchant seaman? The former could be a reason why his name or none of his aliases appear on the remaining crew lists for the Reiher in 1888. Or was it just another one of many coincidences that surround the Ripper mystery? Benjamin Feigenbaum was looked upon as an anarchist by the authorities in 1888. He coincidentally also immigrated to New York in 1891.

  So all in all the International Workers Club in 1888 would appear to have been a hotbed for anarchists of many different nationalities and from many different walks of life including, artists, poets, and writers. It should not be totally discounted that at least one or more of the Whitechapel murders could have had political motives, given that Liz Stride's body was found almost at the door of the club. It should also be noted that a previous victim Annie Chapman was found murdered at the rear of 29, Hanbury Street. Located at 22, Hanbury Street, which was almost opposite, was the Christchurch Hall, which was also used for anarchist meetings.

  The term anarchist in this context is defined as:

  “An individual who advocates a political theory the main feature of which is an absence of any government or rule (this is the mea
ning of the word "anarchy") and occupies himself with conducting a propaganda by writing and speaking. This class of person is often, apart from the dangerous opinions he professes, harmless in himself.”

  Could the Whitechapel murders have been act of “bravado” - the throwing down of a gauntlet by an international band of anarchists - to Sir Charles Warren? But was the group or any individual from or connected to Les XX responsible for one or more or all of the Whitechapel murders? If the answer is yes then what tangible evidence is there to corroborate this?

  Ms. Saint cites a Ripper letter dated October 9th, 1888. This letter had two drawings set out at the top of which were two X’s is in the shape of crossed bones and crossed swords. Ms. Saint suggests this could this be the signature of Les XX. (Picture 10)

  This letter on its own is certainly no proof of any involvement of Les XX or any of its members in any of the Whitechapel murders. However, little did I know that new significant evidence had literally been staring everyone in the face for over 125 years. This was to be found in the photographs showing the facial mutilations of Catherine Eddowes taken before her and after her post-mortem. I cannot offer any explanation as to what prompted me to go back and review the aforementioned photos. However, one day I found myself staring at the photos and there quite clearly can be seen two crosses clearly visible carved on each cheek of Eddowes. Could this also be the signature of Les XX, a signature left by the killer, which had been missed for 125 years? I had the photos enhanced and the two crosses are much more clearly visible and have been highlighted. (Picture 11) was taken before the post-mortem and (Picture 12) taken following the post-mortem.