by Ivor Edwards
Jack the Ripper Ate Kelly’s Heart
It has been asked, Did the killer eat Mary Kelly’s heart? No evidence exists to suggest that the killer was a cannibal. It has not been proven that the Lusk kidney was the kidney taken from Eddowes. The letter sent with the kidney (stating that the sender had eaten half the kidney) has never been proven to be sent by the killer. So let us look at why any killer would wish to take the heart of his victim. There exists a number of reasons why the killer could have eaten Kelly’s heart but no evidence exists to show that he did.
Some 19th-century tribes worldwide held certain religious beliefs which encouraged them to eat the heart of their adversaries. They also held religious beliefs in relation to the mutilation of the dead. Some superstitious occult societies also held similar beliefs, rites and practices. The occult encourages this behaviour, unacceptable by normal standards.
My suspect held occultist beliefs which included the doctrine that certain degrading, degenerating and obscene acts are acceptable. Certain body parts, for example, can be utilised in the preparation of potions for various uses in the occult. These points are covered later by my suspect in his own words.
Some years ago I saw a slightly built, inoffensive, wimpish-looking young man in his 20s wearing small metal-rimmed glasses. He had killed his girlfriend, and after the deed was done he cut out the girl’s heart and placed it in a small box. Then for revenge, and presumably out of cruelty, he sent the heart to the girl’s mother. So did Jack take Kelly’s heart for revenge?
It is possible that the heart was taken as a trophy. It is not unknown for killers to take souvenirs.
Many other misconceptions and untruths exist in the aftermath of the Ripper murders. Coins were alleged to have been found placed by Chapman’s body. Kelly was alleged to have been attacked with an axe but the medical evidence makes no mention of such a weapon.
It was only assumed that the killer had sex with the victims on site. The medical evidence does not support such an assumption. The killer was alleged to have attacked his victims while facing them. It has been incorrectly assumed that the victims picked up the killer. The list is endless.
Those who are indoctrinated with such beliefs either get their information from incorrect sources or they misinterpret the true facts of the case when faced with them. Murders are not solved by misconceptions, false opinions or incorrect assumptions, yet this case has often been based on nothing more.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
WHO WAS JACK THE RIPPER?
The Evidence
After dealing with how and why the only remaining question is who? The killer must satisfy several criteria.
No. 1
The trail left by Jack started east from Bucks Row, north to Hanbury Street, south to Berner Street, west to Mitre Square and then on to Dorset Street. A false trail led from Mitre Square to Goulston Street. To find the direction the killer was coming from we simply follow the trail in the direction from which it originated. This leads us back to Bucks Row. So I believe the killer lived in the vicinity of Bucks Row.
No. 2
Working from all the available evidence and from my own experiences I believe the killer had a great deal of anatomical experience. Taking into consideration the adverse conditions in which he was working, the speed at which he was working, the obvious planning, precision, timing, the boldness shown, the attention given to detail, and believing that the killer was no stranger to personal danger, I believe military experience was in evidence. Thus I believe he was indeed a surgeon with possibly some military background.
No. 3
Working on the theory that many serial killers pick their victims from the same ethnic group as themselves and that the first four victims were in their 40s; I believe he was an older men who relied on his experiences to some extent. Another reason therefore to place Jack the Ripper in his 40s.
No. 4
Believing that the killer was possibly seen in the doorway of the Nelson Beer House in Berner Street it was decided it was feasible that the killer may have been about 5ft 11in in height with light brown hair. It is also likely that he smoked a pipe. He wore a dark overcoat and a wide-brimmed felt hat. However, the man in the doorway was placed at about 35 years of age. As already explained in relation to a suspect’s age, witness testimony is sometimes unreliable.
No. 5
Because of the nature of the plans and certain evidence in the case, it was more than evident to myself that the killer was an occultist. He may have contracted VD at some stage because he was prostitute-oriented. Also, it was possible that he had been brought in for questioning at some point and then released due to lack of evidence, as in the case of Peter Sutcliffe (questioned nine times and released!) and many other well-known killers.
It was evident from my research that the killer (as with many other serial killers) had a very high IQ. From my research I also concluded that Jack the Ripper was not a local man and that he had planned the murders in such a way as to give the false impression that he was. He had knowledge of the area and of prostitutes living within that area.
So who did live in the vicinity of the first murder at Bucks Row during 31 August 1888 and 9 November 1888, and who fitted all of the criteria?
The Verdict
Crime journalist Bernard O’Donnell wrote a 365-page manuscript. The manuscript in question, and several other important discoveries made by author Melvyn Harris, relate to a suspect named Robert Donston Stephenson, alias Roslyn D’Onston, who was a patient at the London Hospital during the murders. During my research into the identity of the killer, the name D’Onston came into the picture and he fitted the criteria.
D’Onston had been an occultist and a military surgeon; he had resided near Bucks Row during the murders, was aged 47 in 1888, wore a soft felt hat and a long overcoat, was 5ft 11in in height, caught VD from a prostitute prior to the murders and was arrested at least twice for the murders. Many such facts emerged which showed D’Onston as fitting all the criteria. This cannot be said of any other suspect placed in the frame.
I then started to research D’Onston over a period of several years. During the first of many subsequent visits to various London archives and the London Hospital, I saw records relating to R. Stephenson who had been a police suspect during 1888. During further research, which included visiting a few of D’Onston’s old haunts, I did not find one piece of evidence or one valid point that could be raised to cast any serious doubt over his guilt.
All other suspects when placed in the frame have always lacked this one essential requirement. A wealth of information on D’Onston is still to be found. Now we go into the final stage, the devious life and times of Robert Donston Stephenson.
The murderer circa 1888
Name: Robert Donston Stephenson.
Known aliases: Dr Roslyn D’Onston. Wrote under the names of ‘Tautriadelta’ and ‘One Who Knows’.
Born: Parish of Sculcoates, Hull, 1842.
Address: Willow House, No. 60, Church Street, Hull.
Marital status: Married Anne Deary on 14 February 1876, at St James Church, Holloway. Anne Deary, childless, disappeared in 1887 prior to the murders. No record of her death has ever been traced. Similarities with a murder victim found (May–June 1887) dismembered and dumped in the Regents Canal. Victim (childless and in the same age group as Anne Deary) was cut up by a murderer with the experience of a surgeon. D’Onston resided at several addresses near the Regents Canal, including Salmon Lane and Burdett Road.
Hair: Light brown, fair, greying, thinning at the sides, full moustache which was mouse or fair-coloured and occasionally waxed, turned up at the ends. Could be manipulated to give various styles.
Eyes: Pale blue.
Complexion: Pale, sallow, queer, no colour. Bottom lip pink, upper lip hidden by fair moustache.
Height: 5ft 11in.
Build: Lean and slim, military bearing showing strength and power.
Voice: Pleasant and cultured.
Fa
ce: Full.
Appearance: Military; known to observe strangers with an eyeglass; on occasions carried a short military-style cane. Wore a brown wide-brimmed, soft, felt hat; wore a long overcoat. Clothes worn through brushing rather than wear, respectable shabby appearance.
Habits: Pipe smoker, took drugs, considered a ‘soaker’ (not a drunk) with alcohol use. Bathed every day and was known to be clean and tidy.
Hobbies: Sought the company of prostitutes, was a known gambler.
IQ: Exceptional.
D’Onston: The Facts
D’Onston was a self-professed magician who travelled the world in search of occult knowledge. He was a man of many experiences and parts. D’Onston utilised this knowledge and his experiences to devastating effect in the planning and execution of the murders. We would do well to remember that he was a proficient and devious magician. He was very good at deception and causing organised aggravation.
He gave full attention to projects. For example, when he decided to write a book he applied a great deal to the project over a 10 year period. He collated Bible texts from 120 of the Greek and Latin fathers from the 2nd to the 10th century, from the 26 old Latin versions of the 2nd century, from 24 Greek uncials and some cursive, from the vulgate, Syriac, the Egyptian and other ancient versions, all the Greek text from 1550 to 1881, plus all English versions from Wicliff to the American Baptist version of 1883. If D’Onston put all this effort into writing one book then what effort would he apply to a situation which could well have cost him his life if caught?
Work experience: Customs officer, army surgeon, writer, reporter, occultist, magician, doctor, soldier, self-confessed murderer, prospector, businessman. Well travelled (France, USA, Africa, India, Germany). Worked with the London Cottage mission in Salmon Lane and Burdett Road.
Address during the murders: The London Hospital, Whitechapel. Believed to have had a second bolthole, possibly at 66, Leman Street.
Income: Grey area. Used women as a convenience and was known to have been a kept man. He also wrote articles for cash. The Stephenson family were very wealthy, but D’Onston was an outcast.
Other: Contracted VD from a prostitute in Hull and was dismissed from the Customs Service because of his association with prostitutes. Known to have spent his whole life associating with prostitutes in Hull, Brighton, London and, possibly, Paris. Lived a Bohemian lifestyle. Known to have fasted for great lengths of time due to his occultist beliefs. He was a gameplayer and enjoyed playing mind games. Arrogant and filled with his own self-importance, he showed scant regard for the lives and feelings of others and was somewhat contemptuous of people in general.
Many negative comments have been made in relation to D’Onston by those who have not bothered to check the known facts. One self-styled psychic and author wrote that D’Onston was a magician and meddler but not a murderer. This unfounded statement was made despite the fact that Stephenson publicly confessed to killing at least two individuals abroad. D’Onston has been greatly underestimated by those who have not bothered to check the facts for themselves. They have instead relied on various unreliable sources.
D’Onston went on a journey to India in 1878 in search of the occult and magic illusions; he wrote a full account of his experiences in the country. One illusion seen by D’Onston and one in which he was a participator culminated in a sword being thrust through his body. He felt no pain during the act. The sword was driven through at a safe spot, only after much pinching had left the flesh numb and bloodless.
66, Leman Street marked ‘B’. Mr Cullingford was the landlord of this property. He was also the landlord of the property off St Martin’s Lane where D’Onston moved when leaving the London Hospital on 7 December 1888, after his murder spree
I have seen a man lifted from the ground and suspended by the use of hooks placed through his flesh, the flesh being pinched beforehand. It is a trick used in India today. The act I refer to was filmed by Arthur C. Clarke in India. This act was also practised by Native American Indians; it was part of a ritual tradition which turned them into warriors. In fact, it was demonstrated in the film A Man Called Horse by actor Richard Harris.
One such ritual was the o-kee-pa of the Mandans. The emphasis in the o-kee-pa was on placating the spirits. George Catlin’s paintings detailing some aspects of the o-kee-pa were so shocking to Victorian eyes that they were attacked as morbid fantasies, and yet at this moment in time gentleman Jack with his upper-class breeding was performing acts on the streets of London which were more savage than the o-kee-pa. He reverted back to behaviour that is as old as man himself – human sacrifice – which is nothing more than ignorant superstition and basic animal instinct.
When he saw the futility of his beliefs and actions he decided to give up on the occult. Magic is nothing more than an illusion created by those who believe in their own superiority and the ignorance of others. D’Onston was misguided in his beliefs on the occult and his practices in the field of magic. He brainwashed himself while trying to brainwash others.
In July 1886 the Secretaryship of the Metropolitan and City Police Orphanage became vacant. D’Onston was a candidate for the post but was not shortlisted. The position was taken by Arthur Kestin. If successful in his application D’Onston would have come face to face with Commissioner Warren who chaired the board.
D’Onston may well have felt slighted and held a grudge against the Metropolitan and City police. It is interesting to note that the victims of Jack the Ripper were murdered on both City police and Metropolitan police areas. There is no denying that the murders did nothing to help the reputation of the Metropolitan and City police forces. Commissioner Warren resigned the day before the last murder, due to internal conflicts.
D’Onston was plotting, when an obstacle became apparent to him, an obstacle, which he did not intend to let interfere with the work at hand. The obstacle was his wife, and she had to go. Many serial killers have murdered members of their own families or close associates because they had become a liability to the wellbeing of the killer.
Serial killer Archibald Hall murdered his brother and his own girlfriend for similar reasons. Christie killed his wife because she knew too much. Fred West and his wife murdered in the family for the same reasons. The well being of the killer is the number one priority; everyone else is expendable when it comes to the killer’s own safety. With a man such as D’Onston, a self-confessed killer, it would not surprise me to find that he murdered his wife in the circumstances.
Anne Deary, Stephenson’s wife, was known to be alive in 1886, but after this year nothing was ever heard of her again. There is no record of her death; she vanished, and I believe it was her husband, the magician, who performed the vanishing act.
In May 1887, parts of a woman’s body were found in the Thames and in the Regents Canal. The victim was a childless woman aged upwards of 29. The trunk of a human body was found floating near the Thames ferry landing at Rainham in Essex, and in June 1887 five more pieces were found. A thigh was found in the Thames, near Temple Steps and two arms and two legs were found at the St Mary’s Lock section of the Regents Canal.
Dr Edwin Calloway supposed the body had been dissected with a knife and a saw and by someone with knowledge of the human body. The head of the victim was never found. If it had been, I believe the police would have been led to the murderer. This body I believe was once Anne Deary and the murderer was her husband. The point was that he could not afford to carry on his work in Whitechapel if he was suspected of dissecting his wife.
Leaving yourself open to such suspicion is termed ‘putting yourself on offer’. And D’Onston wasn’t about to compromise himself over his mother’s serving girl, who also happened to be his wife. D’Onston lodged only yards away from the Regents Canal in 1860. He visited two mission houses on the very edge of the canal. The canal was the ideal dumping place, a place he could visit with different human parts at a time. The canal fed south into the Regents Dock, which opened up into the Thames.
&n
bsp; After the inquest on this victim, in August 1887, D’Onston referred to himself as ‘unmarried’. Of course he was unmarried; it was he who had achieved the ‘unmarrying’. Now D’Onston was a free agent with no one to snoop into his habits, no one close enough to cause him problems. Not yet anyway.
The murder of his wife was, I believe, a milk run for D’Onston. He was getting his hand in for what was to come in August 1888. This was the date he set for the commencement of the murders. He had one year in which to prepare.
During 1888, D’Onston turned up at The Cricketers Inn, Black Lion Square, Brighton. This public house is located in the lanes area known as ‘little London’. It reminds one of the area of Spitalfields. The pub was a well-known haunt for prostitutes and it was here that D’Onston spent his time planning the murders while enjoying the pleasures of the flesh.
While D’Onston was in Brighton, a gentleman named Edmund Gurney was found dead in his bed under strange circumstances at The Royal Albion Hotel. The day after the inquest on Gurney, D’Onston decided to leave Brighton to sign in as a private patient at the London Hospital, Whitechapel, on 26 July 1888.
On admission to the hospital a complaint of neurosthenia (not neurasthenia as often assumed) was entered in the register. This complaint was easy to fake. Treatment consisted of plenty of rest, fresh air, light diet and no stimulants. Brighton at the time was a famous health resort so we must ask ourselves the question, ‘Why would a man suffering with a complaint that requires nothing more than a rest cure move from a renowned health resort by the sea to a dirty acrid, polluted, smog-ridden, rat-infested area like Whitechapel?’ Because the illness was faked by D’Onston for the sole purpose of gaining entry into the London Hospital.