by Ivor Edwards
Kelly was murdered to profane this symbol and her murder was committed on the line of Vesica Piscis. See the full plan with symbols and location of sites. Stride, Eddowes and Kelly were all murdered on the line of Vesica Piscis and all three were found on the line of the 500-yard radius.
D’Onston could not have come out with the whole truth or he would have been caught, so he came out with the next best thing – ‘half-truths’. To understand D’Onston one must first and foremost comprehend the many games which are played by criminals and also have the ability to comprehend the working mind of a very devious gameplayer.
It has been suggested that D’Onston could have been admitted to the London Hospital with the DTs or a number of other complaints. Firstly, the DTs did not take 134 days to relieve in 1888. Secondly, D’Onston carried his own treatment, which dealt with the DTs.
The prescribed remedy for the DTs was a dose of spirits of chloroform mixed with alcohol. This could be one part of chloroform mixed with nine parts alcohol. The alcohol could be gin, brandy and suchlike. A doctor would usually prescribe nine parts pure alcohol to one part chloroform. D’Onston most likely mixed his own.
I have seen the entry for D’Onston in the London Hospital register and he was admitted with neurosthenia. D’Onston has been referred to as a drunk, which is quite untrue. We have witness testimony that he could drink all day and evening and remain sober. He controlled the drink it did not control him.
Many ill-founded comments have been made about D’Onston for varying reasons. Being familiar with the subject he is a far better candidate for the Ripper than most suspects in the frame. He has been dismissed out of hand only too readily by the ignorant and those involved in inter-Ripper rivalries.
On 7 December 1888, D’Onston left the London Hospital while all his fellow journalists were staying put waiting for another murder. He moved away from Whitechapel and rented lodgings in Castle Street, off Upper St Martin’s Lane. His landlord at this address was also the landlord at 66, Leman Street. His lack of interest to the murder area showed that no more murders were planned by him for Whitechapel. His actions indicated that he knew the truth of the situation.
Now one should always expect the unexpected and in relation to D’Onston at this period in time the unexpected did indeed raise its head. A postal worker intercepted a letter sent by a patient at the London Hospital. The writing was said to resemble that of the original Ripper letters. The sender was a man said to be well acquainted with the East End, with contacts among the rescue and mission workers there. The police became interested and kept a lookout for the man.
The facts of the case fitted D’Onston. His contacts among the mission workers began when he edited sermons for Rev. Alex McAuslane. He decided to play another of his devious games and deliberately court suspicion. His plan was to inject himself into the investigation so that the police would not take him seriously. His plan was to find and con a person who would take what he said hook, line and sinker and then report D’Onston to the police as the killer. D’Onston found such a man in the form of George Marsh.
Marsh was an unemployed man who wanted to become a private detective. D’Onston manipulated Marsh as he did with most people he came into contact with. Marsh was no match for D’Onston and his devious ways. D’Onston fed Marsh a cock-and-bull story about a Dr Davies being the killer. He informed Marsh that he knew the killer well, then he described facts relating to the case with the intention of letting Marsh believe that he was talking to the killer himself. The trick worked and Marsh soon rejected the idea of Dr Davies being the killer and decided that D’Onston was the culprit.
Within three weeks of meeting D’Onston he went to Scotland Yard and fingered D’Onston as the Ripper. This went along with D’Onston’s plans exactly. Marsh’s statement, dictated to Inspector J. Roots on Christmas Eve 1888 read:
About a month ago at Prince Albert public house, Upper St Martin’s Lane, I met a man named Stephenson and casually discussed the murders in Whitechapel with him. From that time to the present we have met two or three times a week and we have on each occasion discussed the murders in a confidential manner. He has tried to tell me how I could catch the man if I went to work his way. I simply told him I was an amateur detective and that I had been for weeks looking for the culprit. He explained to me how the murders were committed. He said they were committed by a woman-hater after the forthcoming manner:
The murderer would induce a woman to go up a back street or room and to excite his passion would ‘bugger’ her and cut her throat at the same time with his right hand, holding on by the left.
He illustrated the action. From his manner I am of the opinion he is the murderer in the first six cases, if not the last one.
Today Stephenson told me that Dr Davies of Houndsditch (I don’t know the address, although I have been there and could point it out) was the murderer and he wished me to see him. He drew up an agreement to share the reward on the conviction of Dr Davies. I know that this agreement is valueless, but it secured his handwriting. I made him under the influence of drink, thinking that I should get some further statement, but in this I failed as he left to see Dr Davies and also to go to Mr Stead of the Pall Mall Gazette, from which he expected two pounds. He wrote the article in the Pall Mall Gazette in relation to the writing on the wall about the Jews. He had four pounds for that. I have seen letters from Mr Stead in his possession about it; also a letter from Mr Stead refusing to allow him money to find out the Whitechapel Murderer.
Stephenson has shown me a discharge from the London Hospital. The name Stephenson had been obliterated and that of Davies is marked in red ink. I do not know the date.
Stephenson is now at the common lodging house No. 29, Castle St, St Martin’s Lane, WC, and has been there three weeks. His description is age 48, height 5ft, 10ins, full face, sallow complexion, moustache heavy-mouse-coloured, waxed and turned up, hair brown turning grey, eyes sunken. When looking at a stranger generally has an eyeglass. Dress, grey suit and light brown felt hat – all well-worn; military appearance; says he has been in 42 battles. Well educated.
The agreement he gave me I will leave with you and will render any assistance the Police may require.
Stephenson is not a drunkard; he is what I call a soaker – can drink from 8 o’clock in the morning until closing time but keep a clear head.
The ‘agreement’ referred to by Marsh, written by Stephenson reads, ‘I hereby agree to pay Dr R. D’O. Stephenson (also known as “Sudden Death”) one half of any or all the rewards or monies received by me on a/c of the conviction of Dr Davies for wilful murder.’
Knowing full well that this note would land on the desk of his good friend Inspector Roots, Stephenson used his correct name. He also showed how devious he in fact was by using the name ‘Sudden Death’, a term used in gambling.
When I first saw this gambling term used by D’Onston I became rather amused and laughed aloud for it was like a joke. I believe that two reasons lay behind the use of the term. The first being that many like myself would not really take the story seriously after reading ‘Sudden Death’ and would see it as something of a joke to be dismissed.
The other reason is far more sinister. D’Onston is in fact placing a hidden meaning behind the term. He is saying that he is indeed the killer and that he kills in a very sudden manner. Sudden Death is just as appropriate as Jack the Ripper. The police, however, took him seriously at a later date because they arrested him on suspicion of the murders.
Two days after Marsh went to Scotland Yard and made his statement to Roots Stephenson followed suit. He went straight to his old friend Roots and tried to fit up the unfortunate Dr Davies. Let us not forget that Stephenson had already written a letter to the police from the hospital accusing Dr Davies. He stated that he would visit the police when well enough. True to his word, he did just that. This proves that he was thinking well ahead of the game.
He made the following statement to Roots:
I beg
to draw your attention to the attitude of Dr Morgan Davies of … Houndsditch, E. with respect to these murders. But my suspicions attach to him principally in connection with the last one committed indoors.
Three weeks ago I was a patient in the London Hospital, in a private ward … with a Dr Evans, suffering from typhoid, who used to be visited almost nightly by Dr Davies, when the murders were our usual subject of conversation. Dr Davies always insisted on the fact that the murderer was a man of sexual powers almost effete, which could only be brought into action by some strong stimulus, such as sodomy. He was very positive on this point that the murderer performed on the women from behind – in fact, per ano. At that time he could have no information, any more than myself, about the fact that the post-mortem examination revealed that semen was found up the woman’s rectum, mixed with her faeces. [I must add at this point that even if this were true it would not necessarily mean that it was the killer’s semen. For example, Kelly could well have been sodomised by a client before she was murdered by Stephenson.] Many things, which would seem trivial in writing, seemed to me to connect him with the affair – for instance, he is himself a woman hater. Although a man of powerful frame, and (according to the lines on his sallow face) of strong sexual passion. He is supposed, however, by his intimates to never touch a woman. One night, when five medicos were present, quietly discussing the subject and combating his argument that the murderer did not do these things to obtain specimens of uteri (wombs) but that – in his case – it was the lust of murder developed from sexual lust – a thing not unknown to medicos, he acted (in a way which fairly terrified those five doctors) the whole scene. He took a knife, ‘buggered’ an imaginary woman, cut her throat from behind; then when she was apparently laid prostrate, ripped and slashed her in all directions in a perfect frenzy.
Previously to this performance I had said, ‘After a man had done a thing like this, reaction would take place and he would collapse and be taken at once to the police, or would attract the attention of the bystanders by his exhausted condition?’ Dr D said, ‘No! He would recover himself when the fit was over and be as calm as a lamb. I will show you!’ Then he began his performance. At the end of it he stopped, buttoned up his coat, put on his hat, and walked down the room with the most perfect calmness. Certainly, his face was pale as death, but that was all. It was only a few days ago, after I was positively informed by the Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette that the murdered woman last operated on had been sodomised that I thought, ‘How did he know?’ His acting was the most vivid I ever saw. Henry Irving was a fool to it. Another point. He argued that the murderer did not want specimens of uteri, but grasped them and slashed them off in his madness as being the only hard substance that met his grasp, when his hands were madly plunging into the abdomen of his victims.
I may say that Dr Davies was for some time House Physician at the London Hospital Whitechapel, that he has lately taken this house in Castle St, Houndsditch; that he has lived in the locality of the murders for some years and that he professes his intention of going to Australia shortly should he not quickly make a success in his new house.
Roslyn D’O Stephenson
P.S. I have mentioned this matter to a pseudo-detective named George Marsh of 24, Pratt St., Camden Town NW, with whom I have made an agreement (enclosed herewith) to share any reward he may derive from my information.
The exact nature of the enquiries directed towards Dr Davies remains unknown.
Inspector Roots made a report in relation to the visit to Scotland Yard by Stephenson, which read:
With reference to the statement of Mr George Marsh of 24th inst., regarding the probable association of Dr Davies and Stephenson with the murders in Whitechapel. I beg to report that Dr Stephenson came here this evening and wrote the attached statement of his suspicions of Dr Morgan Davies, Castle St, Houndsditch; and also left me with his agreement with Marsh as to the reward. I attach it. When Marsh came here on 24th I was under the impression that Stephenson was a man I had known 20 years, I now find that impression was correct.
He is a travelled man of education and ability, a doctor of medicine upon diplomas of Paris and New York; a major from the Italian Army – he fought under Garibaldi; and a newspaper writer. He says that he wrote the article about Jews in the Pall Mall Gazette, that he occasionally writes for that paper, and that he offered his services to Mr Stead to track the murderer.
He showed me a letter from Mr Stead, dated 30th November 1888 about this and said that the result was that the proprietor declined to engage upon it. He has lead a Bohemian life, drinks very heavily, and always carries drugs to sober him and stave off delirium tremors. He was an applicant for the Orphanage Secretaryship at the last election.
(Note: D’Onston’s military rank in the army of Garibaldi was Surgeon Major with the rank of lieutenant. He could therefore refer to himself quite legitimately as Major Stephenson if he so wished.)
On 30 December 1888, The Sunday Times produced some of the details of the investigation that had spooked and alarmed D’Onston. As published by the Pall Mall Gazette, this story ran:
… a gentleman who has for some time been engaged in philanthropic work in the East End recently received a letter, the handwriting of which had previously attracted the attention of the Post Office authorities on account of its similarity to that of the writer of some of the letters signed ‘Jack the Ripper’. The police made inquiries, and ascertained that the writer was known to his correspondent as a person intimately acquainted with East End life, and that he was then a patient in a metropolitan hospital. It is stated that on an inquiry at the hospital it was discovered that the person sought had left without the knowledge or consent of the hospital authorities, but that he had been subsequently seen, and is now under observation. The police are of the opinion that the last five murders were a series and that the first two were independently perpetrated.
Whether D’Onston ever wrote any such letters is open to debate. We do know however, that D’Onston was arrested and taken in for questioning on two occasions. It has been suggested that his arrest took place because of the statement Marsh made accusing him of being the killer. Nothing could be further from the truth.
D’Onston would not have been arrested on the strength of the statement made by Marsh any more than Dr Davies would have been arrested on the strength of the statement made by D’Onston. No evidence exists that Dr Davies was even questioned, let alone arrested. Also D’Onston went to see Inspector Roots of his own free will. He was not taken to see him under arrest. He was, however, more than a match for the police. He was so bold that he had placed his head into the lion’s den. Inspector Roots had not known D’Onston for a period of 20 years solely because D’Onston was a criminal and always in trouble with the law. There was far more to it than that.
The only evidence to show that D’Onston ever had a ‘run in’ with the police was when he was arrested over the Whitechapel murders. He knew Roots in a professional capacity rather than a criminal one. I would be interested to know the exact method used by D’Onston to steer Marsh in the direction of his old friend Roots. Marsh could have gone to any local police station, to any policeman, but he went to a specific station to speak to a specific person who had known D’Onston for many years.
It is interesting to note that Marsh said Stephenson had told him that the killer induced his victims to go up a back street or to a room. The victims did not take the killer to the sites; he took them.
CHAPTER TWELVE
A CLASSIC CASE OF MISHANDLING BY POLICE AND PRESS
SIR ROBERT ANDERSON, Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police, CID stated that unsolved murders in London at the time were rare. In the East End of London alone, between 1888 and 1891, the following murders went unsolved.
Emma Smith. Attacked in Spitalfields, April 1888, died in hospital.
Martha Tabram. Found in George Yard Building, Whitechapel, August 1888.
Mary Ann Nichols. Found in Bucks Row, Whitechape
l, August 1888.
Annie Chapman. Found at 29, Hanbury Street, Spitalfields, September 1888.
Elizabeth Stride. Found in Berner Street, Whitechapel, September 1888.
Catherine Eddowes. Found in Mitre Square, Aldgate, September 1888.
Mary Kelly. Found in Dorset Street, Spitalfields, November 1888.
Alice ‘Clay Pipe’ McKenzie. Found in Castle Alley, Whitechapel, July 1889.
Pinchin Street torso. East End, September 1889.
Frances Coles. Found in Swallow Gardens, East End, February 1891.
Mrs Squires and her daughter. Found murdered in their shop, Hoxton,1872.
Harriet Buswell. Found murdered in her room, Great Coram Street,1872.
Mary Anne Yates. Prostitute murdered in a house at Burton Crescent, 1884.
Rachel Samuels. Found murdered in her home at Burton Crescent, 1878.
Mathilda Hacker. Her remains were found at 4, Euston Square, 1879.
Napoleon Stranger. Mysteriously disappeared from his bakery, St Lukes, 1881.
Cannon Street case. 1888.
Unknown childless woman. Found in the River Thames and Regents Canal, minus head, cut into pieces and dumped, 1887. Possibly the wife of Robert D’Onston Stephenson.
The Whitehall Mystery. The torso of a woman’s body was dumped at the building site of New Scotland Yard, 1888.
The previous list does not include all unsolved murders. Furthermore I would not like to contemplate the number of murders that went undetected. Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren stated on 15 September 1888, ‘I am convinced that the Whitechapel murder case is one which can be successfully grappled with if it is systematically taken in hand. I go so far as to say that I could myself in a few days unravel the mystery, provided I could spare the time to give undivided attention to it!.’