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

by Ivor Edwards

  At a later date, Anderson stated that he had spent a day and a half examining the evidence, which proved correct in every respect. This man gave the impression that he knew who the killer was. Then on 23 October 1888 Anderson wrote to the Home Office, ‘That five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary if not unique in the annals of crime.’

  Note how this man has fallen into the old trap by stating in this letter that there had been five murders to date, 23 October 1888, when in fact there were only four murders up to this date. One recommendation made by this man was to arrest every prostitute found on the streets after midnight! This remark in itself should have set the alarm bells ringing. He then went on to state of the killer, ‘In saying that he was a Polish Jew, I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact.’ This man’s idea of the facts invites scrutiny.

  When Anderson related to the murders, he made the most elementary mistakes. He confused witness information by putting the wrong witnesses on site and he would put one situation from one site on to another. Sir Charles Warren was just as bad in many respects. They knew very little when it came to crime and criminal methods. They knew far less when it came to the criminal mind. I have rarely seen so many conflicting statements by men of such so-called stature. The pair should have been released from the police force for aiding and abetting the killer, because between them they destroyed vital evidence, told blatant untruths and had little or no understanding of the true situation.

  Sir Charles Warren consistently made great mistakes. His judgement came into question in Africa during the Boer War where he was involved in a ‘lions led by donkeys disaster’. He failed in his duty to silence Boer artillery bombarding British troops. From a force of over 1,700 men, 1,500 were killed or wounded. This action eventually led to a British retreat.

  The rantings of Warren in respect of what he thought he could achieve and his policing and military incompetence stand to remind me of Captain William J. Fetterman, US Army. This officer tempted fate by stating that he ‘could ride through the Sioux nation with 80 men’. Unfortunately for Fetterman he spoke too loudly. The Great Planner himself must have heard Fetterman’s utterings for his ‘dream’ was soon turned into reality when fate took a hand.

  Fetterman found himself with the desired number of men he required (exactly 80) when he decided to put his plan to the test on 21 December 1866, near Fort Phil Kearny. He attacked a band of Sioux put at 1,000–2,000 strong. Suffice to say, not one man survived. The 80 men were scalped and mutilated. Ears, noses, fingers, hands and other body parts were severed. Eyes were gouged out, brains bashed out and entrails torn from the bodies and placed on rocks. The mutilations were due to the superstitious religious beliefs held by the tribes that the enemy soldiers would remain helpless in the spirit world and would therefore be unable to seek retribution.

  As to the press, when one compares the Victorian press of the Ripper’s day to the tabloids of today one can clearly see that certain aspects have not changed. In fact it could be said they have worsened. A certain reporting mentality existed which has now grown out of all reasonable control. The murder of James Bulger is one such example of reporting for sensationalism purposes. James was abducted by John Venables and Robert Thompson from a shopping mall in Liverpool.

  The nature of the crime enraged the British public. But the press, not content with the public outcry, added fuel to the fire by printing unjust and outrageous lies about the actions perpetrated on young James by Venables and Thompson. Those members of the press, lacking in morals, who were responsible for such blatant lies in their propaganda campaign, should themselves have faced court under the Public Order Act for causing further distress, suffering and pain to the relations of the poor hapless victim.

  The tabloids of 1888 have much to answer for, because sensationalism overcame scruples. An assortment of underhand tricks were employed by many journalists to fan the fire and blow the case out of all proportion to push up sales. Sheer mischief also contributed to the situation. According to the police, hoax letters were sent by members of the press.

  The Dear Boss letter, one of the most famous of these correspondences, sent to the Central News Agency on 27 September 1888, from London, is still under debate today! The envelope was addressed to: The Boss, Central News Office, London City, and was postmarked SP 27 88 and posted in London EC. The letter itself was headed with the date 25 Sept, 1888.

  Tom Bullen, of Central News Limited, sent the letter to the police on 29 September. The Assistant Commissioner Metropolitan Police CID Sir Robert Anderson wrote that the Dear Boss letter was the work of a reporter whom he could identify. The only police officer known to have named the writer was Chief Inspector John George Littlechild of the Special Branch. He named Tom Bullen as the perpetrator of the hoax. In the Littlechild letter (dealt with later) he wrote:

  With regard to the term ‘Jack the Ripper’ it was generally believed at the Yard that Tom Bullen of the Central News was the originator but it is probable Moore, who was his who chief, who was the inventor.

  It was a smart piece of journalistic work. No journalist of my time got such privileges from Scotland Yard as Bullen.

  The press were on to a good thing and they milked it for all it was worth. Even my suspect was writing articles on the murders in his own name for the Pall Mall Gazette and was paid in the process. He explained the motive for the missing body organs, the meaning of the Goulston Street graffito and much more. The known mail that he wrote to both police and press during the murders was sent under his own name.

  There is no evidence to date which conclusively proves that the killer sent a single letter signed Jack the Ripper. Anderson stated that he could identify the journalist who wrote the Dear Boss letter but refused to do so. Apparently there was a law for one class and a law for another. A poor young woman was prosecuted for sending such a letter. Yet the police, having knowledge of a crime committed by a journalist, swept the facts under the carpet and refused to identify the sender.

  I find it intolerable that such men as Anderson were content to let these matters go unchecked. We know that such hoaxes can have a devastating effect on any murder inquiry. The case of Sutcliffe is only one such example.

  In relation to Jack, I have never known a murder case on which more money, manpower and effort has been expended with no result for a period exceeding 100 years. Another thing that surprises me is the amazement shown at the time by the police that the killer was able to do his work undisturbed, free of any inconvenience, after all the precautions they had taken to make it appear otherwise. They could not believe that they let this man slip through their clutches.

  The term ‘invisible killer’ was being coined yet the true explanation of the situation could not be simpler. He knew what steps were being taken to catch him, therefore he made his plans accordingly. For every move produced to catch him he produced a counter move. He must have known that to be seen with a woman after midnight would invite police scrutiny. He simply overcame this problem by not being seen by police with the women.

  The fact of the matter is no one can say for certain if Jack the Ripper was ever seen with a victim. The men seen with the victims were no more than suspects. The man seen by Lawende and company at Mitre Square could have just been leaving the scene after being serviced by Eddowes. Jack could have been waiting in the shadows. I concede that while it remains possible that the man seen with Eddowes was her killer it is not conclusive that he was.

  It is absolutely absurd and ridiculous that so many suspects exist. It comes as no surprise that this case was never solved with so many suspects. Many of the suspects named weren’t even in Whitechapel when the murders were committed. So much rubbish has been accumulated that it has obliterated the true situation.

  Even today investigations of serial killers can prove to be just as negative as they were in 1888. Many lessons exist which are still to be learned.

  If Jack the Ri
pper had been caught, then we may not have had so many copycat killings of prostitutes. It is a case of ‘If he could do it and get away with it and make a name for himself in the process, then so can I.’ Some serial killers have admitted to seeking notoriety as a motive for their actions. Even the Yorkshire Ripper was influenced to a certain degree by Jack the Ripper.

  While viewing mug shots on a murder hunt, one officer stated to another, ‘Look at him, he looks like a killer.’ Any individual who follows such a doctrine should give up detective work and seek other employment. A killer looks like anyone else on the street. Many survivors of serial killer attacks report that they did not think the attacker looked like a killer. This error makes them drop their guard.

  Perhaps someone can inform me what a killer is supposed to look like. I have met and conversed with dozens of killers, including many serial killers, and I have never seen a killer who looked like a stereotypical killer. A serial killer’s problem is in his brain and not his appearance. I have however seen one or two with very peculiar (dodgy) eyes, which unsettled me.

  In the case of the Yorkshire Ripper, hoax letters and a tape were received purporting to have come from the killer. No evidence existed on the tape to prove that the voice was that of the killer. It was only assumed it was. Yet this mistake was to cost more lives and many more incorrect assumptions were to take place before the killer was apprehended by chance.

  This particular case is worth reading up on if only to know how not to investigate a series of murders. The hoaxer who sent the tape phoned the police to explain that the tape was a hoax. No credence was given to the call by those in charge of the inquiry. The number of mistakes made in this particular case are wholly unacceptable. The nature of the mistakes is beyond comprehension. The list is endless.

  A book could be written about the number of mistakes made and their ramifications which cost innocent lives. One excuse put forward by an officer on the case was, ‘we are only human we all make mistakes’. Making a mistake is one thing but being consistent in persisting to make them when lives are on the line is quite another matter.

  Sutcliffe and Jack the Ripper did not kill in a blind frenzy. They were in control of the situation and thought of the next move they were going to make. They placed items on the crime scene in a deliberate fashion and worked in a cool and deliberate manner. These killers enjoyed their killing spree and looked upon it as a game.

  The motive put forward by Sutcliffe, that ‘God told me to do it’ was a load of rubbish; he was simply trying to be sectioned off as insane. This, in turn, would mean that he would serve his time in a ‘comfortable hospital’ rather than under threat in prison. Sutcliffe knew that if sent to prison it would be in his interest to be segregated under Rule 43 for his own protection.

  Paedophiles and men such as Sutcliffe are considered by the majority of criminals in prison as ‘jail bait’ and are seen as no more than targets to be attacked. In fact, Sutcliffe was attacked in custody and lost an eye. Eventually he obtained his objective by manipulating incompetent and naive people and was sent to Broadmoor. It was not in his interests to tell the truth for he would not wish others to know how inadequate he really was.

  If Jack the Ripper had been caught, his excuse would probably have been, ‘God told me to do it’. He would never have given the true reasons which lay behind his actions. The simple and prolific mistakes made by the police investigating Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, stand to remind us that there are always lessons to be learned.

  CHAPTER THIRTEEN

  THE REAL STORY OF JACK THE RIPPER

  Cast of players in the drama of 1888

  Dr Robert Donston Stephenson, alias Roslyn D’Onston

  Jack of all trades, murder being but one.

  Mabel Collins

  D’Onston’s mistress and business partner, spiritualist medium, writer. This woman had as many secrets to hide as D’Onston. Believed D’Onston to be Jack the Ripper.

  Baroness Vittoria Cremers

  Collins’s friend and business partner, Theosophist, infatuated by Collins. Believed D’Onston to be Jack the Ripper.

  W. T. Stead

  Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette. Considered by some to be the greatest man on board R.M.S. Titanic when it sank. Believed D’Onston to be Jack the Ripper.

  Bulwer Lytton

  Founder of the Lodge of Alexandria and writer. Taught D’Onston tenets of black magic. Initiated D’Onston into the Lodge of Alexandria which was not a Masonic lodge.

  George Marsh

  Unemployed at time of murders, D’Onston’s dupe who had dreams of becoming a private detective. Referred to Roots by D’Onston for statement. Believed D’Onston to be the Ripper.

  Inspector J. Roots

  Scotland Yard, knew D’Onston for 20 years, took Marsh’s testimony naming D’Onston as Jack the Ripper.

  Madame Helena Blavatsky

  Theosophical Society head, writer, friend of Collins, Cremers and D’Onston. Subject of fraud investigation by Edmund Gurney.

  On 3 January 1889, Stead published a piece on black magic written by D’Onston for the Pall Mall Gazette. It concerned the magical cults of the West Coast of Africa. In January 1889 D’Onston’s father died and showed his utter contempt for his son by leaving him nothing. Then, on 15 February, Stead commissioned a second piece in which D’Onston admitted to the murder of a woman witch-doctor in the Cameroons.

  On Monday, 13 May 1889, D’Onston was admitted into the London Hospital seriously ill with a bout of ‘Chloralism’. At this moment in time he was living in Burdett Road at the headquarters of the London Cottage Mission. Whether this was a suicide attempt or an accident is not known. It was during this second stay at the hospital that he was contacted by Mabel Collins.

  Chloralism is a paralysing condition caused by over-indulgence of Chloral Hydrate (‘Mickey Finn’). Overdoses can cause coma, cardiac failure, delirium and hallucinations. We know that D’Onston (according to the evidence from Marsh and Roots) fasted, was a heavy drinker and took drugs to sober him and stave off delirium tremens. These facts alone show that D’Onston was not in a normal state of mind.

  During this period in his life D’Onston was in fact very ill. He was to spend 74 days in the London Hospital in Whitechapel, his main lair during the Whitechapel murders of 1888. It was during this period that he wrote his piece on African Magic and it was due to the publishing of this piece that Mabel Collins wrote to him at the hospital.

  On his discharge the two became confidantes and lovers. W. T. Stead had been known to D’Onston for many years and he had published many of his articles. In 1896, Stead published more articles by D’Onston and then made the most amazing statement about the man:

  He has been known to me for many years. He is one of the most remarkable persons I have ever met. For more than a year I was under the impression that he was the veritable Jack the Ripper; an impression that I believe was shared by the police, who at least once had him under arrest; although, as he completely satisfied them, they liberated him without bringing him to court.

  D’Onston knew too much and he could not keep his mouth shut. His ego got the better of him. He stated that the killer planned the murders in advance on a map, picked the sites in advance and then checked them out on foot. He stated that the killer used the Whitechapel Road as a sort of base. He went on to add that sacred emblems were profaned in the process of committing the murders. Everything this man stated about the planning and execution of the murders was true, because all of these facts and much more show up in my material.

  It would appear that many who knew this man believed him to be the killer. He was out to impress, was self-opinionated and very dangerous. He was the only man who ever gave the true meaning about the Goulston Street graffito. He was the only man, in fact, to give many true fine details of the five murders. He knew why and he knew how, and most important of all he knew who.

  It is worth noting that D’Onston had a history of associating with prostitutes fro
m his youth in the red light district in the Port of Hull to his days in the Port of London. D’Onston contracted VD from a prostitute in Hull while he was a customs officer and it was while he was off sick with this complaint that he was shot in the thigh on board a boat while shooting seabirds. D’Onston’s associate on this expedition was a known smuggler named Thomas Piles.

  Two questions arise from the shooting incident. What was D’Onston doing in the company of a smuggler? Was the shooting a genuine accident or a bungled attempt at murder? On return to work in 1868, he was sacked. The official customs report on his condition states, ‘There is little or no doubt that the illness from which he is now suffering is the result of the discreditable life he leads.’ The official wording of his dismissal was ‘Struck off the establishment’.

  It was soon after this affair that he moved to London. He applied for the Government Post ‘Orphanage Secretaryship’ without success. D’Onston now had a motive to hate both prostitutes and the establishment. He planned to advance himself in the world of the occult, and in so doing could kill two birds with one stone. He could wreak his revenge on prostitutes and the establishment at the same time.

  D’Onston’s Interest in the Occult Deepens

  D’Onston’s hero was the great Magist Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton. After a chance meeting in Paris during 1859 he met his great hero’s son. It was now only a matter of time before D’Onston met with his hero. The pair were to meet in London during the spring. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was moving in the same Theosophical, occult and Masonic circles and may well have known D’Onston.