Jack the Ripper Black Magic Rituals--Satanism, the Occult, Murder...The Sinister Truth of the Doctor who was Jack the Ripper
Page 8
In his article titled ‘On the Danger of Writing Graffiti Too Cleverly’, Jeffrey Bloomfield wrote:
Ever hear of Arthur Lambton? He was a leader in liberalising British divorce laws, and a founder of Our Society. In 1931, he wrote Echoes of Cause Célèbres. In it he relates the story of the Dalton Murder of 1882. PC George Cole was mortally wounded by a burglar he caught. The burglar’s chisel was found with the word ‘rock’ on it. Two years later closer examination showed the letters ‘O’ and ‘R’ preceded the word. This helped identify one Thomas Henry Orrock as the murderer. Lambton’s friend, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, admitted to him that this clue was used in the first Sherlock Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet. Holmes and Watson are examining the body of Enoch J. Drebber. Inspector Lestrade shows a clue. The letters ‘R’, ‘A’, ‘C’, ‘H’, and ‘E’ have been written in blood on a nearby wall. Lestrade believes the killer was writing the name ‘Rachel’. Holmes points out that ‘rache’ is German for ‘revenge’. Later Holmes is proved right.
Researches by various Sherlockians tend to support Lambton’s claim. The novel, set in 1881, has many references and inferences to that period. Thomas Carlyle, who died in 1881, is mentioned. Watson, referring to Holmes’s violin playing, uses the phrase ‘trials upon my patience’. This may refer to the early Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, culminating in Patience (1881). A second murder victim, Joseph Stangerson, may owe his name to one Urban Napoleon Stanger, who disappeared in 1881. Even Lestrade’s reference to a ‘Miss Rachel’ may be based on a notorious swindler, ‘Madame’ Rachel Leverson, who died in prison in 1880.
Doyle must have been proud of this clue with a hidden meaning. It seems likely that he was consulted regarding illustrations. When the novel (sic) appeared in Beeton’s Christmas Annual of 1887, it was illustrated by one D.H. Friston. The writing on the wall was chosen as the frontispiece facing the opening page. It shows Holmes and the others studying the clue.
On 30 September 1888, a prostitute named Catherine Eddowes was murdered. It was the second vicious killing of that night. Near the site of the killing, on a wall on Goulston Street, was written, ‘The Juwes are the men what [sic] will not be blamed for nothing.’ The killer (we presume) must have thought the public would think the murders were done by a Jew.
Prior to 1888, I have found only one notorious crime where writing was near the victim’s body: In the De La Rue Murder of 1845, Thomas Hocker left a letter near the victim to mislead the police. Among factual cases none seem to have killers’ writing on walls. But not in fictional cases. I do not think it is a coincidence that nine months after Holmes examined ‘Rache’ (and was glaringly shown doing it by his illustrator) the Metropolitan Police were examining ‘Juwes’. Both times the writing is on a wall near a murder scene, and the key word has a cryptic meaning. I feel Jack read A Study in Scarlet, and filed away a trick for future use. Far-fetched? Then please tell me of any other actual pre-1888 murder with a similar cryptic clue written on a wall.
Now let us look deeper into the matter. Part 1, Chapter 6, paragraph 2 of A Study in Scarlet reads:
The Daily Telegraph remarked that in the history of crime there had seldom been a tragedy which presented stranger features. The German name of the victim, the absence of all other motive and the sinister inscription on the wall all pointed to its perpetration by political refugees and revolutionists. The socialists had many branches.
This, of course, is fiction. It resurfaced in 1888 when the tabloids were covering the real-life crimes of Jack the Ripper. Jack replaced the German word ‘Rache’ with the French word ‘Juives’, which means Jews. Police Commissioner Warren made a statement on 12 October 1888, while he was reflecting on the writing on the wall.
As Mr Matthews is aware, I have for some time past been inclined to the idea that the murders having been done by a secret society is the only logical solution to the question. But I could not imagine them being done by someone desiring to bring discredit to the Jews and socialists or the Jewish Socialists.
This statement could have come directly from A Study in Scarlet. In Part 1, Chapter 7, Holmes states, ‘This murder would have been infinitely more difficult to unravel had the body of the victim been simply found lying in the roadway.’ Three Ripper victims were found in just those circumstances.
In the murder investigated by Holmes we have blood left in a sink, after the killer has washed his hands, and marks on a sheet where the killer cleaned his knife before writing on the wall. In the murder of Eddowes, mentioned by Mr Bloomfield, we also have blood allegedly left in a sink.
Chief Superintendent Major Henry Smith, City of London police, stated he found blood in a sink shortly after the killer had wiped his knife on a piece of the victim’s apron and left his message on the wall. Apparently Major Smith got confused and also placed the ‘sink’ incident as occurring after the Kelly murder (see From Constable to Commissioner, published 1910).
Police top brass of the period, and many Ripperologists since, are also guilty of placing certain incidents which occurred on one site at another. My suspect did the same but his motives for doing so were far more devious as will be shown.
Fiction: the frontispiece from A Study in Scarlet (1887), by D. H. Friston
Fact: an illustration taken from the Illustrated Police News, Saturday, 20 October 1888. It shows Sir Charles Warren viewing the writing on the wall at Goulston Street
The Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stories are the fictitious reminiscences of John H. Watson MD, late of the Army Medical Department. The suspect named in my research held the post of surgeon major, with the rank of lieutenant in the Army of Garibaldi. He moved in the same circles as Doyle and they shared common interests, Madame Blavatsky being but one. She had also fought in Italy with Garibaldi, as did my suspect, but she fought in a later campaign.
Why shouldn’t my suspect read the works of Conan Doyle? The quote I used at the beginning of this work, which I attribute to Jack the Ripper, was taken from a letter sent by my suspect to the Pall Mall Gazette in November 1888, which appeared in the same issue as a letter written by Conan Doyle. The quote given by the suspect is very Holmesian. I would have to agree with Jeff Bloomfield that the Ripper got the idea to write the message on the wall at Goulston Street from A Study in Scarlet, published in 1887.
Instead of using a German as Doyle did, the suspect plumped for a Frenchman. He had many French connections, including the use of the name Roslyn. He stated that the purpose of the missing womb in relation to the occult could be found in a French book. It is interesting to note that the offices used by my suspect were to be found in Baker Street opposite the fictional address used by Sherlock Holmes.
It is necessary at this point to give credit where credit is due. Jeffrey Bloomfield is the only person in over 100 years who has given us the answer to the question, ‘Where did the killer get the idea for the Goulston Street Graffito?’ I have yet to read any comment from any quarter recognising Jeffrey Bloomfield’s achievement, which has been ignored. This a very unsatisfactory state of affairs but one which I do not altogether find surprising taking into consideration the prevailing attitude among many involved in Ripper research.
The stolen apron piece was used to wrap the faecal-soiled body parts in. The killer had two other reasons for taking it. His plan had two basic components.
1. Leave a message blaming the Jews.
2. Leave a trail to Dorset Street
The only way to prove that the killer left the message would be to leave evidence with the message that could be associated with the killer, and a piece of the victim’s apron covered in gore would do the trick. The killer did not expect that the message would be misunderstood simply because it was not copied in its full context. When this man left a clue, it was left with the intention of leading police away from him and not to him.
Because of the confusion created over the word ‘Juwes’, the killer decided to write to the City of London police to clarify the true meaning of the message! The only pe
rson who knew the true meaning and spelling of the message was the killer himself. He even went so far as to explain to the police how they managed to get it wrong. This man has been the only person since 1888 to explain the true situation about the writing. We have a piece of damning evidence which has been either ignored or overlooked by Ripperologists for various reasons. The letter sent by the killer to the police on 16 October 1888 is shown below.
The London Hospital
Sir,
Having read Sir Charles Warren’s Circular in yesterdays papers that ‘It is not known that there is any dialect or language in which the word Jews is spelt Juwes’, I beg to inform you that the word written by the murderer does exist in a European language, though it was not JUWES.
Try it in script——Thus,
The Juwes, &c
Now place a dot over the third upstroke (which dot was naturally overlooked by lantern light) and we get, plainly, The Juives which, I need not tell you, is the French word for Jews.
The murderer unconsciously reverted, for a moment, to his native language.
Pardon my presuming to suggest that there are three parts indubitably shown (2 another, probably) by the inscription.
1. The man was a Frenchman.
2. He had resided a long time in England to write so correctly; Frenchmen being, notoriously, the worst linguists in the world.
3. He had frequented the East End for years, to have acquired, as in the sentences written, a purely East End idiom.
4. It is probable (not certain) that he is a notorious Jew-hater, though he may only have written it to throw a false scent.
May I request an acknowledgement that this letter has safely reached you, & that it be preserved until I am well enough to do myself the honour to call upon you personally.
I am sir,
Yr. Obedt. Servant
(Killer’s signature)
PS. I can tell you, from a French book, a use made of the organ in question d’une femme prostituee, which has not been suggested, if you think it is worth while.
The message as copied by the police
The message as it was written by the killer and as described by him. We can clearly see Juwes in the first example change to Juives simply by adding the missing dot above the letter i
The suspect let the police know that he was a patient in a hospital and was not well enough to call upon them, let alone commit five murders. One opinion, that the killer is a Frenchman, is a red herring while the other is true about a false scent, i.e. ‘that it is possible but not certain that the killer was a Jew hater, although he may have only written the message to throw a false scent’.
In writing this letter to the police, he was playing a game and showing an egotistic tendency. A weakness is showing in his makeup because he is feeling the need of communicating his methods to the police. He is basically saying to the police ‘See how clever I am?’, but without telling them that he is the killer. He believed in his own superiority while believing others to be stupid. To a certain extent the situation proved such an assumption correct.
Jeffrey Bloomfield, an American Investigator-Specialist, wrote:
The problem with being in the position of Jack the Ripper, if you were an egomaniac, was that you had one of the greatest secrets of the world in your pocket, but could not reveal it to anyone. The murderer’s position would have been impossible, unless he discovered that he would die shortly, and it did not matter if the world knew. As he lived past the year 1893 (when he repented) he would have had a perfect chance to see first hand what happens when you open your mouth too much. In 1891–92 a series of poisonings hit the area of Lambeth and Stepney and they were of prostitutes. The killings were at such a random pacing that little notice was made of them, until the killer, Dr Thomas Neil Cream, kept writing to various people (members of Parliament, doctors treating the Royal Family, divorced peeresses) revealing that he knew too much about the crimes. Though he used pseudonyms, his big mouth led the police to him and him to the scaffold. It would be curious to know what Jack the Ripper thought of Cream.
The intentions which lay behind the writing on the wall have been explained by the suspect. The message succeeded in confusing the police further than intended because it was copied down incorrectly. The suspect knew full well he had perpetrated the crimes and that he left the message at Goulston Street.
I view the message for what it was, a red herring. It is incorrect to believe that the writer was a Jew who wished to lead police to him. If Warren had taken a photograph of the writing, years of debate may have been avoided. It was believed by the police at the time that the writing was definitely the work of the killer and it has been generally accepted as so.
The writing on the wall is another classic example of the misinterpretation of the facts. The true situation at Berner Street was misinterpreted into two different stories. Fact has been substituted for fiction in many aspects of the case. A report written on 6 November 1888 by Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, in charge of the murder investigation from 1 September to 6 October 1888, stated that the medical evidence showed that the murder of Eddowes could have been committed by a properly trained surgeon or a student in surgery.
Acting Commissioner, City of London police, Sir Henry Smith was quoted in The People of Sunday, 9 June 1912, as saying that the killer was a gentile and possessed anatomical knowledge leading one to the conclusion that he was a medical man. From my own interpretation of the known facts and from my own past experiences I concur with such opinions.
Unfortunately, since 1888 many untrue stories have accumulated and have emerged in relation to the murders. Misinformation and misinterpretation of the truth have all played their part in obliterating the realms of reality and have substituted the truth of the matter with myth and misconceptions.
The medical profession gave varying opinions as to Jack’s surgical ability. But the medical profession has always had a reputation for closing ranks. It is no different from the reaction from certain Masons when any mention is made of a Masonic connection to the murders. I have known blatant untruths to be told in defence of such ill-founded stories. From those, I might add, that should know better and who are a disgrace to their craft.
When Warren decided to erase the chalked writing at Goulston Street he came under a lot of criticism from all sides. Below is a copy of the letter sent by Warren to his superiors to justify his actions.
4 Whitehall Place,
S.W.
6 November 1888
Confidential
The Under Secretary of State
The Home Office
Sir,
In reply to your letter of the 5th instant, I enclose a report of the circumstances of the Mitre Square Murder so far as they have come under the notice of the Metropolitan Police, and I now give an account regarding the erasing the writing on the wall in Goulston Street which I have already partially explained to Mr Matthews verbally.
On the 30th September on hearing of the Berner Street murder, after visiting Commercial Street Station I arrived at Leman Street Station shortly before 5am and ascertained from the Superintendent Arnold all that was known there relative to the two murders.
The most pressing question at that moment was some writing on the wall in Goulston Street evidently written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews, and which Mr Arnold with a view to prevent serious disorder proposed to obliterate, and had sent down an inspector with a sponge for that purpose, telling him to await his arrival.
I considered it desirable that I should decide the matter myself, as it was one involving so great a responsibility whether any action was taken or not.
I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder; it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday morning by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London.
There were several Police around the spot w
hen I arrived, both Metropolitan and City.
The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.
A discussion took place whether the writing could be left covered up or otherwise or whether any portion of it could be left for an hour until it could be photographed; but after taking into consideration the excited state of the population in London generally at the time, the strong feeling which had been excited against the Jews, and the fact that in a short time there would be a large concourse of the people in the streets, and having before me the Report that if it was left there the house was likely to be wrecked (in which form my own observation I entirely concurred). I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate.
After having been to the scene of the murder, I went on to the City Police Office and informed Chief Superintendent of the reason why the writing had been obliterated.
I may mention that so great was the feeling with regard to the Jews that on the 13th ulto. the Acting Chief Rabbi wrote to me on the subject of the spelling of the word ‘Jewes’ on account of a newspaper asserting that this was Jewish spelling in the Yiddish dialect. He added ‘in the present state of excitement it is dangerous to the safety of the poor Jews in the East [End] to allow such an assertion to remain uncontradicted. My community keenly appreciates your humane and vigilant action during this critical time.’
It may be realised therefore if the safety of the Jews in Whitechapel could be considered to be jeopardised 13 days after the murder by the question of the spelling of the word Jews, what might have happened to the Jews in that quarter had that writing been left intact.