An 1894 memorandum written by Sir Melville Macnaghten, the Assistant Chief Constable of the London Metropolitan Police, stated that there were strong reasons for suspecting “Kosminski” because he
“had a great hatred of women … with strong homicidal tendencies”
Assistant Commissioner Sir Robert Anderson claimed that the Ripper had been identified by the
“only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer”,
but that no prosecution was possible because both the witness and the culprit were Jews and Jews were not willing to offer testimony against fellow Jews.
In 1910, Assistant Commissioner Sir Robert Anderson claimed in his memoirs The Lighter Side of My Official Life that the Ripper was a “low-class Polish Jew”. Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, who led the Ripper investigation, named the man as “Kosminski” in notes handwritten in the margin of his presentation copy of Anderson’s memoirs.
On 12 July 1890, Kosminski was placed in Mile End Old Town workhouse due to his worsening mental illness, with his brother Woolf certifying the entry, and was released three days later. On 4 February 1891, he was returned to the workhouse, possibly by the police, and on 7 February, he was transferred to Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum.
Kosminski’s was described as harmless in the asylum. However, a witness to the certification of his entry into the asylum, recorded as Jacob Cohen, gave background information and stated that Kosminski had threatened his sister with a knife. It is unclear whether this meant Kosminski’s sister or Cohen’s.
- The 1894 memorandum written by Sir Melville Macnaghten, Assistant Chief Constable of the London Metropolitan Police, naming “Kosminski” as one of three suspects in the Jack the Ripper case. The other two suspects he named were Montague Druitt and Michael Ostrog.
Prince Albert Victor
Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward (known as “Eddy” to his friends) is one of the most famous suspects in the Jack the Ripper case, figuring in no less than three major theories. Over the years, different versions of his personality, mental stability, and manner of death have appeared.
He had a reputation for being a ‘ladies man’ and was rumoured to have been a party to many a scandal that was hushed up by the Palace.
By most reports, Eddy was a “slow” child and grew up to be a rather dull adult.
“Even his nearest and dearest, who were naturally bent on making the best of poor Prince Eddy, could not bring themselves to use more positive terms. Prince Eddy was certainly dear and good, kind and considerate. He was also backward and utterly listless. He was self-indulgent and not punctual. He had been given no proper education, and as a result he was interested in nothing. He was as heedless and as aimless as a gleaming gold-fish in a crystal bowl.”
During the time of the Ripper murders, there were no actual theories presented linking Eddy to the crimes. Those would come much later after many of the principal characters in the theories were dead. It would not be until 1962 when the first theory regarding Eddy’s involvement in the murders became known.
Stowell argues that the Ripper’s skill at dissection was obtained through Eddy’s experience at “dressing deer”. A far leap in logic.
Examination of court and Royal records reveal that Eddy was not even in London on the important murder dates.
The Royal Conspiracy theory first appeared in 1973 in the BBC programme, Jack the Ripper. In it, fictional detectives Barlow and Watt finally solve the Ripper mystery through a series of conspiracies and cover-ups. The story goes that the producers of the program, in doing research, were told to contact a man named Sickert who knew about a secret marriage between Eddy and a poor Catholic girl named Alice Mary Crook. Sickert painted a strange story involving Eddy, Lord Salisbury, Sir Robert Anderson, Sir William Gull, and even Queen Victoria herself!
According to Stowell, Eddy was suffering from syphilis, contracted during a shore party in the West Indies, and that this infection drove Eddy insane and compelled him to commit the murders. In this theory, the Royal Family knew that Eddy was the murderer “definitely … after the second murder, and possibly even after the first” (Rumbelow, p 196). Eddy’s doctor in this matter was supposedly Sir William Gull who informed Bertie that his son was dying of syphilitic infection. Apparently no attempt was made to restrain Eddy until after the Double Event when he was bundled away in restraints to a private mental hospital. Eddy then escaped to carry out the Kelly murder after which he was again locked away and died, not of flu in 1892 as claimed, but of “softening of the brain” in a private mental hospital in Sandringham. Stowell goes on to include Eddy’s resemblance to Druitt and the eye-witness accounts of the Ripper as proof positive. While a neat and tidy theory, later Ripperologists have poked several effective holes through it.
The Knight theory, though interesting and entertaining in its own way, has been effectively debunked by many Ripperologists. Most notable was Rumbelow’s refutation in his revised edition of Jack the Ripper: The Complete Casebook where Rumbelow provides evidence that Annie lived longer than Knight claims.
In the end, it is difficult to consider Eddy a serious suspect. Although rumored, there is no concrete evidence that Eddy had mental problems (either through syphilis or any other reason), he is reported being out of the country during the murders, and no solid evidence has been produced that links Eddy to sexual relationships with either James Stephen or Annie Crook. Despite these facts, it appears likely that (outside of serious Ripper circles) the theory of Eddy’s involvement in the murders in some way will never completely fade.
H. H. Holmes
Convicted serial killer in the United States.
Holmes had a medical education and it was reported that he enjoyed dissecting cadavers. He also carried around a medical bag, and the knife used in the Ripper murders was believed to have been that of a surgeons.
There are passenger manifests in 1888 from New York to Liverpool, with both the Holmes surname but also one of the alias that he used.
Ripper style killings took place during the Worlds Fair and also stopped once Holmes and the Fair moved on.
Holmes’ method of killing was very similar to the Ripper, he would strangle or make his victims unconscious before he killed them.
One newspaper claimed that he shouted that he was Jack the Ripper just as he was executed.
Holmes had already been on a massive killing spree. He had built a hotel known as the ‘Murder Castle.’ which he had designed to lure people in and would allow him to kill them in a maze of rooms. Each holding different ways of killing the person and most were sound proofed. He had kept detailed records of his work, however, there is a substantial gap between July 1888 and April 1889.
The Ripper letter’s have been tested by forensic linguists and have shown strong usage of American slang such as ‘Right away’ or ‘Boss’ some handwriting analysis has also shown the letters to have some similarities to Holmes, such as the way the word ‘me’ was written.
Scotland Yard did send police to New York as well as communicating with police to follow suspects coming over to the United States. Scotland Yard was also sent to help with the investigation into Carrie Brown.
Victim: Carrie Brown, New York, Sex worker, died in 1891. She was found only a few blocks away from Holmes’ apartment.
A friend described Carrie companion as:
About 32 years of age.
Five feet, eight inches tall.
Long, sharp nose.
Heavy moustache of light color.
Foreign in appearance, possibly German.
Dark-brown cutaway coat.
Old black derby hat with dented crown.
Carrie’s body was discovered in the room of the East River Hotel on the Manhattan waterfront of New York, U.S.A., on the night of April 23-24, 1891.
Her body was mutilated, and she had been strangled. The details of the autopsy were played down a great deal by the press. The doctor who performed the autopsy, named Jenkins, is said to have thought that the killer had attempted to completely gut his victim. The cut was from her legs up to her chest. Her intestines had been removed, which was done with a broken table lamp.
James Maybrick was a well known cotton merchant in Liverpool. The mysterious emergence of the so-called Maybrick journal in 1992 however, immediately thrust him to the forefront of credible Ripper suspects. Regardless of the Diary’s authenticity, the story of James Maybrick is remarkable in its own right. Convicted of his murder in 1889, Maybrick’s wife was sentenced to be hanged. The trial, by any standard, was a horrible travesty of justice. Within two years, the trial’s presiding judge died in an insane asylum. Fifteen years later, Florence Elizabeth Maybrick was finally released from prison. Here is the remarkable story.
In 1887 Florie discovered there was another woman in her husband’s life, perhaps Sarah Ann Robertson, the original “Mrs. Maybrick.” Later that same year, Florie met Alfred Brierly, a cotton broker, with whom she also had an affair. By this time, the couple had probably moved to separate beds, and the first Ripper murder was less than nine months away.
James maintained his gloomy disposition, hypochondria and hot temper. Violence erupted on the night of March 29, 1989, which resulted in a black eye for Florie. About a month later on April 24th, Florie purchased a dozen fly papers, something she would no doubt regret for the rest of her life. Also on that same day, James obtained another one of his prescriptions as his heath continued to fail. More “medicine” arrived by package on the 26th, and the following day James Maybrick was seriously ill, apparently from an overdose of these substances.
From this point on, James Maybrick never regained his health. After seeing his doctor on May 3rd, he visited his office for the last time. Assuming the Diary is authentic, this would probably have been the time he made the final entry, which is dated that same day.
The trial was presided by Mr. Justice Fitzjames Stephen, father of J.K. Stephen, a Ripper suspect in his own right. By any standard, was a horrible travesty of justice. The evidence was based on suspicion, rumor and innuendo. Testimony was later recanted and crucial evidence favoring Florie either disappeared or remained unheard by the jury Surprisingly, James Maybrick’s arsenic addiction was never introduced during the trial, and a blatantly biased Judge Justice Stephen repeatedly made inflammatory statements against the defendant.
Another story relating to the diary’s provenance is that workmen found it under floorboards that had been lifted for the first time in over a century at Battlecrease House, Maybrick’s old home. Whatever the true origins of the diary may be makes little difference, for it is littered with errors. The writer of the diary claims to have placed Mary Kelly’s body parts around the room, left farthings at Annie Chapman’s feet and attempted to remove Mary Ann Nichols head, all these claims are false, and the inaccuracies within the diary are almost endless. If the fake diary was not enough to contend with, a ladies 18 caret gold watch, supposedly owned by James Maybrick, conveniently appeared. the watch had the words, I am Jack – J. Maybrick, and the initials of his five victims scratched upon it, I am still waiting with anticipation for the appearance of Maybrick’s Gladstone bag. The fact is without the diary Maybrick would not be a Ripper suspect, he did not fit any of the eyewitness descriptions, his known hand writing does not match the writing in the diary, his health did not begin to fail until 1889, so there is no explanation as to why the murders suddenly ceased. The diary of Jack the Ripper has unfortunately become like the Royal Masonic Conspiracy Theory, a red herring for researchers attempting to uncover the true identity of Jack the Ripper.
Tumblety chose to leave the U.S. for London in the late 1860s.
New York City’s Chief Inspector Byrnes soon discovered Tumblety was lodging at 79 East Tenth Street at the home of Mrs McNamara, and he had him under surveillance for some days following. Byrnes could not arrest Tumblety because, in his own words,
‘there is no proof of his complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and the crime for which he was under bond in London is not extraditable.’
Our first impressions of the young Francis begin around 1848, when neighbors and acquaintances thought him ‘a dirty, awkward, ignorant, uncared-for, good-for-nothing boy… utterly devoid of education.’ He was also known to peddle pornographic literature on the canal boats of Rochester. Sometime in adolescence he also began working at a small drug store run by a Dr. Lispenard, said to have
‘carried on a medical business of a disreputable kind (Rochester Democrat and Republican, Dec.3, 1888).’
He next turns up in Montreal in the fall of 1857, where he again made himself known as a prominent physician. Tumblety was arrested on September 23, 1857 for attempting to abort the pregnancy of a local prostitute named Philomene Dumas. It was alleged that he sold her a bottle of pills and liquid for the purpose, but after some legal haggling Tumblety was released on October 1. A verdict of ‘no true bill’ was reached on the 24th and no trial was ever undertaken.
Tumblety was then charged on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders on the 12th (suggested he was free to kill Kelly between the 7th and 12th). Tumblety was bailed on November 16th. A hearing was held on November 20th at the Old Bailey, and the trial postponed until December 10th. Tumblety then fled to France under the alias ‘Frank Townsend’ on the 24th, and from there took the steamer La Bretagne to New York City.
Still, there are many opponents who believe Tumblety’s status as ‘Scotland Yard’s top suspect’ is poorly deserved. They make note of the fact that Tumblety’s homosexuality would rule him out as a suspect, as homosexual serial killers are concerned singularly with male victims and would be uninterested in female prostitutes.
Evans and Gainey outline fifteen reasons why they believe Tumblety should be considered a top suspect in the Whitechapel murders:
1.Tumblety fits many requirements of what we now know as the ‘serial killer profile.’ He had a supposed hatred of women and prostitutes (the abortion with the prostitute Dumas, his alleged failed marriage to an ex-prostitute, his collection of uteri, etc.)
2.Tumblety was in London at the time and may indeed have been the infamous ‘Batty Street Lodger’ — he therefore may have had fair knowledge of the East End environs.
3.Tumblety may have had some anatomical knowledge, as inferred by his collection of wombs, his ‘medical’ practice, and his short-term work with Dr. Lispenard in Rochester.
4.He was arrested in the midst of the Autumn of Terror on suspicion of having committed the murders.
5.There were no more murders after he fleed England on the 24th November, if one counts only the canonical five murders.
6.Chief Inspector Littlechild, a top name in Scotland Yard, believed him a ‘very likely suspect,’ and he was not alone in his convictions.
7.Tumblety was fond of using aliases, disappearing without a trace, and was the subject of police enquiries before his arrest.
8.Scotland Yard and the American police had been in touch numerous times concerning Tumblety’s flight from France to New York.
9.One of the three detectives inspectors assigned to the case was sent to New York at the same time, perhaps to pursue Tumblety.
10.Tumblety evaded capture in New York City once again.
11.Tumblety had the wealth necessary for frequent travel and could afford to change his clothes frequently should they have become bloodstained.
12.He was an eccentric; but shrewd.
13.He had a tendency toward violence at times, and his career may have included other offences both at home and abroad.
14.Several acquaintances of his in America believed it likely that he was the Ripper when interviewed in 1888.
15.There is a strong case to be made that he was indeed the Batty Street Lodger.
“Someone asked why he had not invited some women to his dinner. His face instantly became as black as a thunder-cloud. He had a pack of cards in his hand, but he laid them down and said, almost savagely, ‘No, Colonel, I don’t know any such cattle, and if I did I would, as your friend, sooner give you a dose of quick poison than take you into such danger.’ He then broke into a homily on the sin and folly of dissipation, fiercely denounced all women and especially fallen women.
He then invited us into his office where he illustrated his lecture so to speak. One side of this room was entirely occupied with cases, outwardly resembling wardrobes. When the doors were opened quite a museum was revealed — tiers of shelves with glass jars and cases, some round and others square, filled with all sorts of anatomical specimens. The ‘doctor’ placed on a table a dozen or more jars containing, as he said, the matrices (uteri) of every class of women. Nearly a half of one of these cases was occupied exclusively with these specimens.
Not long after this the ‘doctor’ was in my room when my Lieutenant-Colonel came in and commenced expatiating on the charms of a certain woman. In a moment, almost, the doctor was lecturing him and denouncing women. When he was asked why he hated women, he said that when quite a young man he fell desperately in love with a pretty girl, rather his senior, who promised to reciprocate his affection. After a brief courtship he married her. The honeymoon was not over when he noticed a disposition on the part of his wife to flirt with other men. He remonstrated, she kissed him, called him a dear jealous fool — and he believed her. Happening one day to pass in a cab through the worst part of the town he saw his wife and a man enter a gloomy-looking house. Then he learned that before her marriage his wife had been an inmate of that and many similar houses. Then he gave up all womankind.”
Walter Sickert had been tangentially implicated in the Ripper crimes as early as the 1970s, with the release of the now infamous “Royal Conspiracy” theory. But it wasn’t until the early 1990s, with the release of Jean Overton Fuller’s Sickert and the Ripper Crimes, that the peculiar artist became a Ripper suspect in his own right. More recently, Patricia Cornwell has claimed to have found DNA evidence linking Sickert to at least one “Ripper letter”.
Back in London, Sickert’s work consisted almost entirely of music hall scenes and the faded life he saw around him in Camden Town. “He revelled in the faded splendours of dingy lodging-rooms in Camden Town.” As we shall see, this was the period when virtually all of the paintings identified as being of Whitechapel victims were done. He taught at the Westminster Institute, started a school for etching, and held shows in both London and Paris.
Yet another suggestion made is that Walter Sickert, the painter, was Jack the Ripper. The reason for Sickert being suspected is that he was believed to have made sketches and paintings of the Ripper crimes…
It is also important to ask at what point in his artistic career did Sickert start to paint prostitutes? Around the time of the Ripper murders? No, this began much later in his career in Dieppe and Venice. Before that he had painted mostly landscapes, cityscapes and some portraits. He started painting a series of nudes lying on iron bedsteads in Neuville in 1902, and although the models were not necessarily prostitutes, Sickert did begin painting prostitutes in Venice in 1903-1904.
In one sense I believe that they are correct, that some paintings done by Walter Sickert do indeed depict the victims of Jack the Ripper. All four of those above mentioned have tried in varying degrees to make this seemingly ludicrous point, but, in fairness, who has not wondered at the disturbing image painted by Sickert in his La Hollandaise (c.1906)? A large, naked woman lounges on a bed in a cheap and dingy room, her face a disturbing and indistinct blur. Steven Knight called it “an abomination” and rightly observes,
“the difficulty presented in trying to discern her features is similar to that experienced in studying the Scotland Yard photograph of Kelly’s mutilated face.”
Even art experts have trouble not describing the face in La Hollandaise as being mutilated. David Peters Corbett describes Sickert’s technique as
“…wiping off the face of the model and substituting a leonine or mutilated surface.”
The painting, Amphitryon, (Circa 1924?), also known as X’s Affiliation Order, has been called by Stephen Knight :
“the richest evidence of all that Sickert littered his art with clues about the case…it depicts a gaunt Victorian room with a high ceiling. On the wall in the centre of a fireside alcove is some sort of ornament whose definition is indistinct, but can be nothing other than a death’s head. This age-old harbinger of impending doom is gazing down upon a woman dressed poorly in blouse and long skirt. She is averting her face from its baleful gaze, her hand has been brought to her cheek in despair and a look of anguish is passing across her features. In suggesting that this woman is Marie Kelly with Death staring her in the face, I could justly be accused of allowing my imagination to run riot, except for one thing – the mysterious title of the picture. Like so many of Sickert’s titles, it has never been explained. He gave it two names, X’s Affiliation Order and Amphytrion. Remembering that an affiliation order fixes the paternity of an illegitimate child, can we escape the conclusion that Sickert was recalling the events of Cleveland Street? And who is X? Bearing in mind Sickert’s story about the highest in the land disguising himself as a lessor being, and in that form seducing an ordinary girl and making her pregnant, consider the alternative title of this picture, Amphytrion. The legend of Amphytrion tells how Jupiter, King of the Gods, the highest in Olympus, disguised himself as a lesser being to seduce an ordinary woman, who became pregnant by him.”
Further evidence of Walter Sickert littering his work with clues to his story is supposed to be evident in a couple of pieces of work which are titled Mrs. Barrett and Blackmail. Here we are on more interesting ground. Stephen Knight describes one of them, a painting of a woman in a large hat, (circa 1906):
“Old Walter spoke about another picture, which he had given two names. This was a full face portrait of a square-chinned woman wearing a large hat. It was called Blackmail or Mrs Barrett. No one has been able to explain why it was given either of these titles. Sickert told his son it was a picture of Marie Kelly…. He called it alternatively Mrs Barrett because when she got to Dorset Street Kelly took up with a man called Barrett and was known as his wife. In this Sickert was mistaken, because Kelly’s common-law husband was called Joseph Barnett not Barrett. The painter’s intention was nevertheless as he described it. He called it Blackmail because Kelly was the centre of the blackmail involving the royal bastard.”
Joseph met Mary Jane Kelly on April 8th, 1887, and the two decided soon after to room together at various locations for the next year and a half. By the time of the Ripper murders, they were living in 13 Miller’s Court, Dorset Street. This is the location where Kelly’s mutilated body would be found on November 9th, 1888.
July, 1888: Barnet loses his license as a fish porter, apparently for theft.
October 30th, 1888: Barnett and Kelly have a quarrel at 13 Miller’s Court, during which a window is broken and Joseph leaves to take up lodgings in Bishopsgate. It is alleged that the quarrel arose because Kelly was allowing a prostitute to share their lodgings.
November 1st – 8th, 1888: Barnett visits Kelly often, giving her money and seeming to be on good terms with her.
November 9th, 1888: Mary Jane Kelly found murdered at 13 Miller’s Court.
30 years old
5′ 7″ tall
Probably had a speech impediment called echolalia, which caused him to repeat the last words spoken to him when replying to a question.
Joseph Barnett was not described as a Ripper suspect until the 1970s, when Bruce Paley first introduced the idea to some colleagues. It was independently forwarded by Mark Andrews in The Return of Jack the Ripper (1977), a fictionalization of the crimes. Paley first published a factual article describing the theory in the magazine True Crime (1982). Paul Harrison published his Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved in 1991, forwarding Barnett as the Ripper, but the book was marred by flawed research. Finally, Bruce Paley published Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth in 1995, the culmination of over a decade and a half of research into Joseph Barnett as the Ripper. This book has since become a favorite of Ripper enthusiasts, because of its meticulous research and wealth of detail.
The theory, according to Bruce Paley, is that Joseph Barnett was growing tired of Mary Kelly prostituting herself to other men. He was very much in love with Kelly, and believed that if he could support her through his own work, she would not have to resort to a life on the streets. The loss of his job as a fish porter in June of 1888 brought this dream to an end. Kelly returned to the streets in order to provide for herself, and Barnett became infuriated. In an attempt to “scare” Kelly off the streets, Barnett raged through Whitechapel and murdered a handful of prostitutes in the autumn of 1888. His plot didn’t succeed, however, and tempers boiled in late October, culminating in their final quarrel on the 30th. Perhaps realizing that his love for Kelly was not completely requited, Barnett murdered her on November 9th with a frenzy only a scorned lover could possess.
There are a number of linkages between Barnett and the Ripper.
•Joseph Barnett’s physical description tallies very well with a number of witness descriptions, particularly in height (5′ 7″), age (30), build (medium), complexion (fair) and the presence of a moustache.
•His link with Mary Kelly could explain why the killings ceased after her murder.
•Ginger beer bottles were found in 13 Miller’s Court by police on November 9th. In the “Dear Boss” letter, the author says that he “saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with…”
•The mystery of Kelly’s locked door (it was locked when police arrived, indicating the killer either had a key or reached through the window to lock it after he left the scene) could be explained either by Barnett’s possessing a key or his knowledge of the geography of the room.
Born as Severin Antoniovich Klosowski in the Polish village of Nargornak on December 14, 1865 to Antonio and Emile Klosowski. He entered into a career as a surgeon from December 1880 until October 1885, after which he completed his studies in the Hospital of Praga in Warsaw. Rappaport claimed he was “diligent, or exemplary conduct, and studied with zeal the science of surgery. Depending on your source, he either failed to become a junior surgeon (Rumbelow, Lane) or succeeded in becoming an assistant surgeon in 1886 and a qualified Junior Surgeon in 1887 (Begg et alia). There is also discrepancy concerning when he arrived in England, as Rumbelow and Lane date his arrival “sometime in 1888,” while Begg et alia give the month of June 1887. Also of importance is the discovery by Sugden of some papers, written in Russian and Polish, which documented Klosowski’s early life in Poland. They are consistent until February 1887, when they end abruptly. Therefore, the best estimate is that Klosowski emigrated to London in either late February or early March of 1887.
Klosowski’s real wife, Lucy Klosowski, who was present in the Central Criminal Court last week, has made a startling statement as to what occurred in the New Jersey shop. She states that on one occasion, when she had had a quarrel with her husband, he held her down on the bed, and pressed his face against her mouth to keep her from screaming. At that moment a customer entered the shop immediately in front of the room, and Koslowski got up to attend him. The woman chanced to see a handle protruding from underneath the pillow. She found, to her horror, that it was a sharp and formidable knife, which she promptly hid. Later, Klosowski deliberately told her that he meant to have cut her head off, and pointed to a place in the room where he meant to have buried her. She said, ‘But the neighbours would have asked where I had gone to.’ ‘Oh,’ retorted Klosowski, calmly, ‘I should simply have told them that you had gone back to New York.’
The bodies of his two previous “wives” were exhumed in November and December of 1902. Bessie’s corpse had a mouldy growth upon it but was otherwise fresh, while Mary (having been buried five years) was remarkably well preserved. As Elizabeth Waymark said, “She looked as if she had only been buried about nine months.. The face was perfect.” Large amounts of metallic antimony were found in the bodies of both women.
Chapman was charged with the murders of Maud Marsh, Mary Spink, and Bessie Taylor, but although evidence was submitted on all three, he was convicted only of Maud’s death on March 20, 1903. The jury took only eleven minutes to come to a decision of guilty.
His statement is quoted in the Pall Mall Gazette:
I have been so struck with the remarkable coincidences in the two series of murders that I have not been able to think of anything else for several days past — not, in fact, since the Attorney-General made his opening statement at the recent trial, and traced the antecedents of Chapman before he came to this country in 1888. Since then the idea has taken full possession of me, and everything fits in and dovetails so well that I cannot help feeling that this is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago…
As I say, there are a score of things which make one believe that Chapman is the man; and you must understand that we have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic, or anything of that kind. For instance, the date of the arrival in England coincides with the beginning of the series of murders in Whitechapel; there is a coincidence also in the fact that the murders ceased in London when Chapman went to America, while similar murders began to be perpetrated in America after he landed there. The fact that he studied medicine and surgery in Russia before he came over here is well established, and it is curious to note that the first series of murders was the work of an expert surgeon, while the recent poisoning cases were proved to be done by a man with more than an elementary knowledge of medicine. The story told by Chapman’s wife of the attempt to murder her with a long knife while in America is not to be ignored.
Other striking similarities arise among the personal characteristics of Chapman and those most believe the Ripper must have had. Chapman had a regular job, as did the Ripper (since the murders all occured on weekends). Chapman was single and free of family responsibility, as was the Ripper (to allow for his being out at all hours of the night). Lucy Baderski even goes so far as to say that her previous husband was in the habit of staying out into the early hours of the morning.