Jack the Ripper Black Magic Rituals--Satanism, the Occult, Murder...The Sinister Truth of the Doctor who was Jack the Ripper

by Ivor Edwards

  D’Onston has not been satisfactorily researched by his critics. Usually I find that they have obtained what little information they have fromunreliable sources such as Aleister Crowley. Also human nature being unfortunately what it is I would not expect all Ripperologists considered experts to agree with me, for most have suspects of their own.

  After the Kelly murder D’Onston wrote to W. T. Stead asking for funds to catch Jack the Ripper. Note that as soon as the last murder was committed D’Onston was well enough to inject himself into the search and make an attempt to con money out of Stead. The latter wrote to D’Onston on 30 November 1888, declining the offer and refusing funds. On 1 December 1888, an article written by D’Onston appeared on the front page of the Pall Mall Gazette. It would appear by the title of the article that even D’Onston saw himself for what he truly was.

  The Whitechapel Demon’s Nationality and Why He Committed the Murders

  by D’Onston

  In calmly reviewing the whole chain of facts connected with these daring and bloodthirsty atrocities, the first thing which strikes one is the fact that the murderer was kind enough (so to speak) to leave his card with the Mitre Square victim. But this most important clue to his identity which ‘he who runs may read’, seems to have baffled the combined intellects of all grades of the police. This admits of no question, because we find in all the journals a note from Sir Charles Warren to the effect that no language or dialogue is known in which the word ‘Jews’ is spelt ‘Juwes’.

  O! Most sapient conclusion! Let us see what we can make of the word. It will be remembered that a chalk inscription (which is not denied was written by the murderer) was found on the wall in Mitre-square, just above the body of the murdered woman. It ran as follows: ‘The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing’ and was evidently intended to throw suspicion on the Jews. This writing was only seen by the police by means of artificial light, and was unfortunately obliterated by them before daylight. Hinc illae lachrymae! Why did the murderer spell the word Jews ‘Juwes’? Was it that he was an uneducated Englishman who did not know how to spell the word; was he in reality an ignorant Jew, reckless of consequences and glorying in his deeds, or was he a foreigner, well accustomed to the English language, but who in the tremendous hurry of the moment unconsciously wrote the fatal word in his native tongue? The answers to these three queries, on which the whole matter rests, are easy. Juwes is a much too difficult word for an uneducated man to evolve on the spur of the moment, as any philologist will allow. Any ignorant Jew capable of spelling the rest of the sentence as correctly as he did, would know, certainly, how to spell the name of his own people. Therefore, only the last proposition remains, which we shall now show, in the most conclusive manner, to be the truth. To critically examine an inscription of this kind, the first thing we naturally do is not to rest satisfied with reading it in print, but to make, as nearly as we can, a facsimile of it in script, thus:-

  Inspection at once shows us, then, that a dot has been overlooked by the constable who copied it, as might easily occur, especially if it were placed at some distance, after the manner of foreigners.

  Therefore we place a dot above the third upstroke in the word Juwes, and we find it to be Juives, which is the French word for Jews. Strictly, Juives and grammatically speaking, of course, it is the feminine form of Juifs and means ‘Jewesses’. But in practice it will be found that Frenchmen who are not either litterateurs or men of science are very inaccurate as to their genders. And almost all the ouvrier and a large majority of the bourgeois class use the feminine where the word should be masculine. Even the Emperor Napoleon III was a great sinner in this respect, as his voluminous correspondence amply shows. Therefore, it is evident that the native language, or to be more accurate, the language in which this murderer thinks, is French. The murderer is, therefore, a Frenchman.

  It may be here argued that both Swiss and Belgians make French almost their mother tongue; but Flemish is the natural and usual vehicle for the latter, while the idiosyncrasy of both those nationalities is adverse to this class of crime. On the contrary, in France, the murdering of prostitutes has long been practised, and has been considered to be almost peculiarly a French crime.

  Again, the grammatical construction of the sentence under examination is distinctly French in two points—first, in the double negative contained; and secondly, in the employment of the definite article before the second noun. An Englishman or an American would have said, ‘The Jews are men who, etc.’ but the murderer followed his native idiom ‘Les Juifs sont des hommes’ in his thoughts, and when putting it into English rendered des hommes ‘the men’.

  Again, neither Belgians nor Swiss entertain any animosity to the Jews, whereas the hatred of the French proletarian to them is notorious.

  The grounds for research being thus cleared and narrowed, the next question is what is the motive? Speculation has been rife the cries are many; almost every man one meets, who is competent to form an opinion, having a different one. And in endeavouring to sift a mystery like this one cannot afford to throw aside any theory, however extravagant, without careful examination, because the truth might, after all, lie in the most unlikely one.

  There seems to be no doubt that the murderer, whether mad or not, had a distinct motive in his mutilations; but one possible theory of that motive has never been suggested. In the 19th century, with all its enlightenment, it would seem absurd, were it not that superstition dies hard, and some of its votaries do undoubtedly to this day practise unholy rites. Now, in one of the books by the great modern occultist who wrote under the non de plume of ‘Eliphaz Levi’, ‘Le Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie’, we find the most elaborate directions for working magical spells of all kinds. The second volume has a chapter on Necromancy, or Black Magic, which the author justly denounces as a profanation. Black Magic employs the agencies of evil spirits and demons, instead of the beneficent spirits directed by adepts of la haute magie. At the same time he gives the clearest and fullest details of the necessary steps for evocation by this means, and it is in the list of substances prescribed as absolutely necessary to success that we find the link which joins modern French necromancy with the quest of the East End murderer. These substances are in themselves horrible, and difficult to procure. They can only be obtained by means of the most appalling crimes, of which murder and mutilation of the dead are the least heinous. Among them are strips of the skin of a suicide, nails from a murderer’s gallows, candles made from human fat, the head of a black cat which has been fed forty days on human flesh, the horns of a goat which have been made the instrument of a infamous capital crime, and a preparation made from a certain portion of the body of a harlot. This last point is insisted upon as essential and it was this extra-ordinary fact that first drew my attention to the possible connection of the murderer with the black art. Further, in the practise of evocation the sacrifice of human victims was a necessary part of the process, and the profanation of the cross and other emblems usually considered sacred was also enjoined. In this connection it will be well to remember one most extraordinary and unparalleled circumstance in the commission of the Whitechapel murders, and a thing which could not by any possibility have been brought about fortuitously. Leaving out of the last murder, committed indoors, which was most probably not committed by the fiend of whom we speak, we find the sites for the murders, six in number, form a perfect cross. That is to say, a line ruled from No. 3 to No. 6 on a map having the murder sites marked and numbered, passes exactly through Nos. 1 and 2, while the cross arms are accurately formed by a line from No. 4 to 5. The seventh, or Dorset Street murder, does not fall within either of these lines, and there is nothing to connect it with the others except the mutilations. But the mutilations in this latter case were evidently not made by anyone having the practical knowledge of the knife and the position of the respective organs which was exhibited in the other six cases, and also in the mutilated trunk found in the new police buildings, which was probably
the first of the series of murders, and was committed somewhere on the lines of the cross, the body being removed at the time. Did the Murderer, then, designing to offer the mystic number of seven human sacrifices in the form of a cross – a form he intended to profane – deliberately pick out beforehand on a map the places in which he would offer them to his infernal deity of murder? If not, surely these six coincidences (?) are the most marvellous event of our time.

  To those persons to whom this theory may seem somewhat far-fetched, we would merely remark that the French book referred to was only published a few years ago; that thousands of copies were sold; that societies have been formed for the study and practice of its teachings and philosophy; and finally, that within the last twelve months an English edition has been issued. In all things history repeats itself, and the superstitions of yesterday become the creeds of today.

  In his letter, D’Onston wrote that the profanation of the cross and other emblems usually considered sacred was also enjoined. This statement stands to condemn D’Onston. We know that four sites are located at the four points of the compass thus forming the symbol of the Christian cross. But D’Onston went on to add that there were other sacred emblems (symbols) enjoined with the cross, which must also be profaned.

  There are indeed other sacred emblems enjoined with the cross and I have produced them on my plan of the murders. Only two people have ever connected these sacred symbols to the murders since 1888 – myself and D’Onston. Also I find it more than coincidence that two symbols incorporated into the plan are used in the worship of Satan.

  Stead paid D’Onston four pounds for the article of 1 December 1888. It is clear to see that he was playing a devious game by writing this letter, just as he played a devious game with the letter sent to the City police on 16 October 1888. He played ignorant to certain facts relating to the case so that he could give himself an ‘out’ should the need arise if the heat became intense. It would not do for him to appear to know too much. So he threw in some red herrings to confuse the issue.

  He wrote with the purpose in mind that anyone reading about his opinions would know that he was incorrect in some instances and therefore could not possibly be the killer. He wrote: the writing on the wall was in Mitre Square, the mutilations to Kelly were not made by anyone having practical knowledge of the knife or the position of the organs exhibited in the other six cases. The trunk found in the new police buildings (New Scotland Yard), which was probably the first in the series, was committed somewhere on the lines of the cross and then moved. All such statements were untrue and intended to deceive.

  D’Onston is the only journalist since 1888 (to my knowledge) who has ever stated that the writing on the wall was at Mitre Square above the body and not at Goulston Street. He did not wish anyone to know that he knew 100 per cent about the case. It is clear to see that D’Onston was playing a psychological game. Psychology played a great part in the devious way he was thinking. If ever brought before a court or even questioned by police his defence would have been that he could not possibly have been the killer because certain things he wrote were known not to be fact. He was playing it safe.

  Pleading ignorant to certain known facts is a method adopted by many criminals to give a false impression. He stated there were seven killings but he told a business associate, Vittoria Cremers, that the murders numbered five and five only. He wrote the Dorset Street murder is not connected to the others. Yet he told Cremers that the killing at Millers Court was the last murder the killer would commit in the series. He was right. Only the killer himself would know this.

  He hoped to give the impression that he was not the killer by purposely mis-stating certain facts of the case. He informed the Pall Mall Gazette of the mistake made by the police in copying the message on the wall at Goulston Street, going on to add, ‘And in endeavouring to sift a mystery like this, one cannot afford to throw aside any theory, however extravagant, without careful examination, because the truth might, after all, lie in the most unlikely one.’

  When I read this advice I thought D’Onston was quoting Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who had a piece published in the Pall Mall Gazette on the same day as D’Onston (1 December 1888). It is more than likely they read each other’s work. The nearest quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that I could match with D’Onston’s reads, ‘When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.’

  This quote can be found in two books by Conan Doyle, Beryl Coronet (1892) and The Sign of the Four (1890). I have spent a great deal of time in researching D’Onston and he was certainly not a ‘Walter Mitty’ character, although he may have appeared to give such an impression to those who have underestimated his intentions or abilities. Although he told lies he did not tell them just for the sake of doing so. There was a purpose behind the lies he told. He lied to create false impressions for his own benefit. He was very devious and very dangerous.

  When we are dealing with such people we must expect them to lie for they are generally out to deceive others by using whatever means they have at their disposal. Thus the wheat must be sorted from the chaff. Only then can we hope to understand the true situation rather than the situation such people wish to impose upon us.

  D’Onston wrote, ‘Did the murderer deliberately pick out beforehand on a map the places in which he would offer them to his infernal deity … of murder? If not, surely these six coincidences (?) are the most marvellous event of our time.’ Before I had ever heard of D’Onston I had conclusive proof that the murders were indeed planned in advance on a map.

  D’Onston again knew of ‘facts’ which have only come to light since my research. Again he is proven correct in stating that all sites were prearranged and picked from a map. Common sense dictates that the sites would have been checked out on foot by D’Onston for suitability once he had picked out the sites on his map.

  He is correct in every aspect on the killings apart from the intentional ‘outs’, which he leaves to cover himself. As for four victims found at the points of a cross, is this coincidence or was it intended on the part of the killer? It is very easy to dismiss such an assertion with a cry of ‘coincidence’, but my evidence is powerful and conclusive.

  An independent study in Canada brings confirmation. The Canadian lawyers Jay Clarke and John Banks looked at these murders. They have been involved in more than 60 murder cases and specialise in the field of criminal insanity. They considered the possibility of preplanning and took this problem to a professor of Statistics at Columbia University. They asked, ‘How do you calculate the probability of finding four bodies randomly distributed in a city so that they form the points of a cross?’

  The answer was simple. Put a grid over a map of the area – eight squares by eight will do – and work from that. But the odds at the end of the calculations were 1 in 15,249,024! If the grid squares were made smaller, and this would be quite legitimate, then the odds would soar enormously. This is also without the exact distances being taken into account.

  Distance from victim 1 to victim 2 = 930 yards.

  Distance from victim 2 to victim 4 = 930 yards.

  Distance from victim 3 to victim 4 = 950 yards.

  Distance from victim 3 to victim 5 = 950 yards.

  Distance from the centre point at junction to site 3 = 500 yards.

  Distance from the centre point at junction to site 4 = 500 yards.

  Distance from the centre point at junction to site 5 = 500 yards.

  I would not even try to contemplate the odds against the figures shown above as being by chance. Now consider another vital point of the murders. Four points of this cross are placed east, north, south and west. Victim two was placed 63 yards off due north (over a total distance of nearly 1,000 yards is not worth concern under such circumstances), because the original site chosen was located slap bang at a busy crossroad.

  The killer wanted a second site which afforded more cover and he did extremely well by getting a second site so near to t
he first, especially when one takes into consideration the nature of the immediate area which consisted of nothing more than house and shop fronts.

  What was the Method in D’Onston’s Occult Practices?

  Mrs P. Stephens, from California, who has extensively studied the occult informed me, ‘When D’Onston took organs from women for a ritualistic purpose, it is more likely that he devised the ritual on his own rather than using something from the grimoires that were available at that time, unless he was adept at reading Latin, French or German.’ (Which he was.)

  It is unlikely (but possible) that he got his hands on a ‘secret manuscript’ that hadn’t already been translated into English. For example, you get rituals that use different circles and different implements, and they often specify things that are nearly impossible for the magician to do. And trying to tie D’Onston into a specific ritual might be a bit tricky.

  All rituals have some commonalities and some differences with regard to certain details. D’Onston, in his letter of 1 December 1888, wrote about certain points made above in relation to rituals. D’Onston also stated that the killer’s intentions were to profane the Christian cross and other such sacred symbols.

  We know that the first four victims were murdered at the points of a cross. So that leaves Kelly and other symbols to be profaned. What other evidence is there of other Christian symbols? Another Christian symbol, which shows up on my plan, is Vesica Piscis, also known as the ‘fish’ or ‘yoni’. This symbol was a secret symbol used by the early Christians. This symbol is still used today and resembles a fish in shape.