This, of course, does not explain altogether the apparent sightings of Mary Kelly by several witnesses after she was almost certainly dead but a possible explanation for this curious occurrence will be suggested in a later chapter. William Stewart’s book is a serious early attempt to explain the Ripper murders, although the motive is decidedly weak: he implies that women who practised as midwives were often also abortionists and when these illegal operations were unsuccessful, as not infrequently happened, the mothers would denounce their “helpers” to the police. He says that all the Ripper victims had borne children and it could be that they were women on whom the abortionist had performed unsuccessfully, had been denounced, and was seeking revenge by murdering the women.
In 1955 this theory was revived by an article in the London Evening News which told the story of an ex-convict who had been informed by a fellow prisoner in Parkhurst, eighteen years previously, that his informer’s wife was the Ripper. Richard Herd, who wrote the article, said that he had to withhold the identities of the people in his article but he had checked the story and established that his informant had served several prison sentences. It was stated that both prisoners were Roman Catholic and the alleged husband of the Ripper wanted to unburden his conscience.
It seemed that he had been married to a nurse and after his last sea-trip as a steward on board a liner he had been picked up by a prostitute. His wife discovered what had happened and she refused to live with him as his wife although they continued to occupy the same house. He obtained a position as a night porter at a hospital and one morning in 1888 when he returned from duty he found a bloodstained knife in the sink, a knife he recognised as a wedding present. A couple of days later he came across a pair of his trousers hanging up to dry but still carrying blood stains. When he asked his wife about the knife and the bloodstained trousers she broke down and confessed that she had been killing prostitutes because one of their kind had seduced her husband and ruined their lives. She was determined to see that as many as possible did not ruin other people’s lives. She said she dressed as a sailor when carrying out the murders but always carried her nurse’s cloak and bonnet in a bag and after the murders she donned the nurse’s outfit to cover her bloodstained clothes and escaped as a nurse on a late errand. The police were looking for a man and never suspected a nurse.
Her husband was inclined to disbelieve her until she told him that her latest victim had been Mary Kelly, the prostitute who had picked him up! When she heard this and learned that a man had been arrested for the murders, she stopped her activities. She had said she would give herself up if the man was actually charged but it never came to that. The story, as presented, is not open to examination and authentication and so, in common with other Jill the Ripper theories, must remain a possible but unproven solution to the Ripper murders.
SUSPECTS NOS. 4, 5, AND 6
A curious solution, and one that may not have received as much attention as it warrants is the idea that the elusive Ripper was Dr. Thomas Neill Cream, the murderer. Interestingly enough he practised as a physician in America and there are Americanisms in some of the alleged communications from Jack the Ripper. Cream’s crimes certainly included arson, blackmail, abortion, and murder. He possessed a form of exhibitionism that showed itself in various letters he wrote to the authorities about his crimes.
Cream seems to have killed prostitutes simply to satisfy a sadistic quirk or it may have been revenge for contracting venereal disease from one of them. He killed at least four prostitutes and on the scaffold, on 15 November 1892, he was in the middle of saying, “I am Jack the…” when the bolt was drawn and Neill Cream was hanged. But during the whole period when Jack the Ripper was active in Whitechapel, Cream was in prison in the United States, which seems conclusive enough. Yet one wonders whether there was more to that “death confession” than another attempt at exhibitionism.
Edward Marshall Hall, the great criminal advocate, once defended Cream at the Old Bailey, without knowing it at the time. Marshall Hall had been briefed to defend a man for bigamy and when he arrived in court he was taken aback to find a number of young women who all claimed to have been married to the prisoner. The case seemed quite hopeless and Marshall Hall suggested to Cream that his best plan was to plead “Guilty.” But the defendant was not in the least inclined to take that course of action. “This is a case of mistaken identity,” he claimed. “Communicate with the jail in Sydney, Australia, and you will find that I was there at the time of these alleged marriages and I could not have committed the offences.”
Enquiries at Sydney resulted in confirmation of Cream’s assertions and he was released. Edward Marjoribanks, in his Life of Sir Edward Marshall Hall (1929), writes that his subject “was astonished later when he recognised Cream in court. The mystery was never explained but Marshall Hall’s theory was that Neill Cream had a ‘double’ in the underworld and they went by the same name and used each other’s terms of imprisonment as alibis for each other.” Could it have been Cream or his double who was in fact Jack the Ripper? The possibility would seem to be there. Billington the executioner was witness to the incident on the scaffold and he swore that he heard Cream utter the confession and there is also evidence to suggest that he confessed to being Jack the Ripper several times to his gaolers. Was it another example of exhibitionism or was it the truth for once, and the man called Cream who was executed in 1892 was not the man who had been in prison in America at the time of the Ripper murders?
—
The idea that Jack the Ripper was an anonymous Jewish slaughterman has been put forward by Robin Odell in his Jack the Ripper in Fact and Fiction (1965). It is a theory that has a lot going for it. Such a man would be “no stranger to the knife”—a phrase used by Dr. Sequiera, one of the doctors who examined the terribly mutilated body of Catherine Eddowes. Shochets or ritual Jewish slaughtermen were trained in anatomy and pathology and their aim was to drain the slaughtered beast of blood. The Jewish population in the East End in the 1880s was quite considerable and there were many shochets (and their assistants) who were adept with their long knives. A quick forward and backward stroke and the throat was cut through to the bone. Death was instantaneous. The shochet would then make an incision in the chest of the animal and examine the lungs and heart; then the abdomen was opened and the internal organs examined for possible defects. Certain internal parts had to be drawn out of the flesh while the animal was still alive to conform with Jewish faith.
Jack the Ripper somehow or other inspired trust in his victims. There was no sign of panic or struggle in any of the murders. The background of the shochet, his social standing and his superior education (a seven-year course was not uncommon) would have placed him above the average East Londoner who, at that time, was poorly educated. Such men were a familiar sight in the area and were easily recognised by their sober dark clothes and black frock coats; the non-Jewish inhabitant would have regarded such a person as a “toff,” as indeed some alleged sightings of the Ripper described the man they had seen in the vicinity of the murders. No one would have suspected such a man of chasing prostitutes, nor would such a man have been likely to be questioned by the police.
A shochet would of course know the best way of ensuring that his clothes were not soiled by blood and it may be significant that at least one victim was thought to have been murdered in the lying-down position. Some animals were placed on the ground before being ritually slaughtered by the shochet. So, to sum up, the Ripper seemed to possess some degree of anatomical skill; he cut the throats with a perfected technique, and he knew how to deal with the body immediately after cutting the throat. A Jewish slaughterman would have had knowledge of all these techniques. As far as motive is concerned, it is not unreasonable to suggest a sexual psychopath attributing his murders to the commands of God and it must be regarded as within the bounds of possibility that such a man might have felt some religious justification for killing prostitutes.
Why did the killings cease? Perhaps the
psychopath was discovered by his associates, who would not have wished him to be arrested or face any charge by the authorities, for this would have fanned anti-Jewish feeling in the community at the time. He may have been removed or even punished by his own people. Sir Robert Anderson, one-time Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, was to write in his memoirs, The Lighter Side of My Official Life (1910), that the police believed the Ripper and his associates were Polish Jews and that people of that class would not give up one of their number to Gentiles. He went on to say that the only person who claimed to have had a good view of the murderer had unhesitatingly identified the man but he had absolutely refused to give evidence against him. It is a fact that at one time policemen disguised themselves as slaughtermen during the investigation.
In presenting this theory, Robin Odell points to the four facts that have to be considered in dealing with any suspect.
1) Six prostitutes were murdered in a short space of time in a small area of the East End.
2) The murderer was able to inspire trust in his victims.
3) The killings and mutilations showed some degree of anatomical knowledge.
4) After the murder of Mary Kelly the murders ceased.
Odell points out that of all those most likely to have been the murderer the shochet alone could have possessed the motive, the means, the skill and the opportunity; and it must seem likely that were a Jewish slaughterman responsible, he could have been suspected, even recognised, and silenced by his own kind.
This theory has been dismissed as “insubstantial” and “unconvincing” and “lacking in evidence” by some writers (Stephen Knight, Daniel Farson, and Colin Wilson in particular), but to my mind it is an interesting and plausible theory, convincing in its simplicity. However, Robin Odell’s final assertion that the identity of Jack the Ripper is not and never will be absolutely established suggests that he is himself not completely satisfied with the solution and so it must, I feel, be relegated to a “possible” rather than a “probable” solution to the mystery.
—
A theory that might be said to contain a degree of concrete evidence is that proposed by Daniel Farson in his book, Jack the Ripper (1972). He presents and builds up a convincing case for the murderer being Montague John Druitt (1857–88). Alerted by the mention of some “notes” made by Sir Melville Macnaghten (who joined Scotland Yard as an Assistant Chief Constable with the Criminal Investigation Department in 1889, the year after the Whitechapel murders), which mentioned the three chief suspects at the time of the murders, Daniel Farson followed up clues, checked references and, in the best manner of an investigator, came to his conclusions by the weight of the evidence.
Furthermore he reached this conclusion as to the identity of Jack the Ripper nearly twenty years ago and the passing of time has strengthened rather than diminished his conviction. He told me in 1986, as he had told me many years earlier after we had both taken part in a television film, that all the evidence pointed to Druitt. He sincerely believed it was the most likely solution and he doubted whether there would ever be more evidence pointing to anyone else.
Daniel Farson, who lived for a time in the East End of London, made two television films about the Ripper and when, more or less by chance, he discovered the private notes of Sir Melville Macnaghten, he carried out extensive research, some of it in association with an American journalist Tom Cullen, resulting in a degree of circumstantial evidence to support the idea that Druitt was indeed the Ripper.
Macnaghten joined the Yard when stories and memories of personal experiences in the hunt for the Ripper were still talked about by just about everyone in the police force. He became head of the CID in 1903 when, it might be said, the hysteria had lessened and the time had come for reasoned judgement. Certainly, it must surely be accepted, few men were in a better position to state the views of the police regarding the Ripper murders. He did not believe that any witness ever saw the Ripper (except possibly the policeman on his beat near Mitre Square) and he insisted that there was insufficient proof for anyone to be charged although a number of homicidal murderers were at one time and another suspected. Macnaghten lists in his private notes, which Dan Farson saw through the kindness of Macnaghten’s daughter, the late Lady Aberconway, the names of three men “against whom the police held very reasonable suspicion.” After careful consideration Macnaghten was inclined to exonerate two of them.
The three suspects were Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor and a homicidal maniac whose movements were never satisfactorily accounted for at the time of the Ripper murders. Ostrog could well have been Dr. Pedachenko, Donald McCormick’s prime suspect. Macnaghten’s second suspect was Kosmanski, a Polish Jew who resided in the Spitalfields district and who also had “strong homicidal tendencies,” coupled with “a great hatred of women.” His appearance strongly resembled the man seen by the policeman near Mitre Square. In 1889 Kosmanski was confined to a lunatic asylum; and he too, according to Donald McCormick, could have been his suspect Dr. Pedachenko. At all events Macnaghten came to the conclusion that the evidence against these men was slight and he believed they could be eliminated from enquiries concerning the identity of Jack the Ripper.
Sir Melville Macnaghten’s third suspect and the one he finally settled for was M. J. Druitt, “a doctor” aged about forty-one, from a fairly good family, who disappeared at the time of the last murder and whose body was found floating in the Thames on 3 December 1888, or just under four weeks after the murder of Mary Kelly. Macnaghten’s notes said the body was thought to have been in the water for about a month and on it was found a season ticket between Blackfriars and London. He adds, “From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer; it was alleged that he was sexually insane.”
So for the first time Daniel Farson was able to name the chief suspect as far as the police were concerned; and who better to know where the most suspicion lay. Dan Farson then set about examining Macnaghten’s suspicions and at length discovered the record of the suicide of Montague John Druitt, but he had been thirty-one (not forty-one) and although his body had been recovered on 31 December (not 3) it was not registered until 2 January 1889. In addition the man was not a doctor; he was a barrister. However, Montague’s father, William Druitt, his uncle Robert Druitt, and his cousin Lionell Druitt, were all doctors. The death certificate of Montague Druitt states, “Found dead drowned by his own act whilst of unsound mind.”
Further research revealed that M. J. Druitt had been born at Wimborne in Dorset where his father had been one of the town’s most respected citizens. Montague went to Winchester College where he had a brilliant academic career and ended as Prefect of Chapel. He went on to New College, Oxford, where he did moderately well, taking a Second Class degree in Classical Moderations and a Third in Greats. He left with a BA in 1880 determined to enter the law. He was admitted to the Inner Temple in 1882. After some difficulty in finding the necessary finances (he obtained advances from his father against a legacy) he took his finals and was called to the Bar in 1885. His father died shortly afterwards, leaving an estate worth £16,579, from which Montague did not benefit.
Montague Druitt now rented chambers at 9 King’s Bench Walk and joined the Western Circuit and Winchester Sessions but there appears to be no record of his ever accepting a brief of any kind. 1888 finds him working as an assistant teacher at a private school at 9 Eliot Place, Blackheath, although he retained his chambers in King’s Bench Walk. As far as is known he was last seen alive on 3 December 1888. In the revised edition of his book Daniel Farson suggests that Montague Druitt may have been murdered by his family.
When Daniel Farson had been preparing a television programme on the Ripper, he received a letter from Australia which he did not regard as being of any great value at the time but later he realised that the writer had referred to a document entitled “The East End Murderer—I Knew Him,” said to have been privately printed by a Mr. Fell of D
andenong, and written by a Lionel Druitt (or Drewett)! From a different source Dan Farson learned that Fell had had lodging with him a man named Druitt who claimed to have papers proving the Ripper’s identity.
During a visit to Australia in 1961 Daniel Farson made a point of trying to explore the matter further and he located an elderly woman, a Miss Stevens, who remembered Dr. Lionel Druitt. She recalled him practising medicine in 1903 and she remembered a daughter, Dorothy. This was confirmed ten years later when Daniel Farson traced Dr. Peter Druitt, the great-grandson of Robert Druitt; it was also established that Dr. Lionel Druitt died at Mentone, Victoria, in January, 1908.
Back home, Dan Farson discovered that Dr. Lionel Druitt had a surgery of sorts at the Minories in 1879. The Minories, named after the Minoresses or nuns of the order of St. Clare whose convent stood in the street, leads from Aldgate to Tower Green and is a stone’s throw from the Whitechapel murder sites. Lionel was four years older than his cousin Montague and Daniel Farson suggests that it is reasonable to assume that Montague, about to leave Oxford, may well have visited his cousin and it is conceivable that he lived at 140 The Minories after his cousin moved to 122 Clapham Road in 1886. It will be recalled by Ripperologists that one of the alleged Ripper letters, the one posted in Liverpool on 29 September 1888, said, “Beware, I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd inst., in Minories at twelve midnight…” and Catherine Eddowes was murdered on 30 September in Mitre Square, one minute’s walk from the Minories. After this murder another letter, also sent from Liverpool, said, “What fools the police are. I even give them the name of the street where I am living…” but surely this would refer to the address at the top of the letter: Prince William Street, Liverpool, and not the Minories, mentioned in the letter.
The Big Book of Jack the Ripper Page 15