by Ivor Edwards
Cremers now started to investigate D’Onston by searching for incriminating evidence. He had a heavy, black-enamelled box in his room, which he kept locked. Cremers had located a key to his room in Baker Street and occasionally entered his room while he was out. The box contained some books on magic, both in English and French, and some old soiled ties. The ties drew her attention and she examined the stains on the backs of them. She did not identify the stains on them at the time but wondered why he would keep such relics under lock and key. That knowledge came later.
During a general conversation D’Onston mentioned his wife and Cremers pressed him for more information. He became agitated and began to pace the room. He stopped in front of Cremers’s desk and drew a finger across his throat. D’Onston’s apparent disregard for life, exhibited through the various stories he had related in the past, and Collins’s accusation that D’Onston was Jack the Ripper came to her mind. Collins knew he had been married, but said D’Onston had told her his wife had disappeared without a trace some years before.
After this incident, Collins went to Scarborough with the instruction that D’Onston was not to be told of her whereabouts. It was no secret that Cremers was infatuated with Collins and the resulting triangle of Collins, Cremers and D’Onston was to be used to his advantage. D’Onston told Cremers of incidents that only she and Collins would have knowledge of, leading her to understand that Collins had breached their friendship and confidence.
Cremers confronted Collins, hoping she would justify her behaviour, but Collins did not apologise or excuse herself. It was a sad time for Cremers but she felt anger towards D’Onston. She told him what she thought of him for betraying Collins when she had been so kind to him. He only smiled. She decided then and there to discover whatever she could about him.
In July 1890, the Westminster Gazette printed information on Jack the Ripper. It claimed that the police had gained advance information about the killer’s intentions. A new wave of fear was about to begin. Cremers read this and decided to mention it to D’Onston to gauge his reaction. When she did so D’Onston told her there would be no more murders. He added that he knew Jack the Ripper.
D’Onston recalled that Mabel Collins had written to him after the 9 November murder of Mary Kelly in Millers Court. He admitted that he had been living in Whitechapel at the time and that he had met Jack the Ripper while in the London Hospital.
Cremers noted that D’Onston told her how the killer had taken away the uterus of two of the victims tucked into the space between his shirt and tie, acting it out as he told her. She recalled in a flash the black tin box in his room with the stained ties. She knew then that the ‘doctor’ friend was nothing more than D’Onston’s imagination.
Cremers did attempt to find the motive but, when asked, D’Onston merely shrugged and told her she would not understand. He told Cremers he had been in for questioning on two occasions but had been released, as he was able to satisfy the authorities.
Cremers suggested that D’Onston write the story down and submit it to W. T. Stead, editor of the Pall Mall Gazette. D’Onston was extremely hesitant to do this but scribbled a few words on a sheet of paper. He left the room abruptly, taking the notes with him. Cremers had no knowledge that W. T. Stead already knew D’Onston’s tale involving ‘Dr Davies’, and that he too suspected D’Onston of being Jack the Ripper.
D’Onston told Cremers the police could not see an inch before their noses, adding that the killer was right-handed, how he selected each site beforehand for a very special reason, how he would make several journeys before deciding on the spots best suited to fit in with his scheme, how having got the victim on site he would manoeuvre to get behind them, placing his left hand over their mouth and nose and how the killer used the Whitechapel Road as a sort of base. D’Onston went on to add that the only thing the doctors got right at the inquests was the fact that the victims did not fall but appeared to have been laid down by the killer and then the mutilations were performed.
D’Onston continued his narrative of what happened at the scenes of the crimes by saying the police were looking for a man with bloodstained clothes but that by killing the women from behind their bodies offered protection.
The Pompadour Cosmetique Company partnership ended on a sour note. Collins wanted to break from D’Onston because she now knew him to be what he truly was. Unfortunately Collins had written letters to D’Onston and she wanted the letters back in her possession before she terminated her association with him. She asked Cremers to assist her in the matter of retrieving the damning evidence before she could escape D’Onston’s clutches.
In 1891, Vittoria Cremers took letters on behalf of Mabel Collins from D’Onston’s room to deter any blackmail attempt and to break the hold D’Onston had over Collins.
D’Onston was then ordered from the premises and the company was disbanded. D’Onston demanded the return of the letters, resorting to the courts. The case was quickly dismissed when D’Onston appeared to be unable to testify in court. Cremers never saw Collins again but D’Onston wrote to her asking for money. She ignored his initial attempts but others followed and she finally agreed to allow him to meet with her at her lodgings. She took the precaution of having two male acquaintances to stand by to provide protection.
D’Onston simply took the money offered him and left without further words. After returning from abroad four years later a bundle of letters awaited her from D’Onston. She resisted the urge to open them and burned the lot.
Cremers said she did not go to the police because she was a Theosophist and believed that whatever is done in this life is rewarded or punished in the next. She clearly believed it was not up to any human being to interfere with another’s destiny. She also indicated that D’Onston had assured her there would be no more murders after 9 November 1888. Since she believed he was the murderer he would know that no further harm would come to members of the public.
When Vittoria Cremers died in 1936 she did not know D’Onston’s real name and background. She would never know how important her memoirs were to those interested in discovering the man known to history as Jack the Ripper.
D’Onston had now shot his bolt. He was disillusioned and a shadow of his former self. He had not obtained the power he had sought through his gross acts of murder. He had placed his life on the line for nothing. More to the point he had perpetrated a reign of terror by murdering five prostitutes needlessly, all to no avail.
He was involved with the occult from an early age for he was always fond of everything pertaining to mysticism, astrology and other occult sciences. He admitted reading every book or story he could get hold of having any relation to these subjects. In fact, D’Onston had much in common with Rasputin for both set out to gain power by controlling people and events by the use of devious means, including hypnotism. D’Onston recalled an encounter at the age of 14, when he practised hypnotism on his friends and his younger cousin. The incident with his cousin ended with the boy walking in his sleep, forcing D’Onston to stop his activities.
During the 1890s D’Onston wrote a book entitled The Patristic Gospels. It was published by Grant Richards in 1904. Richards stated that D’Onston was an odd, calm man, who would sit silently until he could be seen. Richards went on to say that he felt D’Onston was a pseudonym. It was soon after this event that D’Onston vanished without trace. A record of his death has yet to be found.
In relation to how many people D’Onston actually murdered we will never know but by his own admission he was responsible for more than the five Whitechapel victims. Prostitutes played a major role throughout D’Onston’s life from the time of his youth in Hull through middle-age until his disappearance. It was a reformed prostitute who played a major part in D’Onston’s later years.
Victoria Woodhull and her sister Tennie (Tennessee) were the most notorious harlots in the US. Victoria was known as Mrs Satan. The two women serviced men who attended their seances, one of which was Cornelius Vanderbilt. His f
riendship brought them wealth and fame. They started the Woodhull & Caflins Weekly, a radical feminist crusading newspaper.
The Woodhulls started a political organisation, which affiliated with the First International. In line with this new commitment, their paper published the first English translation of Karl Marx’s ‘Communist Manifesto’. Victoria ran for president of the US, sparked off the Ward Beecher scandal, went to prison on pornography charges and then found religion. After Vanderbilt’s death, Victoria came to Britain and toured as an evangelist, preaching her new slant on Christianity.
At one of her rallies she captivated Roslyn D’Onston. At the time D’Onston was in a suicidal mood, and in January 1893 he said, ‘None of these quack remedies (Spiritualism, Socialism, Theosophy) will ever avail to save the body politic, or to elevate the soul of man; we turn from them all weary, heartsick and disappointed with the haunting doubt hissing in our ears, “Is life worth living?”
‘A calm serene and silver voice, having within it the thrill of ecstatic triumph, answers us “yes!” We turn and see before us the apostle and prophetess of the new faith – the new cult of ‘Womanhood’… a new and sublime interpretation of Christian morality … which shall purify and elevate all mankind … in the fullest harmony with the divinely reviled religion of the Bible.’
D’Onston faded from the stage of life while still associating with prostitutes. I often wonder if he murdered other harlots in Brighton, Paris or any other prostitute haunts he frequented all over the world.
The evidence of Roots, Marsh, Stead, Collins and Cremers and the letters and comments of D’Onston cannot be ignored. Such people as these were in a far better position to judge D’Onston at the time than any of his critics today. Inter-Ripper rivalry which exists will undoubtedly do nothing for my work. It is not felt to be in the interests of many considered ‘experts’ to contradict their past opinions.
We know that four of the five individuals named above thought D’Onston was the Ripper, however, we do not know what Roots believed. When all the true facts are taken into consideration a very strong case emerges against D’Onston. Above all else, D’Onston was arrested at least twice for the murders, which is more than can be said for 98 per cent of the accepted list of suspects ranging from James Maybrick and Lewis Carroll to Queen Victoria.
Such suspects give an insight into the quality of research undertaken by the blind who continuously lead the blind. The subject has become more confused with the passage of time as more and more suspects get heaped on to the pile as every year passes. If D’Onston is not to be seriously considered as a top suspect now then no one should be termed a likely suspect.
The Usual Suspects
A great deal of attention has been focused on the identity of the killer. In fact the first question I get asked by most people is ‘Who was he?’ rather than ‘Why did he do it?’ Most researchers and authors and members of the general public have not been interested in how and why the murders were committed; they have been far more interested and preoccupied in looking at the list of suspects and choosing a likely culprit from the list. The legacy accumulated since 1888 is one of dozens of lovely suspects all with stories woven around them.
I have researched various Ripper suspects and it can be proven that some were not in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. In fact there is no evidence against many of them to start with. There is no need for so many suspects to exist but it does give one an insight into the fact that anyone can nominate a suspect with little or no grounds for doing so.
Montague Druitt (1857–88), for example, has been placed as a suspect on the slightest of evidence. He committed suicide after the last murder and was pulled from the Thames on 31 December. He left a note explaining that because he felt that he was going to be like his mother (insane) it would be best for all concerned if he were to die. It was alleged (but never proven) by Sir Melville Macnaughton, Assistant Chief Constable, CID, Scotland Yard, that Druitt’s own family thought he was the Ripper. Such then is the evidence to suggest Druitt was the killer.
Neill Cream (1850–92) is another example. Dr Cream poisoned four prostitutes between 1891 and 1892 and was convicted of the murders. It was alleged that while on the trap of the scaffold he was heard to say, ‘I am Jack the …’ before being launched into eternity. It has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that Cream was in prison in the United States in 1888.
It is beyond all logic that such suspects exist. Such facts only serve as an example to give an insight into the pitiful and prevailing circumstances which surround the case. We can be thankful that we do not have the names of every crank, publicity seeker and attention seeker who admitted committing the murders at the time otherwise we would also have them to contend with.
Ripper suspect Maybrick is the result of a hoax and no credence should be given to Maybrick as Jack the Ripper.
Aaron Kosminski (1864/65–1919) was a lunatic and was incarcerated as such. Author Paul Begg believes that Israel Schwartz might have been Anderson’s witness, and might have seen Kosminski killing Stride though he did not kill the other Ripper victims.
I agree with this theory with one exception. Although Kosminski possibly attacked Stride, he did not kill her. This was achieved by the man seen in the doorway. The name Kosminski is quite legitimate to be placed in the suspects list because it is possible that he attacked Stride. The Royal Conspiracy is yet another hoax and nothing more than a con trick which deserves even less comment.
Unfortunately the subject has become the target for con men/women because it is such a soft target. This is partly due to the gullibility of some experts on the subject who do not have the ability to see a confidence trick when faced with one. The greatest crime was that when certain experts did see a ‘con’ when faced with one they were either ignored or not believed by the gullible when they gave their opinions based on fact.
Dr Thomas Bond, who was involved in the case, gave a profile of the killer. Profiling can be a very hit and miss affair and while Bond made misses he also made some hits. He wrote:
The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man, probably middle-aged and neatly and respectably dressed. Assuming the murderer to be such a person as I have just described he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits. Also, he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable persons who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times. Such persons would probably be unwilling to communicate suspicions to the police for fear of trouble or notoriety, whereas if there were a prospect of reward it might overcome their scruples.
Comparing D’Onston with this profile shows incredible similarities. D’Onston was a man of strength; he was cool and daring. He was not ‘right in the head’. He was middle-aged, inoffensive looking, neatly and respectably dressed, was solitary and eccentric in his habits. He was living among respectable persons at the time of the murders. People who were known to this man suspected him of the killings. One did not reveal their suspicions to the police out of fear, the other (George Marsh) went to claim the reward.
We will never know the actual number of his victims beyond the Whitechapel murders or the flights of fancy that goaded him. The death of Anne Deary I certainly attribute to D’Onston. The premature death of Edmund Gurney (1847–88) has always had a question mark at the end of it. Could it possibly be attributed to D’Onston?
Did D’Onston Kill Gurney?
Gurney was the son of a clergyman and went to Trinity College, Cambridge. He obtained his fellowship in 1872. He was a member of musical, artistic and philosophical groups. His friends included Maitland and Pollock, two renowned authorities on English law. Gurney had a reputation as being a man of great energy and pe
rsistence. He was honorary secretary for the Society of Psychical Research who investigated phenomena and fraudsters.
He investigated Blavatsky and became a very painful thorn in her side. D’Onston was far more than just an acquaintance of Blavatsky’s. They had a lot in common. Both had fought under Garibaldi; both were sexual deviants; both were involved in the occult, etc. Gurney was rocking the boat and in a position to sink it. In fact Gurney became a threat to Blavatsky and those closely associated to her.
It is known that D’Onston knew Blavatsky after the death of Gurney, but it remains unknown if he knew Blavatsky prior to Gurney’s death. While in London during June 1888 Gurney received a letter from an unknown source and left for Brighton booking into The Royal Albion Hotel at the seafront near the Palace Pier. Although Gurney was to die in the hotel sometime after 10pm on 22 June, he was not found until 2pm on 23 June. He apparently overdosed on chloroform.
More to the point the hotel was only several minutes walk from D’Onston’s address at The Cricketers Inn. Of all the hotels, in all of the land, Gurney chose one that was only a stone’s throw away from D’Onston’s address. It is interesting that D’Onston left for Whitechapel to commence on his five planned murders the day after the inquest verdict on Gurney was given.
Did he stay in Brighton of his own accord until the inquest verdict was given thus waiting for the all clear? Or was he asked not to leave Brighton until the inquest verdict was announced? Or was it all a coincidence? Jeffrey Bloomfield, who is a most intrepid investigator, wrote the following:
THE END OF MR GURNEY
by Jeffrey Bloomfield
Brighton has had its seasons of scandal and rumour. This was especially true in the late 19th century. In 1871, Christiana Edmunds caused a panic, and committed one murder, by spreading poisoned candies throughout the town. She ended up in a criminal asylum for the insane. In 1881, a dishevelled young man left the train at nearby Preston Park, with a story about an attack on himself and an elderly man on the train he had come in on. Eventually, the young man, one Percy Lefroy, was tried for the murder of the elderly man and would be executed. And then, in June 1888, came the death of Mr Edmund Gurney at the old Royal Albion Hotel … and the recurring question of what exactly happened to him.